Poll: Experience and Ranks -- Ruining the Online FPS

[Uncompetative]

Could you have a game where you respawned, together with a new wave of recruits, in a disjoint 'instance' of a MMOFPS?

i.e. rather than having different game types and "optimatched" ranked 'lobbies' to choose between you would just have one map/game open to all - however, you'd only get one life and if you got killed you would have to wait 3-10 seconds until the central server could slot you into another game that was either just starting or accepting a wave of recruits.

These waves could parachute in to captured locations. So there would be players in the game (of high rank) commanding their team and deciding upon which of their territories was going to be the next 'dropzone'.

Secondly, you would get points for following orders from your higher-ranked superiors e.g: go there, rescue that injured man, secure that territory and defend it from re-capture by the enemy (which is where greater kills/headshots would earn you a faster promotion).

The map would be geographically large and topographically varied, requiring vehicles and effectively separating the battle into smaller skirmishes. The game would be persistent, so the war would continue on for many real-world days as players jumped-in/dropped-out.

Higher-ranked players would need to hold all territories in a 'region' to be awarded points - and a General would need to occupy more neighboring regions simultaneously than a Field Commander.

Obviously, a lot more players per map 'instance' - but think about it mathematically, this would be everyone who was playing the game at that moment divided only by enough instances so that their queued respawns would repopulate the next wave of reinforcements. In fact, you could encounter the situation where no one died on any instance so there were no supply of reinforcements. Therefore, it would help to have AI controlled "stand-ins" which would play fairly effectively for your side, act as medics and gun whilst you drive - as well as always taking orders from the nearest Officer in the chain of command - which could be "possessed" by players who had waited more than 10 seconds to respawn, or were late joiners.

Anyway, I'm just trying to suggest a constructive solution - even if it wouldn't be possible this gen.

 

[Iori Branford]

Ranks are for helping you play with people around your skill level. The games you played must be stupid and give you experience for doing things other than the objectives (e.g. kills outside of deathmatch, achievements having nothing to do with the objectives).

 

[Deschamps]

Ranks are for helping you play with people around your skill level. The games you played must be stupid and give you experience for doing things other than the objectives (e.g. kills outside of deathmatch, and achievements not having to do with the objectives).

If the developers want to make their game keep track of your skill level so that they can match you with others around your skill level, then that is fine. But keep that information hidden from the player, because it is a distraction from team play.

 

[Iori Branford]

But keep that information hidden from the player, because it is a distraction from team play.

Then give experience for team play, and nothing else.

 

[Deschamps]

But keep that information hidden from the player, because it is a distraction from team play.

Then give experience for team play, and nothing else.

Is there a game that does that? I've never seen an experience/leveling system that pulls it off successfully. How can a game give experience for protecting the flag carrier or creating a distraction while another teammate slips past the defenses? I don't see a way to create a properly balanced system without getting rid of experience and levels entirely.

 

[D_987]

The only ranking system I enjoy is Halo's, and they manged to mess that up after the update. Before, unlike COD 4, it simply showed how good you were at a game, not how long you had been playing.

This is the reason I dislike COD 4 ranking system, its a very addictive and clever system, but ultimately makes the game unfair - making it harder for newer players to get used to the game. Particularly when you've just prestiged only to get destroyed by someone with a P90 or martyrdom - something you can't have until you've grinded your way to that level.

Games like RSV2, GeOW2 and Fifa 09 don't need ranking systems - but have them because COD 4 and Halo 3 have made them so successful and shown how gullible consumers can be, as I know people who refuse to play online games without a ranking system because "theres no point".

When did FPS'S turn into MMORPG'S? Isn't the point of ANY game to have fun?

I also get tired of idiots claiming "I PWN 'CAUSE IMA HIGHER RANK" to someone else, particularly on games such as RSV2 or COD4 - which are not truskill systems.

 

[Deschamps]

D_987, I feel as if you're the first person who really agrees with me. I have friends who play Halo 3 or CoD4 just because they want to level up. When I ask them what's so good about the game, they can't tell me anything besides "well, when you reach level whatever you get this weapon."

 

[D_987]

Could you have a game where you respawned, together with a new wave of recruits, in a disjoint 'instance' of a MMOFPS?

i.e. rather than having different game types and "optimatched" ranked 'lobbies' to choose between you would just have one map/game open to all - however, you'd only get one life and if you got killed you would have to wait 3-10 seconds until the central server could slot you into another game that was either just starting or accepting a wave of recruits.

