Splash DamageBlogCommunity Question: Measuring Player Skill

Splash Damage Blog

Community Question: Measuring Player Skill

Splash Damage has released several team-based multiplayer shooters over the years, and they've all featured various ways of showing off how skilled a player you are. For starters, experience points (XP) has been front and center on all of our in-game scoreboards, while player rank icons were featured in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory's Campaign mode and persistent ranks first made their debut in Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars. In addition, we've had statistics sites filled with data, allowing players to examine many different aspects of their performance and in-game achievements.

With so much data out there, this week's Community Question is this:

What do you think is the most important stat for player skill?

Please cast your vote in this week's Community Question poll. We'd also like to know why you think your stat of choice is the right one to go for.

We're looking forward to your replies!

423 Comments

Suggestion: Good old time spent to fulfill mission objectives, like in official league matches. For me the most important was battlesense, it was in ETQW. But frankly speaking each class scores differently, let me show the example on TeamFortress 2 - playing as soldier is just very hard without medic on certaain maps, while scoring as engineer is quite straighforward - but for example spy gets double scores for every kill. I think sticking in certain radius around next objective is important. Some classess don't have to score just because they kill people or make objectives - in example someone someone just can lay suppressive fire to block enemy team from advancing or is a spawnpoint for other teammates/recon.
Posted on 9 July, 2012 - 17:52
I chose a combination of metrics. I wrote up some silly convoluted formula quite a while ago when discussing this about Brink, gonna post it here too. It's not exactly accurate, but at least gets my idea across.
Couldn't they create some uber math formula for determining a skill score or something? (K/D Ratio x objectives completed + overall XP) / hours played = gameplay score So it computes overall performance, examples over an 18hr period of Brinkage... So an average player that does objectives and can hold his own in a firefight would get... (0.9KD x 100 + 12000) / 18hrs = 671 score Now take someone that can't aim, has played for the same time but can do objectives well... 0.3KD x 180 + 13000 / 18 = 725 score Since they're both lending to the game there's not exactly a great spread between overall score Now take someone who doesn't play objectives much at all and just wants to kill stuff and has a cracking aim, but isn't exactly about the teamplay or objective. He's not gonna get as much XP or help the team as much as he could, but on shooting skill alone he has a decent score... 2.7KD x 30 + 9000 / 18 = 504 Take someone **** in all areas, reaching the lower newbie scale 0.4KD x 30 + 4000 / 18 = 222 Then someone awesome in all areas, upper pro scale 2.2KD x 190 + 19000 / 18 = 1078 Even though you don't kill much, the completed objectives brings the score up. But a good KD ratio with little completed objectives will get your score decent, but could benefit from helping the team. All of the above is totally made up on the spot and probably worthless for this exercise.
Posted on 9 July, 2012 - 18:05
I chose a combination of metrics. I wrote up some silly convoluted formula quite a while ago when discussing this about Brink, gonna post it here too. It's not exactly accurate, but at least gets my idea across.
It could follow SplatterLadder kind rate calculating which only uses score( but can use kills and deaths values ) to calculate and it is effected by players playing in the server, depending on their rate.
Posted on 9 July, 2012 - 18:19
I chose a combination of metrics......
This is a good idea and one I would vote for it rewards team play over kills but still rewards players for keeping enemy numbers down. I reckon deaths should be penalised againsr kills with a greater ratio. For example a kill is +25 points yet a death is -100 the reason for this is to stop the lemming runs that Brink had in abundance
Posted on 9 July, 2012 - 19:15
Cool question badman. I dont believe theres a concrete stat or formula for skill. But these are things that are common with the top players of say a game like ETQW. 1. Kills per Minute 2. K/D 3. Head shot ratio 4. Accuracy Again these stats are basic pointers. Theres also a lot of subtle stuff, that cant really be tracked.
Posted on 9 July, 2012 - 19:33
I don't think that it's possible to measure skill. but I would do something based on: 1. damage dealt / damage received per minute. (this is way more accurate then the K/D ratio, since you can steal a lot of kills) 2. K/D ratio and tons of other things that totally depend on the game and some that you can't measure(player movement, how you handle difficult situations, working as a team, finishing objectives under pressure( for example the enemy will respawn really fast, will you suicide for the objective and help the team) etc.). I have no idea how you can measure skill as in doing an objective, because it depends most of your time on your teammates. PS: I don't give a thing about a stat called "skill".
Posted on 9 July, 2012 - 20:40
Other In W:ET i was interested from Player Stats about Accuracy, Headshots and Team Damage, but most important if i got in the Roll of Honor / stats for the entire map played :D I would like SD to make and implement for their next game some kind of ELO/FIDE/USCF rating system with its own classification of players/skill. The player will have a number/name/etc about overall skill of a player with some W:ET fluff (Player Stats, Roll of Honor per map/ campaign ). I think you already have some matchmaking system in work for your next game, if is something like the ELO/FIDE/USCF why not make it visible so everybody can see his class (Class J,K,L...,B,A, NM, OLM, SM - USCF classification) you will use the matchmaking and make it also a Skill rating system. i'm more interested in the rating system because i would like to bet some money on the upcoming matches of your next game, you could also implement a betting system and some new currency to be used in game to purchase fluff/guns/abilities/etc. If this work you can always implement some system to exchange the in game/betting currency to real money :eek: , with this you will bring along the people who only like to bet to your FPS game :D So we have: matchmaking => skill rating => betting => in game money => YOU JUST WON A S*** LOAD OF MONEY!!! :D
Posted on 9 July, 2012 - 20:40
Something like quakelive's score system. K/D really say nothing about player skill. Dunno about ELO, tried playing League of legends and trust me that ELO system is complete FAILURE.
Posted on 9 July, 2012 - 21:02
I loved that Brink removed KDR stats, because it encouraged people to play selflessly. People are more willing to die 20 times in a row trying to rush in and complete an objective....there was no motivation to just deathmatch. I don't care much about scoring systems... I doubt they can ever be accurate. Most players will know that they don't actually represent usefulness to the team and not even peek at the rankings...but some players will always take them too seriously. :)
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 01:04
I don't care much about scoring systems... I doubt they can ever be accurate.
The reasons why we want to know what you all think about this go far beyond personal fulfilment. Essentially, we're asking your help in distilling KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), which can ultimately help balance the game, and also make sure the game is fair. We know what we think is important, but as the game is ultimately for the players, it's valuable to have your input as well. As many of the comments here have indicated, if players don't think a rating system is solid, it diminishes the urge to excel. And screw that! :flamethrower:
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 10:25
A combination of things. Battlesense I thought was always pretty accurate, so I would take that and combine it with some objective and k/m stats.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 12:24
Why would u combine it with objectives completed? Most important stats would be damage dealt/taken per time (damage dealt to turrets (if there will be any) should not count), accuracy, k/d and.. um... i don't know what else u could measure. If possible measure bullet dodging :D
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 12:39
Depends on the game mechanics, so I'd take the stuff suggested at this stage kinda lightly. That said, you're probably looking for a combination of mechanisms. In terms of a player exerting influence over the match, I think you're looking at: K/D Ratio Damage dealt/taken ratio Damage survived (like battlesense) Time spent in proximity to objectives. Time spent interacting with players near/performing/defending the objectives. In the fantasy realm in my head, each player would build a temporary web of score incomes depending on how their interactions with other players went. If you revived a player, you'd gain a short period where their actions would syphon score to you. So if you revive key players who are doing their job, you gain a fraction of their score. If you keep pew pewing, you get another stream of incoming points based on the influence those enemy players were having. So you gain more points for shooting a player who has killed lots of people, or done lots of objectives, or revived lots of players.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 12:51
The combination is already available in the poll, it's called score/min. I've always argued for xp/min and I always will. The premise for this is that the xp If the xp/min isn't accurate then that means the xp-distribution needs to be looked at. It's the only way to encompass all the measurable actions and weigh them together. Anything else is incomplete by definition. An entire team can focus on getting as many kills or doing as much damage as possible and still not bring them closer to the objective. I'm actually pretty disappointed with the poll results so far. Why would people even play a shooter that requires more than just fragging and/or surviving if that's the only thing they wish to be lauded for? Why value just one of these qualities if you can have them all?
In the fantasy realm in my head, each player would build a temporary web of score incomes depending on how their interactions with other players went.
I believe this is perfectly possible. And not just interactions with players but interactions with the environment as well. Killing a player near his goal should reward you more xp than killing someone far away. That's another issue with just looking at damage or just looking at kills. Not every kill, mission, buff or revive is equally important and a system that is blind to that has perverse incentives and skews the players priorities in a match. I also think more actions need to be included. Sometimes people overestimate how difficult it is to reward certain actions.I remember Rahdo was working on a way to reward smoke grenades. It was a really complex system that measured the amount of line-of sight of an enemy player got obscured by the smoke grenade and whether or not he would still fire at it etc etc. Something like this often has a way easier solution. Just award xp for the amount of missions fulfilled within the effective radius of the grenade! If a player revives someone or hacks/repairs/destroys something while in the 10 feet radius of an active smoke grenade then the thrower gets an xp bonus for that. Simplicity is always lurking around the corner for these things.
I chose a combination of metrics. I wrote up some silly convoluted formula quite a while ago when discussing this about Brink, gonna post it here too. It's not exactly accurate, but at least gets my idea across.
