Ranking systems in FPS multiplayers... Skill vs. Time

[saucecode]

I think the ranking up system in most FPS multiplayers is now really pointless. Not saying that we shouldn't have one, but that its all about how long you play. In CoD games, if you can get a kill, even if you're terrible then you will eventually reach the max level. Thats the system in games nowdays.

Am i the only one annoyed by this?! I miss the Halo 3 style, where you had EXP and a ranked level. At its core, you had to win the game to get 1 EXP (or loose and do extremely well) and if you lost 2 or 3 games in a row, you would loose 1 EXP.

See the difference! You needed skill, and finisse to gain EXP, and eventually a new rank, whereas newer games would have you play for a certain amount of time, and level up sooner than later.

If someone was bad at Halo 3 (or a game with the same leveling system) then they would just play players of the same skill level. Once the newbie got a hang of the game, they would level up and then would start playing against people of a higher skill level.

Im not even sure if newer games even ATTEMPT to match you against people of similar level now. CoD certainly doesn't. :\

Anyone else agree/disagree? Skill, or Time.

 

[distortedreality]

I personally don't see why we need a ranking system tbh.

I'd much rather go back to the CSS days.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Define skill. Go ahead, I'll wait.

If you don't like how the system is set up, don't buy the games or ignore it. If its a feature, just don't use that feature. If it's a game breaker, don't buy it. You're berating something that goes on in addition to core content. If you think it's a bad trend, design a better game, then make it. Complaining on a gaming forum is most of the most impotent actions you can take and only serves the purpose of self-gratification when you can express you idea to people who (assumably) care. If a feature of a game bugs me I mostly note that it bugs me, occasionally try to figure out why and how to improve it, and avoid it.

 

[Zhukov]

Does it really matter?

If someone has ground their way to high level without actually getting good at the game then that will quickly become apparent when the game begins. Likewise, someone who is very good but hasn't put much time in.

Besides, in my experience a higher rank usually does indicate a higher skill on the part of the player. Anyone who has played that much will have more practice and a better knowledge of game mechanics, maps etc.

 

[Henkie36]

You are talking about matchmaking, and to be fair, I have never played a game which had a good matchmaking system. This is also due to the fact that you try to make team games fairer, which is as good as impossible. Lets say for example a game of MW2. There is one guy with 25 of the 75 kills you can get in a TDM. So, the matchmaking puts him with 5 people who suck, so that the skills balance eachother out. Both teams are then average. That's only calculated by the overall skill of the teams, not by the skill of the players themselves.
As far as I'm concerned, play the game long enough and you'll eventually become good at it. At first, I was hopelessly bad in the BF2 singleplayer, and now end up in the top 5 of the list of every CoD4 multiplayer game I'm in. Mostly 20 v 20

 

[Mr Thin]

While it is nicer to be matched with opponents of equal skill, you're missing one of the most important aspects of increasing in rank; content. I'm thinking of the Modern Warfare series here, but even Halo 3 has armour that you buy with points you earn in-game.

Is it really fair to keep players from unlocking certain content simply because they're not as good as you are? Surely the $99.99 they payed for the game is more of an entitlement to that content than how fast they can push a button.

I personally don't see why we need a ranking system tbh.

I'd much rather go back to the CSS days.

Because without one it's boring as hell; games with no kind of change or progress rapidly become stagnant. Then you're just doing the same thing over and over again, like a hamster in a wheel, without even the courtesy of a god damn scenery change once and a while, like MMOs offer.

 

[Zerazar]

ELO type systems are quite the ***** to get right in team games. The MOBA genre has a fair bit of trouble with it, especially as there are different roles that have different relevance depending on the bracket you play in.
But I do believe it's necessary if a game can be called "competitive". It's just much more precise in 1v1 games like Starcraft II.

 

[AndrewF022]

The leveling up system is more to do with time (in the Call of Duty games at least) because you can still progress even if your skilled at the game just by spending a lot of time playing. However KDR ranking systems are about ability, all games should track these basic stats (KDR, accuracy, favorite weapons, what weapon kills you the most etc), even if its just for you to look at. it's a good way to gage how you are going and what areas you need to improve on, like comparing your average KDR on one map compared to another. Those kinda of ranking and stat systems I really like, the new Counter-Strike: Source stuff for example.

Either way though, time is still a big factor.

 

[saucecode]

Define skill. Go ahead, I'll wait.

If you don't like how the system is set up, don't buy the games or ignore it. If its a feature, just don't use that feature. If it's a game breaker, don't buy it. You're berating something that goes on in addition to core content. If you think it's a bad trend, design a better game, then make it. Complaining on a gaming forum is most of the most impotent actions you can take and only serves the purpose of self-gratification when you can express you idea to people who (assumably) care. If a feature of a game bugs me I mostly note that it bugs me, occasionally try to figure out why and how to improve it, and avoid it.