These waves could parachute in to captured locations. So there would be players in the game (of high rank) commanding their team and deciding upon which of their territories was going to be the next 'dropzone'.

Secondly, you would get points for following orders from your higher-ranked superiors e.g: go there, rescue that injured man, secure that territory and defend it from re-capture by the enemy (which is where greater kills/headshots would earn you a faster promotion).

The map would be geographically large and topographically varied, requiring vehicles and effectively separating the battle into smaller skirmishes. The game would be persistent, so the war would continue on for many real-world days as players jumped-in/dropped-out.

Higher-ranked players would need to hold all territories in a 'region' to be awarded points - and a General would need to occupy more neighboring regions simultaneously than a Field Commander.

Obviously, a lot more players per map 'instance' - but think about it mathematically, this would be everyone who was playing the game at that moment divided only by enough instances so that their queued respawns would repopulate the next wave of reinforcements. In fact, you could encounter the situation where no one died on any instance so there were no supply of reinforcements. Therefore, it would help to have AI controlled "stand-ins" which would play fairly effectively for your side, act as medics and gun whilst you drive - as well as always taking orders from the nearest Officer in the chain of command - which could be "possessed" by players who had waited more than 10 seconds to respawn, or were late joiners.

Anyway, I'm just trying to suggest a constructive solution - even if it wouldn't be possible this gen.

That would work very well with the voice command system Endwar uses.

 

[Iron Mal]

I can see both sides of the issue but to sternly say 'yes, this is bad' or 'no, this is good' would be generalising far too much.

You do get games like Halo 3 where the only reasons I played them for as long as I did was because a) there was the promise of a slightly shinier badge over the 1500 victory horizon and b) because I enjoyed playing it with friends since we had a laugh about it.

Then you get some other games that do have a ranking system but they're not the reason people play them. An example for me would have to be Turok (please don't proverbially throw whiskey bottles), I have no idea how the hell ranking works in that game! I've won several games in a row before and my skill/rank hasn't even budged so I've given up on the goal of becoming the 'l33test motherf**ker on the face of the planet...at Turok' and just enjoy myself (whenever someone isn't camping with the rocket launcher that is).

It isn't the idea of a ranking system that ruins a game, it's how people respond to it.

 

[Uncompetative]

Spoiler: collapsed quote

Could you have a game where you respawned, together with a new wave of recruits, in a disjoint 'instance' of a MMOFPS?

i.e. rather than having different game types and "optimatched" ranked 'lobbies' to choose between you would just have one map/game open to all - however, you'd only get one life and if you got killed you would have to wait 3-10 seconds until the central server could slot you into another game that was either just starting or accepting a wave of recruits.

These waves could parachute in to captured locations. So there would be players in the game (of high rank) commanding their team and deciding upon which of their territories was going to be the next 'dropzone'.

Secondly, you would get points for following orders from your higher-ranked superiors e.g: go there, rescue that injured man, secure that territory and defend it from re-capture by the enemy (which is where greater kills/headshots would earn you a faster promotion).

The map would be geographically large and topographically varied, requiring vehicles and effectively separating the battle into smaller skirmishes. The game would be persistent, so the war would continue on for many real-world days as players jumped-in/dropped-out.

Higher-ranked players would need to hold all territories in a 'region' to be awarded points - and a General would need to occupy more neighboring regions simultaneously than a Field Commander.

Obviously, a lot more players per map 'instance' - but think about it mathematically, this would be everyone who was playing the game at that moment divided only by enough instances so that their queued respawns would repopulate the next wave of reinforcements. In fact, you could encounter the situation where no one died on any instance so there were no supply of reinforcements. Therefore, it would help to have AI controlled "stand-ins" which would play fairly effectively for your side, act as medics and gun whilst you drive - as well as always taking orders from the nearest Officer in the chain of command - which could be "possessed" by players who had waited more than 10 seconds to respawn, or were late joiners.

Anyway, I'm just trying to suggest a constructive solution - even if it wouldn't be possible this gen.

That would work very well with the voice command system Endwar uses.

Yes, I tried the demo and was impressed at how well it works. It is vital that there is no conduit for abuse, that way it can't be taken.

 

[Raven28256]

I think "rewards for being good" are far more hurtful. Not rewards as in unlocking a new weapon, I mean rewards as in UAV-Air strike-Gunship and Recon plane-Artillery strike-Dogs in Call of Duty 4 and WaW. You want to see something that REALLY hurts the newbies? Play those games from the perspective of a newbie. Now imagine that you are fighting a whole clan of skilled gamers on the other team. What happens? There is a constant barrage of air strikes and a constant flow of helicopters. THAT is far more damaging than the veterans having more weapon options, particularly the dogs in WaW. It basically gives the skilled players more ways to rape newbies who just bought the game.