There's just so much garbage in that formula I don't even know where to start. " (K/D Ratio x objectives completed + overall XP) / hours played = gameplay score" The only inherent value in this is the overall xp. And is already directly or indirectly including the only value that objectives completed and K/D have. Objectives completed is part of a team-effort rather than an individual achievement. The due covering your ass while you're doing the final objective is most of the time worth more than what you're doing. Your actual stake in the objective is supposed to be covered in the xp you gained from it, with an elegant and exhaustive xp-distribution system the dude covering you would also benefit here. Giving any more value to merely completing objectives creates a game of soloists, lemmings and even saboteurs. K/D ratio is even more worthless. It shows combat potency and nothing else. Yes, it's the single most important value in a TDM, but in an xp-based assault mode it says very little. And once again a high K/D often correlates to a high XP/min. After all, a player that doesn't die a lot compared to how he kills often finds him in a situation freed up to do more for his team. K/D is a only a means, XP/min is the end. Besides, it's easy to think up moments where keeping up a high K/D is detrimental to the goal of the game. Sometimes you need to sacrifice yourself in order to get further. Sometimes really valuable missions that will end in certain death don't score you any kills to offset that death. A medic could go in, revive his entire team and die at the end which would result in a lower K/D score. In the end K/D by itself is worthless. Once again, its a means. Not an end. The same reasoning goes for battlesense. Just like K/D, having a high battlesense only means you're more able to be value to your team. That true value however, is only expressed in xp/min (and a part of your xp/min is the xp you gained from battlesense).
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 13:13
Something like quakelive's score system. K/D really say nothing about player skill. Dunno about ELO, tried playing League of legends and trust me that ELO system is complete FAILURE.
Agreed, the kills can be stolen easily and can be also abused by "Kills boosting". In ETpro mod,people look at the damage received and damage given, that shows how professional or noob you are. ELO rating system is not a failure. Just read here about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system Now let me quote something from Wiki:
It is also used as a rating system for multiplayer competition in a number of video games
Perfect!
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 14:02
Was wondering how long it would take tok to barge his way in and tell everyone how it should be. Before we even start, xp/min is so open to abuse and false results that Stevie Wonder to could see that. Take any ET game and see the medics raging away on top with that... so lets stop pretending its a good idea and get your head out of your ass.
The combination is already available in the poll, it's called score/min. I've always argued for xp/min and I always will. The premise for this is that the xp If the xp/min isn't accurate then that means the xp-distribution needs to be looked at. It's the only way to encompass all the measurable actions and weigh them together. Anything else is incomplete by definition. An entire team can focus on getting as many kills or doing as much damage as possible and still not bring them closer to the objective.
Be definition, the entire team could focus on XP farming and still not bring them closer to the objective. The only possible way that even work (which will never be considered btw) is to remove XP from everything except the core objectives that drive the game along. So again, nonsense.
I'm actually pretty disappointed with the poll results so far. Why would people even play a shooter that requires more than just fragging and/or surviving if that's the only thing they wish to be lauded for? Why value just one of these qualities if you can have them all?
You're quite clearly failing to understand the question. It asks what should be used to calculate skill, not what should be used to motivate the player.
There's just so much garbage in that formula I don't even know where to start. " (K/D Ratio x objectives completed + overall XP) / hours played = gameplay score"
Why value just one of these qualities if you can have them all?
First the disclaimer, I quite clearly pulled that off the top of my head to give the example that everything should be considered to give an overall ranking as there is no single entity that can be categorised as 'skill'. Secondly, you said it yourself, why value one when all could be utilised, and for all to be utilised they have to be measured and calculated... XP/min does nothing of the sort. You're catering to farmers, those that can play the XP game and that's just a load of crap. The rest of your post is just nonsense, you say all qualities should be valued then go on to say why a quality shouldn't be measured... wp. Again, skill is an amalgamated metric and needs to be pulled from multiple resources. XP/min is about the worst measurement I can think of to do that... ever.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 14:54
I'm actually pretty disappointed with the poll results so far. Why would people even play a shooter that requires more than just fragging and/or surviving if that's the only thing they wish to be lauded for? Why value just one of these qualities if you can have them all?
In ET and more so in ETQW, there are two types of actions that contribute to a game: 1. Value actions 2.**Skill based actions Value actions - are essentially classed based actions that either directly influence the objective, or allows others to directly influence the objective **Skill based actions - are actions that prevent value based actions from occurring in the first place, that either directly influence the objective, or allows others to directly influence the objective. Now to use SC2s system, because I know you like it - once you get to Master/GM level servers, value actions only occur if your skill based actions allow you to. In other words, you cant lemming. You cant revive first and shoot second. You cant build the bridge, unless the other team is dead first. Bronze to Diamond - Not an issue, you can finish maps without ever needing to shoot anyone. You can all play the primary objective role, and go mass soldier on a destroy objective, as the opposing team is too terrible to exploit class imbalance. Now none of this actually means that the "scoring system" should reflect skill. On the contrary, keep it as XP. Heck even have shiny ranks on the side of players names, it doesnt matter. [SIZE=1]**Artillery/Airstrikes and spam not included[/SIZE]
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 15:50
Kills per minute, if a ELO like system can be done - which works as expected .. then that would be great. I think latest vsp stats has a working implementation of that. A difficult thing to measure I think is the quality of a teamplayer. In ET for example, a medic supporting an engi doing a objective - should gain more XP then another one. Basically the hole XP system is the indicator itself. Detect situations where someone does something for his team.. Another example, 2 engies repairing same tank - get today the half amount of XP each - more or less. Maybe it would be rewarding if - through working together they get a bonus - instead of punishing them... And the medic supporting them also. Similar to two killing the same guy - I heard often enough "you stole my kill" instead of "thanks for support" Overall I think it is very difficult to make this happen, seems like the game has to be done for this. E.g. I have no idea how to detect if a fops did a good job for his team or not - since often they block their own team; but get a lot of kills.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 17:23
The teams are too large for ELO to be an accurate personal indicator.
Before we even start, xp/min is so open to abuse and false results that Stevie Wonder to could see that. Take any ET game and see the medics raging away on top with that... so lets stop pretending its a good idea and get your head out of your ass. (Snip) By definition, the entire team could focus on XP farming and still not bring them closer to the objective
Like I said, that's an indicator that something is wrong with the xp-distribution. Not with taking it as a measure for skill. It speaks of a profound lack of imagination to say that xp-distribution can't accurately reflect a player's worth.
You're quite clearly failing to understand the question. It asks what should be used to calculate skill, not what should be used to motivate the player.
Yeah I actually do fail to see why what should be used to calculate skill and what should be used to motivate the player shouldn't be the exact same thing. If there's a difference between both then that means players are motivated to do something else than to display skill. Maybe we don't agree on what constitutes as skill but my definition of skill is the degree in which a player adds value to a team. If yours is something else then maybe you're simply playing the wrong game.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 17:23
Like I said, that's an indicator that something is wrong with the xp-distribution. Not with taking it as a measure for skill. It speaks of a profound lack of imagination to say that xp-distribution can't accurately reflect a player's worth
I'm going to be completely honest here, believe me if you want to or not, but I knew that comment was going to be the next post you make. Suggest an already broken feature, then blame the devs when it doesn't work. Here's a clue, basing it on XP is broken and won't work. Give me a detailed XP distribution method for your suggestion and i'll give you easy ways to break it and cause the system to fall flat on it's face... the easy part is that it doesn't take much imagination to break and unimaginative and already inherently broken suggestion... lucky for me, eh. You also don't seem to know what adds value to a team, by your definition its who ever has the most XP. Let me refer you to every game in existence that rewards menial repetitive tasks with XP and causes farmers to exploit that process to reach the heights of the XP table.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 17:38
Maybe we don't agree on what constitutes as skill but my definition of skill is the degree in which a player adds value to a team. If yours is something else then maybe you're simply playing the wrong game.
Class based actions and skill based actions both add value.... but anyone can do the former, you cant say the same for the latter. Thats part of the ET models charm, it doesnt exclude anyone.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 17:40
Yeah I actually do fail to see why what should be used to calculate skill and what should be used to motivate the player shouldn't be the exact same thing.
Take your wanabe developer hat off and think like a gamer then you'll understand. Motivation for skill mirroring an exploitable path to get there is the wrong way to go, by that method of thinking, everyone who wants to reach the heights of the skill ladder will use the *dun dun dun* path of least resistance to get there, and that ties in with the in-game motivations of XP exploiting to reach that goal. Once again I'm back to doubting if you've even played for any substantial period the games you proclaim to know anything about. XP whoring was always an issue in ET and ETQW, and to a degree Brink so they could brandish their 10 level 20 chars.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 17:53
I'm going to be completely honest here, believe me if you want to or not, but I knew that comment was going to be the next post you make. Suggest an already broken feature, then blame the devs when it doesn't work. Here's a clue, basing it on XP is broken and won't work. Give me a detailed XP distribution method for your suggestion and i'll give you easy ways to break it and cause the system to fall flat on it's face... the easy part is that it doesn't take much imagination to break and unimaginative and already inherently broken suggestion... lucky for me, eh
. Like I said, this is short-sighted and unimaginative. You can put all kinds of diminishing returns, context sensitivity and positive and negative feedbacks within the distribution to ensure of that.
You also don't seem to know what adds value to a team, by your definition its who ever has the most XP. Let me refer you to every game in existence that rewards menial repetitive tasks with XP and causes farmers to exploit that process to reach the heights of the XP table.
Now you're going in circles.
Class based actions and skill based actions both add value.... but anyone can do the former, you cant say the same for the latter. Thats part of the ET models charm, it doesnt exclude anyone.
The value of the 'skill' based actions, IE stuff like accuracy, K/D and battlesense is highly situational and frequently detrimental to the team. Someone who refuses to fire from a distance because it messes up his accuracy, someone who camps on a hill with a sniper rifle or refuses to jump in for an important team-member because it messes up his K/D or battlesense is being a burden.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 18:03
The manipulation of stats, doesnt mitigate what skill actually is, The stats are merely indicators, nothing more nothing less.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 18:15
. Like I said, this is short-sighted and unimaginative. You can put all kinds of diminishing returns, context sensitivity and positive and negative feedbacks within the distribution to ensure of that.
"all kinds of", and you're preaching unimaginatives to me. You've put no thought what so ever into the process, and your lack of forward thinking can't even comprehend the basics flaws. Are you saying an XP system can't be easily exploited therefore rendering a system based on it redundant?
Now you're going in circles.
Nope, bang on the straight on narrow.
