Poll: Experience and Ranks -- Ruining the Online FPS

[sneakypenguin]

I mean, hell, in Call of Duty 4 everyone calls the M16 the 'ultimate n00b weapon,' but I can't even begin to count how many times I got completely owned because everyone BUT me had a silenced P90 in their hands and a Barrett M82 slung on their backs. And Martyrdom. None of which I was deemed "worthy" to use because I hadn't been grinding for long enough.

Just a tip the M40 and silenced mp5 are even better than the M82 P90 combo.

M82A1+Stopping power=One hit kills.

M40+ stopping power also is a one hit kill, even without SP it usually is a one hit kill unless you hit them in the leg or arm. R700 also one hit kills

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I mean, hell, in Call of Duty 4 everyone calls the M16 the 'ultimate n00b weapon,' but I can't even begin to count how many times I got completely owned because everyone BUT me had a silenced P90 in their hands and a Barrett M82 slung on their backs. And Martyrdom. None of which I was deemed "worthy" to use because I hadn't been grinding for long enough.

Just a tip the M40 and silenced mp5 are even better than the M82 P90 combo.

M82A1+Stopping power=One hit kills.

M40+ stopping power also is a one hit kill, even without SP it usually is a one hit kill unless you hit them in the leg or arm. R700 also one hit kills

Yes but M40 you must chamber each around, M82A1 is semi-automatic making it a fearsome beast in close quarters combat if you know how to deal with the recoil.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I mean, hell, in Call of Duty 4 everyone calls the M16 the 'ultimate n00b weapon,' but I can't even begin to count how many times I got completely owned because everyone BUT me had a silenced P90 in their hands and a Barrett M82 slung on their backs. And Martyrdom. None of which I was deemed "worthy" to use because I hadn't been grinding for long enough.

Just a tip the M40 and silenced mp5 are even better than the M82 P90 combo.

M82A1+Stopping power=One hit kills.

M40+ stopping power also is a one hit kill, even without SP it usually is a one hit kill unless you hit them in the leg or arm. R700 also one hit kills

Yes but M40 you must chamber each around, M82A1 is semi-automatic making it a fearsome beast in close quarters combat if you know how to deal with the recoil.

True but the M40 recoils nil for sniping multiple targets(more of a shake) compared to the M82(recoils way up and to the right)
I will give you the M82 is better at close range( anyone with a SMG or AR will own you in a heartbeat though)

 

[qbert4ever]

I play the game for fun. The rank gives me something to shoot for, but if I stop having fun I stop playing the game. Nothing about the ranking system makes me say "I don't care if this sucks balls, I just need one more level!".

And for the record, if you suck with the M16, maybe you should think about trying a platformer. Here we have a gun that anybody can use, shoots in a three-round burst that can kill if they all hit (only two needed if you have stoping power), has the same god-like range and acurracy no matter how far away from somebody you are, and has one of the fastest reload times of any weapon. I'm all for giving new players a chance, but holy shit.

 

[AlphaWolf13]

It took a few great games to finally make me see the light (Portal, Braid) but I've finally raised my standards. I won't play a game that does not really have anything to offer.

I'm sorry, but what GAME truly has anything to offer? Besides entertainment?

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I mean, hell, in Call of Duty 4 everyone calls the M16 the 'ultimate n00b weapon,' but I can't even begin to count how many times I got completely owned because everyone BUT me had a silenced P90 in their hands and a Barrett M82 slung on their backs. And Martyrdom. None of which I was deemed "worthy" to use because I hadn't been grinding for long enough.

Just a tip the M40 and silenced mp5 are even better than the M82 P90 combo.

M82A1+Stopping power=One hit kills.

M40+ stopping power also is a one hit kill, even without SP it usually is a one hit kill unless you hit them in the leg or arm. R700 also one hit kills

Yes but M40 you must chamber each around, M82A1 is semi-automatic making it a fearsome beast in close quarters combat if you know how to deal with the recoil.

True but the M40 recoils nil for sniping multiple targets(more of a shake) compared to the M82(recoils way up and to the right)
I will give you the M82 is better at close range( anyone with a SMG or AR will own you in a heartbeat though)

My stratagy most times is the above lol. One bullet is all I need, that is to say spraying bullets down the hallway while I am not paying attention still kills me. Anyways, control sensitivity my freind, I can put the scope back down to chest level with a single swipe.

 

[white_salad]

I have to look back later and still feel like it was time well spent.

Oh for christ's sake, am I the only one who didn't like this game?

You are not alone brother. *pulls out portal anti-fan club badge* you're never alone

 

[Flying-Emu]

Poll needs "some do, some don't." IMO
Anyways.
I'm by no means an avid FPS player. But I think that, as long as the 'experience' system doesn't net you some kind of massive ubar-lazar that fries everything when you point it at someone, it works. If it's just fancy armor pieces that have no effect, fine. If it's a title tagged on your name, fascinating.

As for games that claim to require "team tactics"; there's no point in playing online without a premade group, since everyone in a pickup match will
A) go Rambo
B) Try and become a leader, but be ignored since everyone is following option A

In personal experience, I've yet to see this not be the case.

 

[Shellsh0cker]

I would like to mention two games, both courtesy of Valve: Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead. You WILL lose if you do not work as a team while playing these games (well, if the other team has any sense, at least). The nice thing about TF2's leveling system is that none of the weapons you get are actually better, just different. It's quite hard to make a game that actually forces team play, but these pull it off as well as can be hoped.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

In Resistance 2 co-op, each player on the team is equally rewarded for the completion of an objective. It works well.

I do see your point though; in essence it's glorified grinding.