However, with unlocking new weapons, any decent, well-designed game wouldn't make the later stuff TOO overpowered. If a game makes the later weapons totally overpowered than that is a sign of bad game design. In Call of Duty 4, the early weapons like the M16A4 and AK-47 are pretty damn powerful. The later stuff is good, but not so much that the weapons alone make you good. If the player is REALLY skilled, then the gun they are using wouldn't matter; they would rape the new players no matter what, if they were using a G36C or an M16A4.

But, I see the other side of the argument. It is basically just grinding. But, at the same time, it gives gamers something to look forward to. I think your generalization that people aren't enjoying themselves and are just addicted and trying to unlock shiny new things is pretty ass-backwards if you ask me. While I have certainly stayed up late with that "One more rank up, then I'll stop..." attitude, my point is that this is FUN! It gives you something new to look forward to, and a reason to keep playing. It gives me more bang for my buck, something very important when you consider the fact that games are $60 (Or more, depending on where you live).

But, again, I see where your argument is coming from. You DO see a lot of people just concerned about ranks...But, this happens even if the game doesn't have experience and I'll tell you why. In other games, games without ranking up, your average gamer is more concerned with winning, or coming in first place. Even if it doesn't mean anything, they still want to do it. It isn't that games with ranking up and experience systems are discouraging teamwork, it is that the average gamer doesn't really care to work together with people they don't know. Lets face it, 98% of people on Live are asshats of varying degrees, and taking away ranking/experience systems won't make everyone spontaneously start to work together in games. If you want to play on a team that works together, start playing with friends more; you probably won't find a lot of teamwork and coordination coming out of total strangers, ESPECIALLY if we are talking about Live.

 

[Joeshie]

It should be done away with. If someone kills me, it should be because they earned the kill through skill, not because they were able to grind out better levels and equipment. The two main reasons why CoD4 had terrible multiplayer was because of A) excessive nade spam and B) GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND.

Keep the MMO grind out of my FPS.

 

[Avatar Roku]

No, at least, not in your example of CoD4. There is a reason that the staying power lies in levels - a goal. When you finish that game, twenty experience to go, you can taste that P90. you can almost touch it.

It keeps you hooked because the game is good, but no matter how good it is, a goal is needed. Done every Prestige? Get the gold guns. Done all of them too? Then your spending too much time playing, but go "pwn" some "n00bs" with that golden M60.

Teamwork and strategy are, I admit, woefully rare, but that is because the majority of players that you will encounter are dickheads/exceedingly simple.

Look - the game is good if you keep playing it, regardless if it was the leveling system that mainly hooked you in, actual team play is still to be found, if rarely. It's rewarding and necessary - when I reached level 55 for the first time, I said I wouldn't do the Prestige. And I'm on my second rotation - why? Because when I watched that bar, the one that shows experience, and it didn't move, it felt bad. You need something to aim for, the levels prolong the targets.

You want tactics? Then sign up for the Escapist Clan, we use teamwork when we can. if we get a full team together, we use good tactics, each taking specific roles. A wall, a ghost, a sniper, two assaults, and a leader. Or, in the case of Shipment, Two walls, three shotgunners and a ghost.

You said everything I was going to say before I said it. On a side note, when have we done that in the clan? I know we said we would and I think we will, but you're always playing Fallout.

Yes, I do think that it is wrong on a basic level. They are wasting our time. I would much rather get a high quality team based game for my money, rather than pay for, as harhol said, "glorified grinding".

And how exactly was Braid not wasting your time? It's a game! However, I do get what you're saying about the players who play only to level up. I have a friend like that, and I once asked him the point and told him doing that isn't fun and he said, I'm not kidding you, "Games aren't for having fun." But you can't blame people like him on the games, the games didn't create him, he already had that kind of personality and cod4 was a good conduit for that. So you get people like him, and people like me and some of the others on this thread; we think that leveling gives you something to look forward to, but not obsess over.

Spoiler: condensed quote

Could you have a game where you respawned, together with a new wave of recruits, in a disjoint 'instance' of a MMOFPS?

i.e. rather than having different game types and "optimatched" ranked 'lobbies' to choose between you would just have one map/game open to all - however, you'd only get one life and if you got killed you would have to wait 3-10 seconds until the central server could slot you into another game that was either just starting or accepting a wave of recruits.

