Poll: Experience and Ranks -- Ruining the Online FPS

Woe Is You

New member
Jul 5, 2008
1,444
0
0
Karisse said:
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).
Except this isn't the case at all. A new player will get stomped by higher level players not only because they have been playing less, but because the guys that have been playing the game more have all sorts of advantages that the beginner doesn't have. I'm all for multiplayer games where everything is unlocked from the get-go and finding out ways to use that stuff is the key to surviving the match.

That's why I think ranks are fine if they're just numbers. When start unbalancing the game is when I start having problems. Which is the case with COD4.
 

mokes310

New member
Oct 13, 2008
1,898
0
0
I could care less about the ranking system. I play games for fun and not for statistics/rankings...
 

DirkGently

New member
Oct 22, 2008
966
0
0
Yeah, I know what you mean. I do like them though. They keep me playing the game and not needing to go and spend more money on another game. COD4 no longer appeals to me that I no longer have ranks to go for or friends to play with. And on Xbox live, you typically don't get that many people who meet up and are willing to follow a strategy. It typically takes people having to talk it out before hand and plan something.

Also, ranking up is fun as hell.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Uncompetative said:
This reminds me somewhat of MAG (Massive Action Game, god I hate that name).

It has 256 players, 16 squads with 8 players I believe, and each squad had a commander.

Though, I have no idea about the actual gameplay, I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to what you said or partially.
 

Uncompetative

New member
Jul 2, 2008
1,746
0
0
Jumplion said:
Uncompetative said:
This reminds me somewhat of MAG (Massive Action Game, god I hate that name).

It has 256 players, 16 squads with 8 players I believe, and each squad had a commander.

Though, I have no idea about the actual gameplay, I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to what you said or partially.
Well, I seem to recall that Operation Flashpoint or ArMa: Armed Assault got 256 players on one map/server fairly recently.


Whilst there was SONY's persistent Planetside - so there have been precedents.

 

almo

New member
Oct 27, 2008
151
0
0
I don't like having to unlock abilities in multiplayer games. I'm a Quake 3 Capture Strike veteran, so I'm accustomed to strict balancing in my FPSs. If it were a method to make sure new players aren't overwhelmed with learning the system and didn't take long to open everything, find. But requiring grinding in an FPS really annoys me. It's my one complaint about Killzone 2.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
I had this pegged back when Rainbow Six Vegas did it.

The fact that 90% of games were Attack & Defend on Casino, and the attacking team would almost always win, and always drag the game out for the maximum 20 minutes pretty soon turned me off the whole affair.

It is just grinding.
 

Neosage

Elite Member
Nov 8, 2008
1,747
0
41
I think that having a ranking system makes the game alot less "casual" but offers much more incentive to play. But I hate it when people judge others on ranks/exp/gamerscore.
 

whyarecarrots

New member
Nov 19, 2008
417
0
0
Miles Tormani said:
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.
Personally I'd say that TF2 works very nicely, primarily because all the unlockable weapons have downsides.
With the exception of the blutsauger and ubersaw for the medic, they aren't really no brainer choices (and those 2 aren;t at all overpowering, just useful: both losing crits for a bonus: blutsauger gives you 3 health on hit, while ubersaw charges uber 25% on hit; for a non-combat class like the medic they're useful back-ups and complement his role); the crits on the backburner only happen when directly behind an enemy and the lack of an airblast really weakens you against demomen.

Also, the weapons are unlocked through specific achievements rather than just by playing a lot and killing a lot, so it isn't really that much of a grindfest; indeed, I find many achievements just happen as I play normally.

Basically, the game still comes down to team co-operation and skill, but the unlockable weapons just add a nice bit of variety.
 

Deschamps

New member
Oct 11, 2008
189
0
0
GloatingSwine said:
I had this pegged back when Rainbow Six Vegas did it.

The fact that 90% of games were Attack & Defend on Casino, and the attacking team would almost always win, and always drag the game out for the maximum 20 minutes pretty soon turned me off the whole affair.

It is just grinding.
That's a great example. I can't believe that I forgot about that when I made the original post. I really enjoyed RSV when I played the single player campaign and then co-op with my brother, but there is a reason I don't play online. When people kick me off the server because I decided to complete an objective, I think they're playing for the wrong reason.
 

ygetoff

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,019
0
0
fish food carl said:
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.
2 questions about the clan:
is it invitation only or can I just join if I want
and is on xbox only, pc only, ps3 only or all 3?
 

Bluntknife

New member
Sep 8, 2008
372
0
0
I feel if a ranking system is done well in an FPS it adds to the experience.

Like TF2 for example,
You get certain items when you rank up but those items only give a few minor advantages, the better player will still come out on top.
There is always a sense of acheivment when you rank up in any game which adds to the experience in my opinion.

PS. When your heavy gets a sandwhich in TF2 you feel pretty proud, but forget theres a game going on and you shouldn't be eating for shits and giggles.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Uncompetative said:
Jumplion said:
Uncompetative said:
This reminds me somewhat of MAG (Massive Action Game, god I hate that name).

It has 256 players, 16 squads with 8 players I believe, and each squad had a commander.

Though, I have no idea about the actual gameplay, I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to what you said or partially.
Well, I seem to recall that Operation Flashpoint or ArMa: Armed Assault got 256 players on one map/server fairly recently.

SNIP
The main thing about MAG, though, is that it's 256 players on the PS3. 256 players are unheard of on a console (though I'm not sure if console MMOs count, but then again why wouldn't they?) and hopefully they can pull it off and not make it LAG (lol, how clever?).
 

Woe Is You

New member
Jul 5, 2008
1,444
0
0
Jumplion said:
The main thing about MAG, though, is that it's 256 players on the PS3.
And this is relevant...how? OFP is a game released shortly after the PS2 was released, so the PCs at that time weren't close to as powerful as consoles are today. Lag is all about how you deal with your netcode and servers, not about the client platform running the game.

I'd be asking the question whether a match with 256 players is any fun, since the answer provided by game devs so far has been "very rarely". You can go try the free trial of Planetside to see what I mean.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Woe Is You said:
Jumplion said:
The main thing about MAG, though, is that it's 256 players on the PS3.
And this is relevant...how? OFP is a game released shortly after the PS2 was released, so the PCs at that time weren't close to as powerful as consoles are today. Lag is all about how you deal with your netcode and servers, not about the client platform running the game.

I'd be asking the question whether a match with 256 players is fun, since the answer provided by game devs so far has been "very rarely".
Didn't you read the rest of my post? 256 players is unheard of for a console aside from console MMOs, and who knows what you're actually going to do in the game in the first place. Maybe there will be tons of explosions, 'nades, rockets, helicopters, and a bunch of objectives and crazyness going on all at the same time while supporting 256 players simoltaneously. Though, I'm keeping my "excitment" of MAG (still hate that name) to myself untill I see some gameplay footage.
 

Woe Is You

New member
Jul 5, 2008
1,444
0
0
Jumplion said:
Didn't you read the rest of my post?
Yes, I did. I also said that the player count has nothing to do with the client platform. Emphasising that it's on the console really does nothing to your argument.

It might not have been done before on the PS3, but FPS games on the PC aren't that different from their console incarnations that there's any reason to skip them. Not to mention we've had games with hundreds of players on at the same time since Club Caribe on the C64 (the 80s), so I really wouldn't be hyped about anything based on its supposed player count.

If they manage to make it so that it's fun more than 10% of the time (that is when you've found someone to actually fight), then I'll be interested.