The value of the 'skill' based actions, IE stuff like accuracy, K/D and battlesense is highly situational and frequently detrimental to the team. Someone who refuses to fire from a distance because it messes up his accuracy, someone who camps on a hill with a sniper rifle or refuses to jump in for an important team-member because it messes up his K/D or battlesense is being a burden.
Now you're going round in circles.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 18:46
I knew this would end up a discussion between DAUK and Toka from just the topic title :tongue:
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 19:40
Yes I'm saying that xp-distribution can be done in a more elaborate fashion than it is now.
Nope, bang on the straight on narrow.
Your argument once again rested on the premise that the xp-distribution was insufficient. Circle.
Now you're going round in circles.
That was not a response to your post.
The manipulation of stats, doesnt mitigate what skill actually is, The stats are merely indicators, nothing more nothing less.
Flat stats can be manipulated. An intelligent dynamic score can not.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 20:18
Yes I'm saying that xp-distribution can be done in a more elaborate fashion than it is now.
No you're not, you're guessing it can with no substance or reasoning as of how. Still waiting on an example of something that can't be easily exploited, until then, all you're doing is blowing hot air... smoke and mirrors.
Your argument once again rested on the premise that the xp-distribution was insufficient. Circle.
Still no reason, evidence, argument or validation of how it can be... until then i'm sticking to my point.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 20:28
A combination thereof (please specify in reply) : off topic/on topic From my humble experience i will exemplify a combination of a player skill list i would like to see: - Kills or K/D ratio - only the player will now about this, not to be used in calculating the player skill or to have a very low effect. Mostly used to give some on the screen gratification and to cater to those who care about K/D ratio, or to help you improve your game...yeah right. - Assists - Mostly team-play actions: Obj. defend assists, obj. attack assists, kill assists, obj. completion assists, team actions near an obj or actions like, heal, give health pack, disarm, give ammo, etc. You will need a circle with a radius of (variable) to give the award (coins, fluff, xp). So you will gain 3 coins/min. if you are 2 feet from the obj/team-mate when you do the assist, gain 1 coin/min. when you are 6 feet from the obj./ team-mate. - Discipline - This will be your Mass Effect Paragon and Renegade bars :D. If you want to enforce the team-play we will give the Renegade bars an negative effect to be extracted at the end of a map from you coins earned during the match. In this category will enter Rambo actions(Achievement for full Renegade bars at the end of a map :D), actions made by a player to far from team/obj, Sniping/Camping as long as they are not Assists Actions, etc. - Shots - More like a spreadsheet with shots fired /match/total, shots fired while walking/running/crouching/strafing/jumping/up/down/etc. Time it takes you to fire your gun as soon as you take damage/and more. Team bled, tk/etc. - Hits - another spreadsheet who will show the hits on a human body and with a highlighted number of head-shot/body shots/ hits wile walking/running/crouching/strafing/jumping/up/down/etc. (Accuracy - another spreadsheet with a human body same as "Hits" but in % :D) - Target scanning - preferred class to kill, Nemesis class, preferred first class targeted near an obj. or in a band(+2) of enemies, preferred weapon to kill a specific class, etc. - DPR (distance per round -Breo) wile walking, running/ jumping/etc. - Experience - the 0 to 400 game mark for a player, you will need to achieve in a match a minimum of a 5 (from a scale of 1 to 10) or 3 stars (from 1 to 5 stars) to increase your counter by 1 and after much work to win the 400 game mark (achievement included :D) an to be considered a seasoned player :D. Stars/numbers awarded by Accuracy/Discipline/Assists Actions/etc. PS. I reckon most of the above was already stated here or in another thread/forum. I only did it to raise my posts number :D . Also, a good read about ranking Competitive Ranking Systems , Microsoft TrueSkill™
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 21:02
Flat stats can be manipulated. An intelligent dynamic score can not.
Its irrelevant. It.does.not.change.what.skill.based.actions.are. Therefore if one were to create a formula for skill it would consider ONLY those actions.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 21:09
I personally think that the main flaw with rating players using the currently available stats is that none of them really take into account the quality of the other players on the server. XP/Min is the ideal measurement since it encapsulates everything else (the system does need to be robust enough to avoid exploits/cheap play - which is no small feat) including the important ones like WLR, KPM and to a lesser extent KDR. If this value (or a combination of values) could be modified based on the 'skill'of your team-mates and opponents then I think you would eventually get a much more accurate rating for players.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 21:33
I personally think that the main flaw with rating players using the currently available stats is that none of them really take into account the quality of the other players on the server. XP/Min is the ideal measurement since it encapsulates everything else (the system does need to be robust enough to avoid exploits/cheap play - which is no small feat) including the important ones like WLR, KPM and to a lesser extent KDR. If this value (or a combination of values) could be modified based on the 'skill'of your team-mates and opponents then I think you would eventually get a much more accurate rating for players.
Which is why I voted for "A combination thereof (please specify in reply)" As some of you might know Trackbase is experimenting lately with a new rating method, still based on the ELO system but to get the points we use a combination of factors, which are the following at the moment: total points of the round = ((((totalHits + totalHeadshots*2) / 8.0) + maxKills) *2.5) + (total heavy weapon kills * 3) + (revives*4) + engineering + battle sense xp. This divided by the match time is the points per minute, if you use the modified ELO system on this one, you get TSP-like ranking which is a far better indication then just using XP/PM or just battle sense etc :)
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 22:12
No you're not, you're guessing it can with no substance or reasoning as of how. Still waiting on an example of something that can't be easily exploited, until then, all you're doing is blowing hot air... smoke and mirrors.
I can't name a concrete example because it would be too crude, the entire point of an encompassing xp-distribution is that it's intricate and detailed. The point is that the system puts the actions into the context of the mission. This means that there's a base xp given for the handling and on top of that all kinds of modifiers, positive and negative. Brink was already well under way when it comes to context sensitivity. The problem with Brink was that the proportions weren't right. Nonsensical buffing was worth way too much xp and the context-modifiers (killing an objective class near an objective) were too low. All in all this is a system you can keep on tweaking. You say you can name an exploit for each system but I can name a solution for each exploit just as easily.
If this value (or a combination of values) could be modified based on the 'skill'of your team-mates and opponents then I think you would eventually get a much more accurate rating for players.
That's something I can see happening actually. A rating could be a multiplier on top of the amount of xp you earned during the match. Most ELO ratings are adjusted with 0-20 up or down depending on the rating of the opponent. In a shooter that can translate to adjusting your gained xp from 80% to 120%. A rating alone is too inaccurate for it to be the sole defining factor but as a multiplier it has just the right amount of weight for players to accept slightly skewed matches (so they don't defer to the other team as easily).
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 23:01
I can't name a concrete example because it would be too crude, the entire point of an encompassing xp-distribution is that it's intricate and detailed. The point is that the system puts the actions into the context of the mission. This means that there's a base xp given for the handling and on top of that all kinds of modifiers, positive and negative. Brink was already well under way when it comes to context sensitivity. The problem with Brink was that the proportions weren't right. Nonsensical buffing was worth way too much xp and the context-modifiers (killing an objective class near an objective) were too low. All in all this is a system you can keep on tweaking. You say you can name an exploit for each system but I can name a solution for each exploit just as easily.
XP distribution in itself is flawed, do X get experience, do X,Y and Z get lots of experience OR repeat X over and over get lots of experience. The end result is the 2 players have reached the same number in different ways yet both are categorised as the same skill level. The system would need to determine if the user should be doing X, Y and Z because it's part of the end game or if the player is just hopping from task to task to gather XP and not lending to the team. On the flipside it also needs to know if the player should be doing X over and over or not for the same reasons... that type of system does not exist and cannot exist unless you plan on creating some awesome AI to look after it all. Brinks context was indeed broken, but I still believe there is no way to fix it. Players were given XP for defending the gate on Container City and being in its radius, that was a correct thing to do for defence on that stage yet those that done it from a distance or by covering alternate routes weren't given the XP bonus of those that stuck by the gate, allowing the enemy to get close. Was he wrong for sticking close to the gate? Was he right for letting the enemy get so close then killing? Was he there to gather the XP flurries that came from being within the radius or was here there as a last defence for those that slipped by his team mates. Every conceivable intention regards all of them as of equal skill, and that's simply untrue.
Posted on 10 July, 2012 - 23:31
I personally think that the main flaw with rating players using the currently available stats is that none of them really take into account the quality of the other players on the server. XP/Min is the ideal measurement since it encapsulates everything else (the system does need to be robust enough to avoid exploits/cheap play - which is no small feat) including the important ones like WLR, KPM and to a lesser extent KDR. If this value (or a combination of values) could be modified based on the 'skill'of your team-mates and opponents then I think you would eventually get a much more accurate rating for players.
The notion of a number representing skill is flawed anyway, even if it does take into account opponents and team-mates. Nonetheless, one aspect of it that stands out, is that its based on the belief that players are actually trying their hardest all the time in a pub game.Immediately that destroys the credibility of any skill rating. Edit: In SC2 a common thing that occurs- players either buying new accounts, sharing accounts or deliberately demoting themselves from their leagues to play troll matches against bronze league players. Blizzard have almost solved this, by introducing an unranked matchmaking system so that players can still troll match away from legit leagues.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 00:03
Yeah how does SD plan to counter this dreadful practice of buying extra accounts to play the system? Oh wait...
Was he wrong for sticking close to the gate? Was he right for letting the enemy get so close then killing? Was he there to gather the XP flurries that came from being within the radius or was here there as a last defence for those that slipped by his team mates. Every conceivable intention regards all of them as of equal skill, and that's simply untrue.