Skill, to me, is being able to win a game while being an asset to your team. How your team values you depends on the gametype i suppose.

I don't hate the modern ranking system, but I do miss the days when winning was everything. Now it is simply "get more kills than deaths". (I play alot of objective =) ) I do design games, and I do make them, but I don't have much time to make full fps games (sadly). Im not complaining, im raising a subject that is interesting to me, and wanted the general opinion of the matter from people on the forum.

OT:
While it is common to see someone with a high level in CoD or battlefield, I would not see them as players who play well, rather, players who played for a longer time than others.

 

[saucecode]

While it is nicer to be matched with opponents of equal skill, you're missing one of the most important aspects of increasing in rank; content. I'm thinking of the Modern Warfare series here, but even Halo 3 has armour that you buy with points you earn in-game.

Correction, Halo 3 armour was unlocked, with each piece of armour having specific requirements. Halo Reach on the other hand, did have armour that you could purchase with in game credits. In both cases, these were purely cosmetic, and did not change the game.

edit:
wow, i feel like such a nerd :3

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

While it is nicer to be matched with opponents of equal skill, you're missing one of the most important aspects of increasing in rank; content. I'm thinking of the Modern Warfare series here, but even Halo 3 has armour that you buy with points you earn in-game.

Is it really fair to keep players from unlocking certain content simply because they're not as good as you are? Surely the $99.99 they payed for the game is more of an entitlement to that content than how fast they can push a button.

I personally don't see why we need a ranking system tbh.

I'd much rather go back to the CSS days.

Because without one it's boring as hell; games with no kind of change or progress rapidly become stagnant. Then you're just doing the same thing over and over again, like a hamster in a wheel, without even the courtesy of a god damn scenery change once and a while, like MMOs offer.

Any shooter that is unbearable to play without some kind of level up system to keep you playing has failed at its primary goal, to be fun. I find those level up systems to be nothing more than an irritation, locking out content and forcing me to grind through matches to get the guns I want. I really like red dot sights, but I have to sit and earn it on a gun before I can even use it.
I played the shit out of Crysis in multiplayer and had a blast without ever leveling up anything. I think it definitely hurts that newer games restrict servers and don't have mod tools or player made maps. Bad Company 2 was fun for awhile but it starts to get old when you are playing the SAME maps over and over to the point you can do them in your sleep.
Overall, I think it has less to do with needing leveling to make it interesting and more to do with the fact developers are very lazy with shooter multiplayer lately.
On topic, I do feel that just leveling is dull and pointless. If there are say, 50 ranks, I find my skill caps at about 15-20. I do like achievements, mind you. Doing this and that with these guns, or acquiring a certain amount of kills for various badges. I don't believe in locking stuff though just until I sink 60 hours into the game.

 

[Mr Thin]

I personally don't see why we need a ranking system tbh.

I'd much rather go back to the CSS days.

Because without one it's boring as hell; games with no kind of change or progress rapidly become stagnant. Then you're just doing the same thing over and over again, like a hamster in a wheel, without even the courtesy of a god damn scenery change once and a while, like MMOs offer.

Any shooter that is unbearable to play without some kind of level up system to keep you playing has failed at its primary goal, to be fun. I find those level up systems to be nothing more than an irritation, locking out content and forcing me to grind through matches to get the guns I want. I really like red dot sights, but I have to sit and earn it on a gun before I can even use it.

Modern Warfare (to stick with my example) isn't unbearable without some kind of levelling system, it's one of the most solid, satisfying FPS games I've ever played (I enjoy the single-player almost as much as the multiplayer). The levelling and unlocks just give you something to play towards.

Counter-Strike and Halo (whichever, pick one) are fun and all, but I stopped playing them a long time before I stopped playing MW, because they got stale. Well, with CS I mostly stopped because people were too freakishly good at it, but also because it got stale.

If there are say, 50 ranks, I find my skill caps at about 15-20. I do like achievements, mind you. Doing this and that with these guns, or acquiring a certain amount of kills for various badges. I don't believe in locking stuff though just until I sink 60 hours into the game.

I'm the same actually. I never get to the top of the levelling system. Those people who get to max level, reset their score, and do it again maybe five times? Seems to me there's something wrong with that.

Guess I'm just not much of a multiplayer guy.

 

[distortedreality]

Because without one it's boring as hell; games with no kind of change or progress rapidly become stagnant. Then you're just doing the same thing over and over again, like a hamster in a wheel, without even the courtesy of a god damn scenery change once and a while, like MMOs offer.