These waves could parachute in to captured locations. So there would be players in the game (of high rank) commanding their team and deciding upon which of their territories was going to be the next 'dropzone'.

Secondly, you would get points for following orders from your higher-ranked superiors e.g: go there, rescue that injured man, secure that territory and defend it from re-capture by the enemy (which is where greater kills/headshots would earn you a faster promotion).

The map would be geographically large and topographically varied, requiring vehicles and effectively separating the battle into smaller skirmishes. The game would be persistent, so the war would continue on for many real-world days as players jumped-in/dropped-out.

Higher-ranked players would need to hold all territories in a 'region' to be awarded points - and a General would need to occupy more neighboring regions simultaneously than a Field Commander.

Obviously, a lot more players per map 'instance' - but think about it mathematically, this would be everyone who was playing the game at that moment divided only by enough instances so that their queued respawns would repopulate the next wave of reinforcements. In fact, you could encounter the situation where no one died on any instance so there were no supply of reinforcements. Therefore, it would help to have AI controlled "stand-ins" which would play fairly effectively for your side, act as medics and gun whilst you drive - as well as always taking orders from the nearest Officer in the chain of command - which could be "possessed" by players who had waited more than 10 seconds to respawn, or were late joiners.

Anyway, I'm just trying to suggest a constructive solution - even if it wouldn't be possible this gen.

This, sir, is brilliant.

 

[Deschamps]

And how exactly was Braid not wasting your time? It's a game!

Have you played Braid? It's a great game, in my opinion. It had some really great mind bending puzzles that give you a great feeling when you finally solve them. (you can't get that kind of satisfaction out of a lot of other games) The storyline was also really good, even though it was all told through text boxes, (it couldn't really have been told any other way) and the final level blew my mind. I look back on the time I spent playing Braid, and I feel that I actually got something out of it.

 

[Avatar Roku]

And how exactly was Braid not wasting your time? It's a game!

Have you played Braid? It's a great game, in my opinion. It had some really great mind bending puzzles that give you a great feeling when you finally solve them. (you can't get that kind of satisfaction out of a lot of other games) The storyline was also really good, even though it was all told through text boxes, (it couldn't really have been told any other way) and the final level blew my mind. I look back on the time I spent playing Braid, and I feel that I actually got something out of it.

You misunderstand me. I'm not belittling Braid so much as I'm pointing out that, as much as we (and I in particular) may love games, to argue that one is more/less of a waste of time than another is impossible, as games are just for entertainment.

 

[The_Prophet]

Yep, games should focus on teamplay, but really, didn't you feel good when you ranked up in CoD4.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I like ranks when they're used to match players of similar experience together; there's nothing more frustrating than being a newcomer to a game and getting ganked for the next 10 minutes straight by some guys who've been playing obsessively for years, and I find sessions where I'm massacring newlies to be more dull than rewarding. Match me with someone who'll be challenging but not utterly dominating, and I think we'll both have a better game.

I dislike ranks when they upset the balance of play, or give even further advantages to experienced players over newcomers. This kills all audience growth in the game very quickly, so you end up with a slowly-diminishing player count that eventually strangles it... or at best leads to a small community of die-hards with no fresh blood to mix things up.

I also dislike games that don't reward team matches as a team, and instead reward players on a team individually. That puts a strain on the team-play aspect as everyone starts looking out for their own stats... if you want to measure individual "skill", go play a free-for-all variant instead of cutting your target list in half by being the "I" in "team".

-- Steve

 

[Brokkr]

I do see your point, however, it is the xp and leveling up that keep me interested for as long as I am. Without it, I would have quit CoD4 long ago.

 

[Deschamps]

And how exactly was Braid not wasting your time? It's a game!

Have you played Braid? It's a great game, in my opinion. It had some really great mind bending puzzles that give you a great feeling when you finally solve them. (you can't get that kind of satisfaction out of a lot of other games) The storyline was also really good, even though it was all told through text boxes, (it couldn't really have been told any other way) and the final level blew my mind. I look back on the time I spent playing Braid, and I feel that I actually got something out of it.

You misunderstand me. I'm not belittling Braid so much as I'm pointing out that, as much as we (and I in particular) may love games, to argue that one is more/less of a waste of time than another is impossible, as games are just for entertainment.

I'm just saying that I think that I spent my time well playing Braid. I came out as a smarter person, and I had a GENUINE feeling of satisfaction.

 

[GodMode]

Pshh..why play the game when you can't gank some noobs every once in a while. There would be no reason to play if you didn't get a reasonable reward or a ranking system to make you feel good about consuming your life on a FPS.