In a way he was. Not every kill is equal. Killing a player closer to the objective means the player wasted more time getting to that point and should carry a bigger reward. Killing player near their spawnpoint may be an effective strategy, perhaps the geometry is just right (coughcontainercitycough) and even a part of the lower xp-reward is offset by getting to kill the player more frequently. Because the system can't look in the future all we can go by is probability. The amounts of different things that can happen as a player gets closer to an objective diminishes. And it's safe to say that, as a player gets closer to the objective (and even start doing the objective), the probability of finishing that objective increases way beyond his starting probability. It's the same with football. Perhaps that one pass by an attacker way at the opposite side of the field was the butterfly flap that prevented a disastrous match but we can't be sure. What we can be sure about is that if that goalkeeper didn't jump for that ball, that the match would be lost. The danger is that you can let this particular context weigh too heavy. If a player is out to get the highest amount of xp (as he should be) then he needs to weigh the risk of killing an opponent at the very last moment (IE granting him the least effective way of spending his life) versus the xp reward versus the advantage the map offers. Certain bottlenecks simply grant a higher probability of stopping a player. If the reward for killing a player near an objective is too high then players may accept too high a risk for it to be tactical justifiable. We don't have to go as far as letting the xp-system reward people for killing players at the best bottlenecks though. Using the map to its tactical advantages already rewards you with more kills in and of itself.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 00:46
Yeah how does SD plan to counter this dreadful practice of buying extra accounts to play the system? Oh wait...
Given I had over 55 aliases in etqw, not something I think they would consider. :wink:
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 01:16
W/L Elo is cool.... but only in a random matchmaking mode where players cannot choose their teams, and cannot group up with friends. Otherwise, it just encourages teamstacking. A good thing about Brink was how freely players would switch to a weaker team to try and balance matches... a lot of games punish you for that. (If the community is big enough, then you could offer both custom servers, and Ranked Elo matchmaking... but if you don't want to split up the community too much, then custom servers are more important.) I think the Brink XP system was quite good...though I suppose that the XP rate for medics should be scaled down. In terms of what actions gain XP, I don't think you can do much better.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 01:56
In a way he was. Not every kill is equal. Killing a player closer to the objective means the player wasted more time getting to that point and should carry a bigger reward. Killing player near their spawnpoint may be an effective strategy, perhaps the geometry is just right (coughcontainercitycough) and even a part of the lower xp-reward is offset by getting to kill the player more frequently.
I was discussing the extra XP flurry given for simply being within the radius of the gate. I remember someone posting that they would start a private match then just stand at the gate and simply let the XP rack up. Letting an enemy get that close in the 1st place is more dangerous if you don't have the aiming skill to kill them, it's all subjective. It kinda veers off into subjectivity, you're again catering towards the highest XP prize and not taking into account the impact that player had. Lets take your hatred of K/D. Someone situated away from the gate has been keeping the enemy at bay the entire game, they've been mowing them down where the guy placed at the gate has been racking up XP for simply being there. Since kills seemingly aren't valued, the 1st guy gets very little XP but a lot of kills or 1 or 2 deaths. 2nd guy has been racking up XP, he's killed 1 or 2 that have slipped through and died a few times. He gets more XP and is considered the more skilled player. In a shooter, he's stood still, killed less and died more times, yet is considered the more skilled player due to his XP... that's very, very wrong.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 07:33
I was discussing the extra XP flurry given for simply being within the radius of the gate. I remember someone posting that they would start a private match then just stand at the gate and simply let the XP rack up. Letting an enemy get that close in the 1st place is more dangerous if you don't have the aiming skill to kill them, it's all subjective. It kinda veers off into subjectivity, you're again catering towards the highest XP prize and not taking into account the impact that player had. Lets take your hatred of K/D. Someone situated away from the gate has been keeping the enemy at bay the entire game, they've been mowing them down where the guy placed at the gate has been racking up XP for simply being there. Since kills seemingly aren't valued, the 1st guy gets very little XP but a lot of kills or 1 or 2 deaths. 2nd guy has been racking up XP, he's killed 1 or 2 that have slipped through and died a few times. He gets more XP and is considered the more skilled player. In a shooter, he's stood still, killed less and died more times, yet is considered the more skilled player due to his XP... that's very, very wrong.
You are right, the entire territory from the objective zone to the other teams spawn should have the same XP rate...Just getting kills around the objective should not be worth less than cutting the enemy off while traveling. But KDR is useless in almost any game where players have to complete objectives. In a evenly-matched game in Brink, you can't usually clear out the defense... the objective often has to be performed in chaos, like the crane repair on shipyard. Engineers probably die 20 times by suicide repairing the crane, but it works and is necessary. Or the retrieval objective on CC, where the operative repeatedly throws an EMP into the room with the data, grabs the data, runs out, dies, repeat 10 times until he finally makes it out. KDR doesn't always matter for defense either, as sometimes you gotta suicide defuse or something like that. In Tribes: Ascend, the capper sometimes gets no kills, and always gets a lot of deaths deaths... the capper just suicides over and over so that he can occasionally have a successful run. In Killzone 2 clan competition, some of the best players have very low KDRs due to rushing plants in chaos, or preferring to take out turrets before players. XP for kills and for objectives and teamwork (giving ammo, healing) is probably the best way to score. Its just an indicator of how active you were during the match...not really how skillful you are.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 09:18
Which is exactly my original point, using a single variable to calculate skill is the wrong way to go, be it KDR or XP/min.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 09:31
He gets more XP and is considered the more skilled player. In a shooter, he's stood still, killed less and died more times, yet is considered the more skilled player due to his XP... that's very, very wrong.
I would say that't an issue with the XP system that can be solved given time. If the system gets the balance right between awards for kills along with everything else, then it should be the best measurement of value-to-the-team (aka skill) that is available. It's a lot of work and would require many iterations and a ton of real-world statistical data to get right, but I think it's possible. Edit: My point is that XP (if done right) should be able to accurately reflect things like high KPM, KDR and WLR.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 09:35
Just seems to me that it's a system that can't be tweaked as XP will always be open to abuse. Seems akin to piracy, as soon as something's cooked up to prevent it, new tactics are employed to get round it and abuse it. At the end of the day it turns into a fight between the developers and the abusers, and the legit players are the ones that end up suffering because of it.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 09:45
Yeah you keep saying that but apart from the obvious double supply crate there's actually very little to exploit in ETQW and even less in Brink. That supply crate trick didn't even give a whole lot of xp, it was just to count towards a statistic milestone for the medic. Now I absolutely agree that such milestone achievements are silly and reward players for doing the wrong things. But that's not what we're talking about here is it? In a game of ETQW, the players with the highest XP are simply always the players that have been the most useful. The only polluting factor is the time spent on the server which is solved with xp/min.
I was discussing the extra XP flurry given for simply being within the radius of the gate. I remember someone posting that they would start a private match then just stand at the gate and simply let the XP rack up. Letting an enemy get that close in the 1st place is more dangerous if you don't have the aiming skill to kill them, it's all subjective.
Right that's a clear example of a perverse incentive. It shouldn't matter where the player is defending from. Still the location where the enemy dies does matter and is not just subjective. Another perverse incentive in ETQW is how a disabled deployable still gives the same amount of xp per damage you deal to it while it obviously should be much less. This caused players to waste a lot of time on redundant deployables rather than getting back into the fight. These are all flukes rather than the norm though. A rough system is still puts the best players on top. I just think that it can be more accurate and rewarding by putting more nuance in it.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 09:45
We're back to 'did you actually play these games?'. I guess it seems that SD simply didn't learn anything over the years, the medic has always topped the XP table in all games. Search out any flame post about rambo medics and it's quite clear to see that the class, the XP it can gain through menial tasks and players desire to simply to get to the top show clearly that the XP system wasn't working as it's the class that was always on top regardless of who was playing it... that removes the valuable player from the mix completely. I've played ET, ETQW and Brink extensively, I can guarantee I've played each class to it's fullest and for the team. I can also guarantee that I'm always near the top of the board when I'm a medic but lower down the food chain per class... usually the covy/operative near the bottom. When one class is almost always at the top and one class almost always at the bottom regardless of the player, then that's a broken system if you're purely using XP numbers as a metric. How many years have SD been using XP for the scoreboard and still haven't gotten it right? You're throwing guess work and theory in here and ignoring real world examples. If you're saying it's down to SD simply not tweaking it properly after all these years, what makes you think it will magically start working now?
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 13:04
The algorithms used to derive the way the xp is distributed and the parameters used within those algorithms need to be discussed separately. There's the way in which you measure something and there's the amount you reward for it. The former is something you can mostly set up in advance and simply requires a lot of theory. The latter however, the amount in which each action is rewarded, that is rather easy to tweak on the go and needs to be adjusted based on playtesting and in the long run, on player statistics. Your issue seems to be mostly with the way the rewards are balanced. And I agree. Brink had an accurate reward system but the rewards themselves were skewed. The logic was that combat would happen automatically but players would need the carrot of disproportionate amount of xp for buffs. Because the medic possesses the most pips as well as the most opportunities to buff people, the medic was getting an unfair amount of xp. If we want xp/min to be a more accurate indicator of skill then such incentives need to go. Players need to be rewarded for prioritising their actions the right way rather than frivolously applying class-skills simply because they reward the most points. The system was a step up compared to ETQW, but the weights within that system were completely skewed indeed.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 13:32
If the system gets the balance right between awards for kills along with everything else, then it should be the best measurement of value-to-the-team (aka skill) that is available.
In ETQW the higher the skill of the server, the more the completion of the objective is a reflection of combat dominance / area control. The lower the skill of the server, the more the responsibility of the win is placed on the objective player - as players dont have the capacity to control areas. But please dont take my word for it though. Check it out :)
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 14:31
Murphy is gona knock your nice plans of XP down. IMHO if the game is not created from scratch for an XP system - it will not work - or you got a genius at work. Lastly, its called skills, and not skill. Humans have different skills; if you try to measure them all with one unit, you will only get an average of all skills. edit: for example k/d ratio is a mix of different skills already.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 15:05
Murphy is gona knock your nice plans of XP down. IMHO if the game is not created from scratch for an XP system - it will not work - or you got a genius at work.