Tell that to the people who still play CSS. However many years it is down the track, CSS is still one of the most played games on Steam, and 6 months after each CoD release, CSS consistently has more people playing.

Battlefield is a different kettle of fish, but I'd stack CSS up against any other MP shooter of the past 5 years.

I enjoy both systems, but I've never seen a leveling system as a necessity in an FPS.

 

[Furioso]

Wait... in CoD when you rank up you get weapons and unlocks etc, in Halo you get nothing, maybe some vanity armor, why should we prevent players who perform poorly with lower level gear from ranking up?

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Wait... in CoD when you rank up you get weapons and unlocks etc, in Halo you get nothing, maybe some vanity armor, why should we prevent players who perform poorly with lower level gear from ranking up?

I always did a kick out of the fact that when you start out the game and aren't as good as everyone else, you have to unlock everything. Veteran players are already better and know the game and on top of that, they get better gear and guns. Take THAT anyone trying to get into this game!

 

[Batou667]

Does it really matter?

If someone has ground their way to high level without actually getting good at the game then that will quickly become apparent when the game begins. Likewise, someone who is very good but hasn't put much time in.

Besides, in my experience a higher rank usually does indicate a higher skill on the part of the player. Anyone who has played that much will have more practice and a better knowledge of game mechanics, maps etc.

Yeah, this.

Even somebody who hasn't necessarily mastered the mechanics of a game will still have an advantage simply by knowing how the weapons work, the map layout and so on. And if they're a high level but can get beaten by noobs? Huh, shame on them.

The reason hardly any game uses the Halo 3 system is because it was COMPLEX AS ALL F*** and I for one didn't understand a bloody word of it. Sure, you could explain to me the mechanics and I'd understand it on a theoretical level, but why do some gametypes not give EXP? Why is Skill not tracked across gametypes? How does the flipping ranking system work, especially that "field promotion" bullshit? Why should I be penalised for quitting an unplayably laggy game? Perhaps it makes more strict sense than, say, Reach's ranking system, but of the two I know for sure which system I both understand and prefer.

 

[saucecode]

Wait... in CoD when you rank up you get weapons and unlocks etc, in Halo you get nothing, maybe some vanity armor, why should we prevent players who perform poorly with lower level gear from ranking up?

Yea well Halo (all of them) are made to be equal. In most circumstances (Team Slayer), everyone has the same selection of weapons, or a balanced selection. "Vanity Armour" is really just to look cool. Its better than going unrewarded.

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

I also liked the Halo system. The game was so solid and balanced any further complications would have thrown everything off. And Bungie didn't need to use tricks to make it addictive, it was fun, there was enough depth that it just got funner as you played, and regular DLC kept things fresh. With MW it's like Activision doesn't even care whether or not things are balanced, or whether it's a good game, just as long as it's addictive.

 

[Furioso]

Wait... in CoD when you rank up you get weapons and unlocks etc, in Halo you get nothing, maybe some vanity armor, why should we prevent players who perform poorly with lower level gear from ranking up?

Yea well Halo (all of them) are made to be equal. In most circumstances (Team Slayer), everyone has the same selection of weapons, or a balanced selection. "Vanity Armour" is really just to look cool. Its better than going unrewarded.

Right, my point is that a Halo leveling system would not work for CoD, where if you lost exp for doing poorly, some people would never unlock the weapons that they are best at, making the game more unbalanced than it already is

 

[Rednog]

Wait... in CoD when you rank up you get weapons and unlocks etc, in Halo you get nothing, maybe some vanity armor, why should we prevent players who perform poorly with lower level gear from ranking up?

I always did a kick out of the fact that when you start out the game and aren't as good as everyone else, you have to unlock everything. Veteran players are already better and know the game and on top of that, they get better gear and guns. Take THAT anyone trying to get into this game!

You have to admit that CoD hasn't been as bad as some other games, for example Uncharted 3's multiplayer you're given hands down the crappiest weapon in the game and fairly useless perks and you're locked out of the bought bonuses until like level 20, and mind you the cap is 35 and the other players with all the unlocked stuff just get huge advantages.
Or hell Battle Field 3's unlock system is atrocious, the air vehicles, especially the jet are almost completely useless for a new player if they are against a person with unlocks. Seriously a guy with no flares cant do anything against a player with heat seakers. And even then it just gets worse, a guy with a larger proximity scan and various other toys is damn near unkillable assuming the players are of an equal skill level.

At least with Bops and most likely beyond they got somewhat smart and let you just buy whatever gun you want and whatever attachments you want. Granted you have to be X level to be able to buy some of the stuff but within the first three hours you can by a majority of the stuff that is really good or hell even the best. The AK47u and Famas were both fairly early unlocks and were hands down the best guns for a long, long time.