I like unlocking stuff.

i agree that Resistance 2 actually did that well

 

[Nutcase]

Giving up and slinking back to TF2 on the Xbox 360, I found myself liking how the lack levels and such put both teams on equal grounds, divided only by three factors: class roster, ability to work together, and skill. Yet I find out later that the "superior" PC version has leveling up. My friend tells me it's awesome and all that, but I find myself EXTREMELY skeptical after so many cases of developers putting their WoW in my Halo.

More importantly, why do these games HAVE ranking systems like this? You said it yourself: artificial lengthening. Competitive games shouldn't NEED to do this. The longevity should come directly from your competition having actual skill rather than a reliance on a broken weapon you only get at level 55 (or a preorder in CoD: WaW's case).

This.

Putting grinding in your multiplayer game means that you have no confidence in the quality of the gameplay.

This is a major reason why I have so far refrained from playing TF2. Well-crafted grinds can be addictive and give a small sense of achievement for a while, but they leave you with absolutely no knowledge or skill beyond that one game. After you see them for what they are, you no longer get even that small sense of achievement from a grind, only aggravation and boredom.

 

[Caliostro]

So, my question to you is this: Should games get rid of the ranking system and focus on actual team play?

Yes. Which is why Left4Dead is a far superior game to cod4 or most other online shooters around. You should give it a try if you haven't yet. PC version, off course.

 

[Uncompetative]

I'm incapable of ranking up.

 

[Deschamps]

I would like to mention two games, both courtesy of Valve: Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead. You WILL lose if you do not work as a team while playing these games (well, if the other team has any sense, at least). The nice thing about TF2's leveling system is that none of the weapons you get are actually better, just different. It's quite hard to make a game that actually forces team play, but these pull it off as well as can be hoped.

I haven't played L4D yet, but it really is one of the only shooters that I've been considering getting. I played TF2 on 360, but I didn't like it. I think it's because the 16 player limit restricts you from having every class on your team. The PC version has a max of 32 players, doesn't it?

 

[Lobsterkid101]

It took a few great games to finally make me see the light (Portal, Braid) but I've finally raised my standards. I won't play a game that does not really have anything to offer. Unfortunately, since I've become more picky about what I play, it's been really tough to find a good game.

I remember playing Call of Duty 4 (360) online for a while. I felt like I was enjoying it at the time, but looking back, I'm not sure if I did. What kept me playing for so long? The only thing I can come up with is the ranking system. CoD4 wore it like a mask, to keep the player addicted even though the "strong competitive multiplayer" (Gamespot's review) is completely empty. Players die and respawn every twenty seconds. Teamwork and strategy is barely required, or at all possible. The only thing that matters is ranking up.

I don't like this. When the only thing the player wants to do is reach the next rank, they forget that they are actually playing with other humans. Everyone wants to accumulate kills, capture flags and plant the bombs. Multiplayer cannot work that way.

To me, a good multiplayer game is when you are put with a bunch of people you don't know and you have to work together as a team. A team can only work if everybody plays their part. That requires defense, people to play the support role, and co-ordination, but when the only thing that matters is ranking up, nobody wants to play that role.

So, my question to you is this: Should games get rid of the ranking system and focus on actual team play?

A good example of exactly what you are talking about, something that i play rather frequently, is crysis wars.

There is no ranking system, which i admit, would rather have, but that is not what the core issue is, right? Its the teamwork to achieve goals, and i have to say, it is definitly more present here then any other online fps i've seen in a while. Players are strongly encouraged to take up objectives in power-struggle ( a mode in wars ) And defending your prototype factory from the other team by having 10 guys holed up in it covering every entrance makes for some exciting gameplay. Equally, assaulting such a base is just as fun.

Based on your arguement, i strongly suggust you take a look at it.

 

[Deschamps]

There is no ranking system, which i admit, would rather have, but that is not what the core issue is, right? Its the teamwork to achieve goals, and i have to say, it is definitly more present here then any other online fps i've seen in a while.

Yes, you're right. I probably should have been more clear about that. It isn't really the ranking system in itself that is the problem, it's the fact that ranks are a distraction from team play. It's difficult to work with people who only want to level up or earn achievements.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

EXP and ranks make you feel good when you achieve them, and unlock some neat bonuses in the process. *cough*BF2*cough*

 

[bue519]

I don't agree that the game is good if you keep playing it. The level system is, to me, a form of subliminal messaging designed to keep you addicted.

Thats really the main draw of most mmos. Their now just trying to integrate that into FPS's. Good Idea too, because it makes a market for dlc.

 

[Deschamps]

I don't agree that the game is good if you keep playing it. The level system is, to me, a form of subliminal messaging designed to keep you addicted.

Thats really the main draw of most mmos. Their now just trying to integrate that into FPS's. Good Idea too, because it makes a market for dlc.

I disagree. I could explain why I don't like MMOs, but I think that Johnathan Blow explained it better. I completely agree with what he said on that topic.

 

[Karisse]

I think a yes/no vote is a little too polarizing.

I'm all for ranking and experience if there's some sort of meaningful, yet subtle, gameplay rationale behind it. I think CoD4 did well with opening up new guns, perks and challenges with experience. For the most part, the unlockable content offered a new way to play without making a level 1 player entirely inferior to a level 55 player (personal skill not withstanding).

I think they went wrong with the prestige ranks, serving nothing more than to turn ranks into a pissing contest, which I think does spoil the multiplayer experience by making the game less about having fun and more about being number one. People will compete to be better than everyone else by nature of the game - shooting the other guy without getting shot is always a good thing. Tagging an arbitrary number to something people do anyway just causes unnecessary frustration.