Yeah well they still didn't hire me yet.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 16:18
Ahh it all makes sense now.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 16:28
In ETQW the higher the skill of the server, the more the completion of the objective is a reflection of combat dominance / area control. The lower the skill of the server, the more the responsibility of the win is placed on the objective player - as players dont have the capacity to control areas. But please dont take my word for it though. Check it out :)
Context-sensitive distribution would account for that by measuring all the support that preceded the completion of the mission. On a pub there would be less support and so there wouldn't be much to measure, the guy who completes it nets all the xp. But the moment the support is there, all the players who take part in it will see their contribution expressed in a reward.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 16:35
How do you measure the communication skill of the peoples using Teamspeak or something alike? - the skill of evading enemies to deliver a flag/obj? - the drop in skills coming from a poor PC and the resulting fps? Interesting for me was the actions per minute in Starcraft 2. Interesting way to measure various skills ... Lastly its way different if you compare a public server, a clan server or lastly professional gamers.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 19:11
Voted: Other. Said it many times before but the best rating I could achieve is recognition by my fellow players for playing well. You're just digging a deeper and deeper hole down to wonderland by making the scoring system more and more complicated. Ultimately the fancy maths will be broken and the system undermined and devalued (or worse you screw with the whole game to keep a scoreboard valid). That said, you could by all means give people a scoreboard for various things but perhaps allow their team mates add a multiplier. If you have 100 kills but they weren't focused on supporting the team and your team know it, expect a juicey 0 multiplier. If you seem to be everywhere you need to be but aren't contributing enough in a single aspect to rank highly, perhaps a x5 multiplier will help. This along with MVP WVP would be good fun and bring more of a personal aspect back into play rather than this clinical cow clicker to get to the top crap.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 19:14
How do you measure the communication skill of the peoples using Teamspeak or something alike? - the skill of evading enemies to deliver a flag/obj? - the drop in skills coming from a poor PC and the resulting fps?
Those three would all be expressed in a better xp/min.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 19:19
Score per minute can't be taken into skill definition. And at all,it is the last thing what can be meant under skill. It is same as thinking that gold is a vegetable. You see,back to old days in Wolf:ET, I used to play as Field Ops, so I could farm XP of that by dropping ammo packs at our spawn. The result was good, I got about 500XP - 700XP per map by just XP farming. And I repeated and repeated it . Soon I found myself in top 50 rating list on SplatterLadder website, because SplatterLadder used and still uses XP for calculating the rating. It is easily breakable.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 19:48
What I find interesting here is that the exploit of ammo-crating the spawn-point doesn't really bother you unless it's being used as a skill-indicator.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 21:34
It seems to me that it's the skill indicator that prompted it to be abused... just as he said.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 21:48
It also gives in-game rewards like the coveted double airstrike and artillery.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 22:01
Easily solved. Get rid of XP too
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 22:06
You jest, but I honestly wish they would!
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 22:20
Pffft. The one and only measure of player skill is his result in a 10-minute duel on Q3DM17. Everything else is ****!
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 22:33
You jest, but I honestly wish they would!
I'm not joking, I just know it's going to troll the dice rollers out there and that SD seems quite comfortable expending huge amounts of energy trying to make XP and Scoreboards work rather than look to something different to distinguish themselves. I'd actually love them to take on board some of the stuff DayZ is exploring, a game that has no scoreboard or levelling by the numbers but seems to offer a very realistic model of progression and knowledge through the actual player's input.
Posted on 11 July, 2012 - 23:21
Yeah and while they're at it include a collectible trading card system, full kinect support and an in-game auctionhouse because all of those things have as much to do with SD games as DayZ. What you're doing here is dragging in stuff that's so far out, just complete brainfarts for the lack of an actual solution. This is akin to Gingritch plan of colonising the moon in order to boost his election campaign. It doesn't solve anything, it's just a nice distraction that can't seriously be discussed.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 00:04
Wow, it's like you didn't even bother to understand the post and guessed what was said there... failread.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 00:10
Yeah and while they're at it include a collectible trading card system, full kinect support and an in-game auctionhouse because all of those things have as much to do with SD games as DayZ. What you're doing here is dragging in stuff that's so far out, just complete brainfarts for the lack of an actual solution. This is akin to Gingritch plan of colonising the moon in order to boost his election campaign. It doesn't solve anything, it's just a nice distraction that can't seriously be discussed.
DayZ shows a game can be satisfying and have progressive, persistent value without being reliant on some patchwork of bodges and excuses just so a group of people can relate a number as skill rather than actually making judgement based on their ability to play the game well. I course don't mean they should make a DayZ clone, just engage similar 'out of the box' thinking instead of wasting resources on a proven to be flawed system. and you're welcome.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 00:21
Wow, it's like you didn't even bother to understand the post and guessed what was said there... failread.
Just like his brilliant 'AI reward director' solution that will replace xp-distribution, this one is just as open to interpretation. Admit it, you have no idea what he's specifically talking about either. Oh wait, looks like he just confirmed it himself.
I of course don't mean they should make a DayZ clone, just engage similar 'out of the box' thinking instead of wasting resources on a proven to be flawed system.
And the same can be said for the TCG, the Kinect and the auctionhouse. All out of the box thinking that perhaps brings this miraculous solution. It's just a red herring disguising the lack of constructive input. I care about this stuff. This discussion can go to enormous depths if you allow for the fact that a more intelligent aproach to xp-distribution can go a long way towards solving this.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 00:24
Just like his brilliant 'AI reward director' solution that will replace xp-distribution, this one is just as open to interpretation. Admit it, you have no idea what he's specifically talking about either. Oh wait, looks like he just confirmed it himself. And the same can be said for the TCG, the Kinect and the auctionhouse. All out of the box thinking that perhaps brings this miraculous solution. It's just a red herring disguising the lack of constructive input.
And your solution? Some magical theory of everything which will never be exploited and never fail to correctly reward even the most innovative unforeseen strategies and tactics? The ultimate goal of which will be to imbalance gameplay and inflate egos. Oh dear. You're in no position to point to an unexplored idea or suggestion when your own "solution" has been tried multiple times, failed and you then shrink behind a pointing finger and cry, "well you didn't try hard enough". If it's so easy, I'm sure SD would love to take you on board to show them how it's done. I make no claims that my ideas are flawless, yet it seems they are never met with criticism, just all out scoffs of ignorance. In fact it's amusing that you belittle the use of AI to distribute and balance games when you expect nothing more than AI to work on an XP system. Major difference seems to be that you want to reward individual players in currency and epeen while I'm suggesting a softer system that works on the team and balances play. And honestly, you're that short on an actual real argument that you need to blatantly ignore the relevance of DayZ as far as gameplay mechanics and then tack on obviously irrelevant and exaggerated examples.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 00:52
In competitive games, skill is measured by seeding, a player would have an "active seed", a historic high seed and a tier or competition level. These are relative measures of skill, rank a player against all other players. Other point systems, measures, scores, ratios etc can be included as an aside, but player skill is ranked according to their active seed position. How it might work: As new members join the competition they begin at the very bottom seed until they begin to "win". Wins result in obtaining the highest rank from the pool of seeds from the opposing side in order of seed. That is the highest seeded winning team member can take the highest opponent seed, then the next highest rank is offered the next highest opponent seed, etc. The loser dropping to a position immediately below the winner's position as a result. Seeding does not require any other measure, points or weighting system. Games can be free-for-all against all comers, or within a restrictive tier structure. Seeding volatility is reduced by facing-off players with only similar seeded positions (within a reasonable margin of each other), using tier clip levels, or categories e.g. entry/bronze league, mid-tier/silver league, and top-tier/gold league, or by using a sliding range say seed+/-1% at the lowest levels to seed+/- 100% at the higher levels.etc. Matches across tiers is done by only the top, say 5%, in that tier. Dropping into lower brackets happens when a player's relative seed is reduced below the clip level for that bracket. Tiering rigor can all be subject to say, player volumes at any point in time, so for example, as volumes rise, more rigor can be imposed, or conversely, as player volumes drop, wider tiers can be allowed. Seeding is not a cumulative score, but rather a relative score - announcing a player's skill relative to others. But players can still drop in position as others rise above them, or even become unseeded/"retired" if idle for too long (say several months), keeping their seeding only in historic context. Should they want to re-enter play at any time, they would be allowed to compete as if their seeding were current - that is until their next game was won/lost. The supporting argument is that in order to win, a player must have "skill" regardless of what that "skill" might be, without trying to define and weigh any particular subset of behaviours. In team competition, it could be argued that the skill being demonstrated is the ability to choose a winning team. However, given a sufficiently high number of games, probability is very small that that particular skill could sustain a player's raised rank for very long. Since seeding is not an accumulated score. Hence, developers interested in having "skill" scores reflect the frequency and number of games played will not like this approach, as a high rank does not necessarily reflect voluminous or continuous play to sustain, notwithstanding long player idle periods. That is, its not the number of games a player wins that counts, its the level of the players that one wins against that counts.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 05:56
I make no claims that my ideas are flawless, yet it seems they are never met with criticism, just all out scoffs of ignorance.
Your ideas aren't even flawless, they're not concrete enough to have flaws. There's just no substance to discuss here. Whatever one can say about them, you'll always respond that we don't understand. I know bullcrap when I see it, that's the one thing my study has been really useful for with teachers all up in their own arse about 'strategic governance assesment' , 'personal entrepeneurship' and 'innovative dynamic synergy'. It's like they pull words out of a straw hat to find their newest subject for their next research paper about political science.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 10:54
Your ideas aren't even flawless, they're not concrete enough to have flaws. There's just no substance to discuss here. Whatever one can say about them, you'll always respond that we don't understand. I know bullcrap when I see it, that's the one thing my study has been really useful for with teachers all up in their own arse about 'strategic governance assesment' , 'personal entrepeneurship' and 'innovative dynamic synergy'. It's like they pull words out of a straw hat to find their newest subject for their next research paper about political science.
Sounds like an academic version of LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 12:28
Please keep it civil, guys.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 12:29
Of course scattering items across the map to prompt players to explore the giant island and get themselves in all kinds of interesting situations is what suits a survival game. Same goes for Terraria and other sandbox stuff. Why would any of that apply to a team-based assault mode? It's a completely different goal! Why would by the end of the match the dude who gathered the most items across should be rated the highest? Would you really believe I'm not interested in hearing about a revolutionary new approach taken from a highly popular mod mostly done by one guy? Why would I want to shut myself to that? By all means, if there's a whole new way to turn the tactical shooter genre on its head then please elaborate. The thing is, you don't have an actual solution. All you propose is to adopt this 'out of the box thinking' to a different genre. That's too easy. Different genres have different problems which require different solutions. You're now pointing at a system for a completely different genre and call it profound.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 12:34
Simply put, in ET and ETQW any score thats based on true influence will piss on objective players. Therefore its not wise to have a true score. I would keep XP as it is. Keep it as a teaching tool. Overvalue teamplay, just dont promote the score as the be all and end all. :) /advice
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 14:54
What do you have in mind with objective players? Lemmings?
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 15:09
I dont have anything in mind. Its not the objective players fault that the game is about eliminating resistance and controlling areas. Therefore its unfair to create a true score representing influence. ET's charm is derived from being inclusive of all types of players and players should feel encouraged to add their 2 cents. Any true score will slap them in the face, and thats just not a good idea.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 16:52
If you make the score context sensitive, IE reward players for performing in the relevant locations then it is exactly the kind of player you described that gets rewarded.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 16:57
Exactly. So if an objective player rambos it up, clears the area and then plants on the generator - a true score will only consider the actions prior to planting the objective. Thats not your typical objective player though which is my point :) As I said ET is inclusive of all types of players, the objective itself which takes zero skill; is a classic role for them. They shouldnt be penalised via a true score.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 17:02
Of course scattering items across the map to prompt players to explore the giant island and get themselves in all kinds of interesting situations is what suits a survival game. Same goes for Terraria and other sandbox stuff. Why would any of that apply to a team-based assault mode? It's a completely different goal! Why would by the end of the match the dude who gathered the most items across should be rated the highest? Would you really believe I'm not interested in hearing about a revolutionary new approach taken from a highly popular mod mostly done by one guy? Why would I want to shut myself to that? By all means, if there's a whole new way to turn the tactical shooter genre on its head then please elaborate. The thing is, you don't have an actual solution. All you propose is to adopt this 'out of the box thinking' to a different genre. That's too easy. Different genres have different problems which require different solutions. You're now pointing at a system for a completely different genre and call it profound.
You mean like aspects of RTS and RPGs games that have been shoehorned into the FPS genre because they appeal to psychological drivers and sell games but have, if anything, a negative impact on the actual game? Of course we can never look at another genre (or in this case sub-genre) and use that as a basis of approaching a problem from a different angle. What we should do is stick with a recognised and flawed system and try to fantacize away its deficiencies. For the sake of clarity I'll point out I was referring to both Score and XP being removed. The reference to DayZ was more so illustrative of the ability for a game to allow people to progress without a numeric scale but instead based on their interaction with the world and making that interaction valuable. For the sake of score solely, my opinion is quite simple in as, much like XP, a score is wildly open to intrepretation and exploitation which ultimately undermines it's true value, on that subject I'd prefer to be scored by my team mates which I think brings benefits greater than stroking the epeen. If you need stats put them somewhere private and out of the game where people can't fixate on them. Regarding DayZ I'm not going to spell it out but here is the gist. One, it promotes real world skills over XP earned skills. You learn the map, you learn the locations, you learn limits, you learn dangers, you learn advantages, you learn behaviours. They are actual skills and knowledge that you pick up and apply in game. As we've laboured over in the past, XP unlocking skills only does so by limiting actual real skills being learned by the player. DayZ would be terrible if you had to sprint 10km to unlock the prone mode to sneak past zeds. Secondly, DayZ allows freedom to choose. People can play alone or as a group, as a sniper or with a hatchet, off the land, scavenging or robbing people. Hell if you watched Rocket's talk at Rezzed people have even been kidnapped by gangs and forced at gunpoint to scavenge weapons and supplies in heavy zed or dangerous areas. You simply kill all that when you bolt on a rigid progression system or to some degree put emphasis on score. It also raises some interesting options on teams, the individuals within them and their loyalties. Again the point is that you build a world for people to play in rather than rules for people to conform too. Thirdly, quite simply DayZ shows that challenging the accepted and doing something that everyone says is never going to work can be very much viable and enjoyable. The L4D AI Director stuff I've explained multiple times before, including in this thread. And yes, you may say the points I've made are nothing new or original. Yet they exist to illustrate that they can be successful and not only in their original environments.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 17:32
The reality of it all is kpm, objectives, win/loss. Kills lead to objectives being cleared, objectives completed lead to wins, and wins are wins nuff said. That's the FPS way... BUT before someone jumps in saying HAY MAN I THROW GUD SMOKES GIMME COOKIE or HAY I AM CHESS-SMART BUT NOT SO MUCH SHOOTY! Why shouldn't the goal be to make everyone feel 'skilled/rewarded' in some manner? The issue with stats/rewards is that players feel that they have to have 'good' stats in some area in order to feel that they are accomplishing something, ie kdr, xp, w/l, etc. Or you have big shiny fake medals that tempt you to shoot at deploys with your pistol for 20mins. Then there's a global leader board that ranks players based on these stats, and once that happens everyone wants to be pro playa numba 1 in something. This is my idea on how to deal with the whole stat/skill/reward situation- novel incoming #winning. You will never be able to force all players to be sensible, so you gotta keep the main goal straight and simple. Winning is the ultimate goal is it not? A win should become the most important focus/stat for every player. It's way to difficult to judge who contributes the most directly to a win, but obviously it should be more rewarding than a loss; so more xp for wins and less for loss (no xp/rewards for d/cs). No xp should be earned until the end, when you win as a team or lose as one- where in it is rewarded equally in each amount. This xp would go directly towards rank or whatever bs main content unlocks there are. Global stats (if there were any) for w/l would only show your win # (losses could be on a private personal page). For more personal rewards/stat recognition drop a big fat detailed "round bests" stat board at the very end to give a quick pat on the back to the individual. Everyone's got their own judgement of skill so why not have one too many special mention boxes. Tabbing during a game should only reveal player names/classes/pings/etc and since you only earn xp at the end of the game and have no idea if your currently "the top fragger, etc", then players have nothing else on their minds than to do whatever it is they do to get a win. It shouldn't matter what people are doing either (ie playing for kills, not being the right class, not being near the objective enough, etc) as long as it results in winning the game. However you choose to play, a win is still a win. There still should be some more in-depth rewards for those who need it, but that would still have to tie into the overall goal of winning. A more extensive and permanent personal rewards system can be a plus in a lot of cases and make players feel special/motivated. I would propose a separate xp entity for personal rewards (that would not be shown until the end-game) where in you are able to earn a shiny fake medal or possibly unlock special aesthetic gear to flaunt your achievements based on your proficiency in whatever area it is that you excel in (healing, killing, objectives, etc). To prevent senseless farming, you would simply take the same approach as winning xp and give more personal reward xp to those who were on the winning side. This means that even if you lost you would still receive a reward for whatever it was you were doing right, but you would be able to unlock it much faster if you were winning games at the same time. The whole idea here is to turn the in-game stats/rewards into a purely end-round entity, and then motivate proper personal stat achievements/rewards by modifying the amount based on whether or not you won the round. The importance of w/l might make some people think that d/cing to avoid a loss would become too common, but it would completely negate every benefit of staying for the end rewards. It's too trivial to try and rank skills, it's too hard to complicated to try and propose a right and wrong way to play, it's too distracting to know everyone's personal stats mid-game, and generic stats/rewards for personal accomplishments always become a separate goal from the game itself. There might be better ways of going about it all than what I suggested, but I definitely think that making wins become the main measure of skill and influencing the development of all other sub-facets based on wins will help to prevent intentional selfishness.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 18:58
You mean like aspects of RTS and RPGs games that have been shoehorned into the FPS genre because they appeal to psychological drivers and sell games but have, if anything, a negative impact on the actual game?
These were concrete concepts and made ET what it was, an incredible success.
Of course we can never look at another genre (or in this case sub-genre) and use that as a basis of approaching a problem from a different angle. What we should do is stick with a recognised and flawed system and try to fantacize away its deficiencies.
Sure you can, but if you do then you need to provide how exactly this will work. And that's something keep on refusing to do. Even in this post. You still haven't provided why scavenging would add anything at all to an ET style game OR why that would be a good indicator of skill. And because of that DayZ is as relevant to this discussion as Dance Dance Revolution.
One, it promotes real world skills over XP earned skills. You learn the map, you learn the locations, you learn limits, you learn dangers, you learn advantages, you learn behaviours. They are actual skills and knowledge that you pick up and apply in game. As we've laboured over in the past, XP unlocking skills only does so by limiting actual real skills being learned by the player. DayZ would be terrible if you had to sprint 10km to unlock the prone mode to sneak past zeds.
Knowledge can be considered a skill, but skill encompasses far more than just knowledge.
Secondly, DayZ allows freedom to choose. People can play alone or as a group, as a sniper or with a hatchet, off the land, scavenging or robbing people.
That's the point of a sandbox.
Thirdly, quite simply DayZ shows that challenging the accepted and doing something that everyone says is never going to work can be very much viable and enjoyable.
That's exactly what RPG and RTS elements allow for in a shooter. You don't need the scavenger style for that to work, the scavenger stuff is only fun if the goal is surviving.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 19:05
These were concrete concepts and made ET what it was, an incredible success.
ET being an incredible success ignores the boring old point that it was free. RTCW was an equal or even better game yet died at the hands of the easily accessible (ie FREE) ET. Damn look at all the F2P trash that is out these days, people want and will play free stuff. Lets stop hopping about on how successful ET was while ignoring how ETQW and BRINK failed to gain any major traction at all. Hardly the concrete concepts you make them out to be.
Sure you can, but if you do then you need to provide how exactly this will work. And that's something keep on refusing to do. Even in this post. You still haven't provided why scavenging would add anything at all to an ET style game OR why that would be a good indicator of skill. And because of that DayZ is as relevant to this discussion as Dance Dance Revolution.
LOL you're just being ridiculous and ignoring an explanation and demanding some sort of design document that you know I won't ever produce. Use your head for a minute and read between the lines and you'll see perfectly well what I'm talking about. You're either being intentionally stubborn or pitifully ignorant. Multiple times in this and other threads I've explained in greater detail only for you to get all smart in reply to some minor point elsewhere in the reply. And don't make out it's me, every argument you get into on these forums involves you ignoring quite obvious evidence being presented to you. I see no point repeating myself over and over when you clearly just don't want to listen.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 19:40
Disclaimer: I should add that everything Ive posted is predicated on the assumption that this upcoming game, is using an ET damage model and movement system. If its not, then discussing things like KPM's and KDR's and accuracy is kind of irrelevant. /cough
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 20:46
Thats not your typical objective player though which is my point :)
Toka is well known for game-winning smoke grenades and tactical bird calls over VOIP. Killing skill is overrated!
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 21:34
... As many of the comments here have indicated, if players don't think a rating system is solid, it diminishes the urge to excel. And screw that! :flamethrower:
Why not dish out the general rating system and implement a new system where players will be rated by their personal skills in different challenges. Challenges like those in Brink, but more elaborate and more diverse, the player will try to be better and how much time they will spend in those challenges will actually be reflected in their game. Why not implement "challenges" who will make you learn something useful and rate your progress against others, something to make you try to best your latest results and be better, something like: - Strafe jumping maps like those in W:ET when you actually learned how to strafe jump; - Aiming maps like those of Raziel in RTCW, to help you learn how to aim; - Only head-shots maps/challenges to make you shoot better; - Target practice maps/challenges to rate your crouch, walk, running aim/speed/etc. - Nade shooting maps/ dynamite locations planting challenges - Fk hard team-play maps/challenges who will teach(rate) you what/who to help/support/kill/defend if you are a medic/engi/etc. You will rate the players in specific/range of skills, but those ratings will not interfere with the actual game, you will give them the means to brag about their time on a specific map/challenge, the KDR on a specific challenge, the means to improve their skills and be the best they can be :D, you will give them the real deal :D, the real KPI a FPS player wants! <== i somehow exaggerated here, so... go with the flow :D PS> Also a Kobayashi Maru challenge to teach you how to lose :D
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 22:25
Why not dish out the general rating system and implement a new system where players will be rated by their personal skills in different challenges. Challenges like those in Brink, but more elaborate and more diverse, the player will try to be better and how much time they will spend in those challenges will actually be reflected in their game. Why not implement "challenges" who will make you learn something useful and rate your progress against others, something to make you try to best your latest results and be better, something like: - Strafe jumping maps like those in W:ET when you actually learned how to strafe jump; - Aiming maps like those of Raziel in RTCW, to help you learn how to aim; - Only head-shots maps/challenges to make you shoot better; - Target practice maps/challenges to rate your crouch, walk, running aim/speed/etc. - Nade shooting maps/ dynamite locations planting challenges - Fk hard team-play maps/challenges who will teach(rate) you what/who to help/support/kill/defend if you are a medic/engi/etc. You will rate the players in specific/range of skills, but those ratings will not interfere with the actual game, you will give them the means to brag about their time on a specific map/challenge, the KDR on a specific challenge, the means to improve their skills and be the best they can be :D, you will give them the real deal :D, the real KPI a FPS player wants! <== i somehow exaggerated here, so... go with the flow :D PS> Also a Kobayashi Maru challenge to teach you how to lose :D
Love this idea. Buy in might be tough but it seems to be less a compromise and more added value. Play challenges to buff the peen and the game proper to show off the peen. I wouldn't even object to challenge scores being used at the end of match cool down. The fact that you could easily add this type of content (in comparison to full maps) means you could keep feeding in levels/ranks and keeping the game relevant to the pokemon crowd while also making substantial changes to the full game.
Posted on 12 July, 2012 - 22:48
k/d is a meaningless rating for actual skill unless each kill and death are somehow multiplied against the other party's k/d ratio. The same is true with all other flat ratios. They all give a binary 1 or 0 when we all know kills in a server full of lemmings and newbies have a completely different value to kills in a server full of competition vets. The same is true for all other flat ratios that count their denominations in whole numbers and do not reflect that a multiplayer game has multiple players. Other than to reflect my disappointment with the faith in these simplistic ratios, I don't care about the topic so... carry on :penguin:
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 05:16
*dons flame retarding outfit* The question that has been asked is “How to measure player skill?” however I am not sure from some of the comments made by SD staff that this is actually what they meant to ask. In order to answer the original question we firstly we need to determine what player skill is? In an FPS a player’s individual skill should be and is typically determined by the following: Kill/Death ratio Shooting skill (Shots fired/Shots hit) Damage sustained/Time survived Type of kills (long shots/head shots/nades/melee) In an objective FPS where classes are involved there are more actions then just shooting so what else do we look for as a skill? Well since most actions are simplistic or are guided (use of F key, placement mapping for deployable) these cannot be considered skills as anyone can accomplish them, therefore we have to dismiss much of these as outlined below: Buffing without some sort of complexity is not a skill. Tapping an objective is not a skill. Since nothing added by objectives or class actions without some sort of hand/eye coordination or complex thought process can be considered skills then you cannot actually include them as an indicator of skill. However you still want to promote objective play through class actions and objectives by showing that those players provided much needed support for their team. Since none of these actions are skill based then by definition you need to use a completely different indicator to highlight their contribution. Indeed the only thing that objective play can truly determine is the Win/Loss ratio of the team but we are interested in the player, since that was the original question. Traditionally XP has been an indicator for objective player’s rankings, since they can see their contribution towards a game. However this is not an indication of skill, it is merely a reward indicator for their contribution to game play. Unfortunately developers tend to leave it at that by displaying an overall player ranking based on XP but this is incorrect. This is why I believe the original question is not what SD really wanted to ask. I think the question really was “How would you reward players for playing well”. Since it is obvious SD want to come up with some sort of ranking system then we really need to look beyond player skill and see what we can do about including objective play with player skill. In order to correctly distinguish a “good” player in an objective FPS you will need two different measurements that brought together indicate the players ranking in a game. For example let us say that SP or Skill Points are used as indicators of skill and XP or Experience Points are used as indicators for team play. A combination of both of these measurements will then fairly help to rank players and encourage either type (lone wolfs/team players) to work on their weaknesses if they want to reach a higher ranking. So let’s look at a couple of typical abuse situations where this system would attempt to overcome them. Sniper/Camping Noobs Typically this type of player annoys team players since they are more interested in kill/death then helping their team achieve victory through objectives or support. However it would be unfair to rank them top of a game if you used a skill based attribute like K/D since they are likely to have a high kill to death ratio simply by keeping their distance from the action and scoring cheap kills. At the same time you cannot penalise them in an XP based system because sniper support is extremely useful to a team so the better system is to marry up their high SP against their low XP and rank them accordingly. This should then mean a player who is highly skilled and completes objectives/supports their team mates will always outrank them. XP Farmers/Whores This type of player annoys most players since all they are interested in is raking up as much XP through cheap buffing/tapping. This can be achieved without actually helping the team for example setting up machine gun nests in ETQW/Brink where they are not needed or by supplying a friend with ammo/med packs somewhere away from the main battle lines in order to rack up XP. In an XP ranked system these players end up at the top, yet they displayed neither skill and in some cases were no help to their team either. With a dual system their SP would be relatively low/non-existent against a moderate to high XP. The offset of a low SP to a high XP would again prevent these players from reaching the top ranks. However this won’t necessarily prevent farming since it is used for unlocking. We can only assume that the next SD game will have unlocks but should XP be the defining factor if that is the case? Certainly not, we would want a system that unlocks based on another attribute such as the rank points generated as a combination of the two but that’s another topic entirely so let’s not digress. So how would you score the SP/XP system? Off the top of my head I think the easiest thing to do would be to use multipliers. Since XP is far easier to achieve in a game than SP you probably need to say that for every 10 SP awarded the multiplier is +1 to each XP or something similar (this is just a rough idea!!). So if we consider 100 SP as very high and 1000 XP as very high: Newbie: 5 SP + 100XP = 105 rank points 10SP + 50XP (+1 multiplier) = 110 rank points Moderate skill lacking in team play: 50SP + 100XP (+5 multiplier) = 550 rank points Bad skill great team play: 1SP + 1000XP = 1001 rank points Great skill bad team play: 100SP + 0 XP = 100 rank points Moderate skill good team play: 50SP + 800XP = 4050 rank points Moderate team play, good skill: 80SP + 500XP = 4080 rank points Again these are just rough numbers and are dependent on how SP/XP is dished out for each action and what penalties are suffered for deaths/losses but if you want a system to highlight the good players the bottom line is you cannot rely on XP alone and you cannot rely on a skill indicator alone, it must be a combination of the two. If however SD really want to measure “player skill” then you must remove any notion of objective play as none of these are skill based until you introduce some sort of a complexity to performing the actions as someone mentioned in another thread, a puzzle or side game that requires skill to perform rather than hitting a single key.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 11:20
In an FPS a player’s individual skill should be and is typically determined by the following: Kill/Death ratio Shooting skill (Shots fired/Shots hit) Damage sustained/Time survived Type of kills (long shots/head shots/nades/melee) In an objective FPS where classes are involved there are more actions then just shooting so what else do we look for as a skill? Well since most actions are simplistic or are guided (use of F key, placement mapping for deployable) these cannot be considered skills as anyone can accomplish them, therefore we have to dismiss much of these as outlined below: Buffing without some sort of complexity is not a skill. Tapping an objective is not a skill. Since nothing added by objectives or class actions without some sort of hand/eye coordination or complex thought process can be considered skills then you cannot actually include them as an indicator of skill.
The former is a cognitive skillset and the latter is a cerebral/intuitive skillset. What you, and many others are saying is that only the cognitive skillset should be rewarded. I just vehemently disagree with only rewarding a single playstyle like that.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 12:04
But you have to remember Toka you are dealing with an application at the end of the day. It cannot interpret intuition as a skill which is why skill in games is based on cognitive ability alone. If there was an application based approach to interpret intuition I would agree with you but there just isn't one available. This is why in order to add "skill" to an objective task you need more then just the click of a button, you need to attach some sort of complexity to prove that cerebral skills have been used.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 12:57
What we're saying is that a measurement purely geared towards a cerebral/intuitive skillset that's based on XP can be faked and the results are miss-leading. You keep saying there's a way to tweak it so it won't be abused yet offer no explanation how, not even a smidgen. Now we know basing it on XP is a broken method, through several iterations it's been broken... so what's the key here that SD are missing, that they've been missing the whole time and will somehow manage to implement this time that will make everything magic and wonderful, accurate and not require constant adjustments to prevent abuse yet no penalize the player for actually thinking outside the box. Seems to me SD embrace emergent gameplay, but measures will need to be put in place to limit the scope of abuse, and that goes against that policy. So broken XP system on a boring game... nice
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 12:58
...not require constant adjustments...
I'd remove this from the equation. A shift towards providing a game as a service to players rather than a one-off product negates this.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 13:56
I'd remove this from the equation. A shift towards providing a game as a service to players rather than a one-off product negates this.
Yes but if the update/fix period on Brink was anything to go by I'd agree with DUK on this one, unless of course your taking an Agile development approach on your new game?
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 14:43
if the update/fix period on Brink was anything to go by
It's not :)
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 17:06
What we're saying is that a measurement purely geared towards a cerebral/intuitive skillset that's based on XP can be faked and the results are miss-leading.
All the examples of players playing the stats happen outside of combat. The medics join up far away in some hills for their supply circlejerk, the ammo crates in front of the spawn point, and I as well have been rabidly chasing around the players in my spawn waves to buff them as fast as possible, investing your supply right away so it can recharge by the time you're at the battle is effective is an effective way of gaining xp. It's not really an exploit but it doesn't exactly measure skill either. So all you need to do to halt this is to give the xp a huge boost when they happen within a combat context. You can do this through xp-boost zones around the hotspots in a map but you can also do it by measuring combat itself. This is something I haven't already mentioned btw. It's in my notes but not yet on the forum. It's taken from mmorpgs (they however use it to dictate when you can use certain items or when your mana and hp regains, not to determine xp gains). This is all behind-the scenes stuff, a player itself won't notice when or what happens. It's generally best not to reveal all the details to players as that only makes it easier to find the weak spots. Anyway, the xp-distribution will use it to allocate xp more accurately: The moment a player damages something or someone or is damaged by something or someone, that player goes 'hot'. A player will stay 'hot' for a while and every combat action will keep refreshing his status. Preferably there's a gradual drop-off if there's no combat action going on. Interacting with 'hot' players will generate more xp. This means that giving them health and ammo or even reviving them while they're hot gives a bonus, after all it's highly probable that you're supporting them in a time where they need it most. Giving players ammo, health or reviving them way after the combat has happened is substantially less fruitful. Now that's just for team-interactions. I haven't really figured out the offensive practices as there's more perverse incentives in the way. Say, you could award more xp for killing 'hot' enemies because you're eliminating them while they're actively engaged in a fight which is where they have more potential to wreak havoc on the team. Prioritising a player firing away at you or team-mates is often better than taking out someone who isn't yet up to speed. The problem with this is that it also discourages stealthy activity. Players may feel compelled to let the enemy take the first shot, at them or at their team-mates so they gain more xp. For that the system would even need to be more nuanced. Maybe keep it like described above but also award xp bonuses for damaging/killing enemies who have friendly targets in their sights. This system above stops really contrived ways of gaining xp dead in its tracks as isolating yourself from the match gives you low xp/min.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 17:23
All the examples of players playing the stats happen outside of combat. The medics join up far away in some hills for their supply circlejerk, the ammo crates in front of the spawn point, and I as well have been rabidly chasing around the players in my spawn waves to buff them as fast as possible, investing your supply right away so it can recharge by the time you're at the battle is effective is an effective way of gaining xp. It's not really an exploit but it doesn't exactly measure skill either. So all you need to do to halt this is to give the xp a huge boost when they happen within a combat context. You can do this through xp-boost zones around the hotspots in a map but you can also do it by measuring combat itself.
So really you're forcing the player down a path (if they care about XP that is) and making them play how the developer thinks they should play. Does that not completely diminish and discourage emergent play within the game? Tactics are thrown out in favour of XP. Why supply my team and rush together when I'll get more XP for reviving them when they inevitably die closer to the objective? This 'do as I want or you get no XP' confined gameplay is really quite saddening and worrying for SD's next game if this is the path they decide to take. XP is causing people to be asses to gain more XP, so a completely convoluted and high maintenance system has to be put in place to keep it in check. This same system will also discourage emergent play and dull down the experience, open ended tactics and discovery will be pushed to the side and we'll have the same experience over and over eventually reaching stagnant proportions (Brink comes to mind here). I am absolutely bamboozled as to why someone would want this! The more you go into the detail, the more I hate the idea of it.
The moment a player damages something or someone or is damaged by something or someone, that player goes 'hot'. A player will stay 'hot' for a while and every combat action will keep refreshing his status. Preferably there's a gradual drop-off if there's no combat action going on. Interacting with 'hot' players will generate more xp. This means that giving them health and ammo or even reviving them while they're hot gives a bonus, after all it's highly probable that you're supporting them in a time where they need it most. Giving players ammo, health or reviving them way after the combat has happened is substantially less fruitful.
I typed my "why gather and work as a team to organize a rush when I'll get more XP for reviving and healing while in combat" part above before reading this part. Guess I saw a diminished experience before I even knew what you had in mind. Sorry dude but that's a terrible idea, it reeks of "this is how we want you to play, if you don't do it the way we want then you get no XP". That's going to get boring fast if everyone constantly conforms just for the XP ego stroke. RtCW, fantastic experience, best team/class/objective based shooter I've ever played. Everyone played their role how they wanted and explored to find more intuitive ways to help the team and win the game. No lemming play or repetitive actions to unlock stuff or climb the scoreboard. No fear that you'll be penalized for thinking. Having XP as a driver will never ever replicate that no matter how convoluted the system you think will work.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 18:00
So no one has any thoughts on removing mid-game XP and instead moving it to the end of the round? You gain say 2x the XP in all areas based on whether you won the round, which makes it a lot more sensible to try to win every round. Everyone here is all about over-complicating the problem and trying to impose restriction on players, when the real solution should be to just give more reward to the winning side regardless of how it was accomplished. Remove XP from the mid-game, give a fixed amount of XP to the win/losing sides, and instigate a separate XP rewards system for temp/aesthetic unlocks based on what a player accomplishes individually during the game. Skill of the individual should not be of that much importance, considering it's a team effort and should be dealt with as one. There's no need to make players think they should be competing for displayed XP to prove that they were doing the most for their team. There is also no reason to try and judge who is being useful and who is not in the first place. If the whole team wins, the whole team should be rewarded equally. Personal awards/rewards are viable at the end of the game, but they shouldn't be the primary accomplishment. It's the win that's the most important part, and the reward of winning should be the greatest incentive to be a good teammate. All this 'measure my unrecognized/acknowledged skill' is just bloated egocentric bs that is not going to help anyone and should not be a priority at all. Simplification is often a much more compromising solution than trying to appease every single person- especially with this mostly meaningless issue.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 19:37
So if there will be Double XP weekend event. Everyone will be two times better than they were before event, correct? =P
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 20:01
The more you focus on correcting the issues that just rewarding winning would bring the more you end up with a complicated XP/Score system. It's a massive amount of energy to fight off ever larger branches of divinations. Ultimately you end up back with a negative return. Have two teams play, at the end of the match have all 16 players allocate points to others on the server. Now you should be working hard to support your team mates and even if you lose at the end of the match you can still be rewarded for your efforts. Guess it can be open to exploitation but you know what else, it'll take a few days to code into the game and more time can be spent on gameplay rather than some dumb meta game around 100 different stats.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 20:15
So if there will be Double XP weekend event. Everyone will be two times better than they were before event, correct? =P
That's a really ugly idea.
So no one has any thoughts on removing mid-game XP and instead moving it to the end of the round? You gain say 2x the XP in all areas based on whether you won the round, which makes it a lot more sensible to try to win every round.
Yes, there should be huge modifiers in place for completing rounds and matches. In Brink and ETQW it's too minor.
If the whole team wins, the whole team should be rewarded equally.
In a competition setting perhaps, but in public matches this size you're more competing with your team-mates than with your opponents. You want to be the most productive member in the team, the best oiled cog in in the machine, and for that you need to distinguish players on their individual feats within the context of the match.
The more you focus on correcting the issues that just rewarding winning would bring the more you end up with a complicated XP/Score system.
Yes, I see no problem with that. I can't be sophisticated and detailed enough. What appeals to me so much about this is that it's being applied in a multiplayer in an action game. Unlike in an rpg where the xp is simply your level vs the mob's level, you're actually measuring direct actions on their merits. That's an unique challenge.
So really you're forcing the player down a path (if they care about XP that is) and making them play how the developer thinks they should play
The more simple the system, the more rigid and forceful it is. It takes a dynamic and advanced system to allow for all the myriad ways in which a player can be useful. A bloated detailed list full with things that need to be rewarded to what extend is forceful and rigid, what I mean to do is to have an elegant system that recognises when a player is being useful or not. It needs to be dynamic and flexible for that.
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 22:54
Good, so the majority is finally coming around to the idea that wins are the simplest, least obstructive and most encompassing way we measure "skill". However, what is still missing is "handicapping" of skills. This is the idea that winning is relative to the skill of the opponent, not merely a function of the number of games won. I'll wait until folks start coming around to that notion before mentioning "seeding" again. :D
Posted on 13 July, 2012 - 23:27