Flaws with the Restricted Ranked Servers Idea
Sarisel
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
The idea is to restrict the "skill range" on servers. This is achieved by collecting statistics about players on different servers and assigning values for their "skill". Their "skill" values then give/deny access to particular "ranked servers" using this system.
Why this idea is flawed:
1. There is no practical way to measure the different forms of skill and to assign a general value to represent overall player skill.
2. Even if only twitch skill is used as an indicator of player skill, there would have to be a very complex system in place to measure contributions of factors like:<ul><li>relative worth of frags on aliens versus marines at different times of the game in different tech conditions with different class and life form distributions</li><li>relative worth of deaths "</li><li>effects of kill assists</li><li>game environment factors</li><li>stacking</li></ul>
3. Even if the measurement of twitch-skill was accomplished, restricting the range of twitch-skill on a server is not a condition to make the games more fun and fair. Within each twitch-skill range, there would still be instances of stacking based on the other non-measured skills and social abilities.
4. Servers that implement twitch-skill ranges will be effectively limiting the number of players that will be connecting to their servers. From a "setup-and-forget" point of view, this is not necessarily desirable since the servers will be open to a smaller subsection of the playerbase. Depending on how the ranges are defined, there may be insufficient players to fill up servers. Server ops would widen the ranges making the system unnecessary to begin with, since player skill won't be controlled for very much.
5. There is no reason to expect that twitch-skill will be an important indicator of player skill in NS2, so why restrict access to servers based on twitch skill?
6. Restricting access to servers based on a measurement of player ability (regardless if it is flawed or not) decreases the value of the game for which the player paid for. Each account is worth a set amount of money - skill should not depreciate the worth of the account.
7. A "graduation system", where a player can no longer play on lower ranked servers due to improvement in skill, will decrease the ability of players to interact and play together. Friends will have to find servers where all of them are able to play.
8. "Pro" players who really want to prey on unskilled players (and such "pro" players are a minority) will still find ways to do this.<ul><li>get new accounts</li><li>periodically leave their characters to get killed intentionally to keep skill down</li></ul>
Feel free to add to this list.
Why this idea is flawed:
1. There is no practical way to measure the different forms of skill and to assign a general value to represent overall player skill.
2. Even if only twitch skill is used as an indicator of player skill, there would have to be a very complex system in place to measure contributions of factors like:<ul><li>relative worth of frags on aliens versus marines at different times of the game in different tech conditions with different class and life form distributions</li><li>relative worth of deaths "</li><li>effects of kill assists</li><li>game environment factors</li><li>stacking</li></ul>
3. Even if the measurement of twitch-skill was accomplished, restricting the range of twitch-skill on a server is not a condition to make the games more fun and fair. Within each twitch-skill range, there would still be instances of stacking based on the other non-measured skills and social abilities.
4. Servers that implement twitch-skill ranges will be effectively limiting the number of players that will be connecting to their servers. From a "setup-and-forget" point of view, this is not necessarily desirable since the servers will be open to a smaller subsection of the playerbase. Depending on how the ranges are defined, there may be insufficient players to fill up servers. Server ops would widen the ranges making the system unnecessary to begin with, since player skill won't be controlled for very much.
5. There is no reason to expect that twitch-skill will be an important indicator of player skill in NS2, so why restrict access to servers based on twitch skill?
6. Restricting access to servers based on a measurement of player ability (regardless if it is flawed or not) decreases the value of the game for which the player paid for. Each account is worth a set amount of money - skill should not depreciate the worth of the account.
7. A "graduation system", where a player can no longer play on lower ranked servers due to improvement in skill, will decrease the ability of players to interact and play together. Friends will have to find servers where all of them are able to play.
8. "Pro" players who really want to prey on unskilled players (and such "pro" players are a minority) will still find ways to do this.<ul><li>get new accounts</li><li>periodically leave their characters to get killed intentionally to keep skill down</li></ul>
Feel free to add to this list.
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1675786:date=Apr 14 2008, 10:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 14 2008, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3. Even if the measurement of twitch-skill was accomplished, restricting the range of twitch-skill on a server is not a condition to make the games more fun and fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not correct. Frustration due to prohibitively large gaps in skill between players reduces the fun level of a server, and removing that element would make negate a fair amount of frustration, resulting in a greater overall enjoyment for the server participants assuming that there was going to be an extreme gap in skill.
<!--quoteo(post=1675786:date=Apr 14 2008, 10:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 14 2008, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4. Servers that implement twitch-skill ranges will be effectively limiting the number of players that will be connecting to their servers. ... Friends will have to find servers where all of them are able to play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is correct, but you need to think practically about when this would be used - only "training" servers and "veteran" servers would need to use this lock system, otherwise newbies could steer clear of moderate and vet servers until they were ready (or at least willing to make an effort on moderate difficulty) and veterans could stay out of training servers and know what level of competence to expect from the <b><!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->vast majority of unlocked "moderate skill" servers which would likely comprise ~80-90% of the total server list at a given time<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>.
<!--quoteo(post=1675786:date=Apr 14 2008, 10:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 14 2008, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->6. ... Each account is worth a set amount of money - skill should not depreciate the worth of the account.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This argument hinges largely on your definition of worth. I would define it in this case as being synonymous with fun, because the purpose of purchasing a game is to have fun with it. According to my first rebuttal in this post, and by the definition I just gave, a system like this would increase the worth of a given account.
With all that said: Overall I think that you're right in that <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->a locks-system is still inferior to a reserve slot system<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> with soft tests via player rankings from a system like this, perhaps enhanced by a rating given to a server by an admin of that server's community's values (teamwork, twitch skill, etc.)
<!--quoteo(post=1675830:date=Apr 14 2008, 06:14 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 14 2008, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's not correct. Frustration due to prohibitively large gaps in skill between players reduces the fun level of a server, and removing that element would make negate a fair amount of frustration, resulting in a greater overall enjoyment for the server participants assuming that there was going to be an extreme gap in skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you define a "prohibitively large gap in skill"? And how often do you think this happens in a normal game? You say a "fair amount" with respect to frustration, but what is a "fair amount"? How often would it happen in NS2, where twitch-skill is supposed to be much less significant compared to teamwork?
<!--quoteo(post=1675830:date=Apr 14 2008, 06:14 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 14 2008, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is correct, but you need to think practically about when this would be used - only "training" servers and "veteran" servers would need to use this lock system, otherwise newbies could steer clear of moderate and vet servers until they were ready (or at least willing to make an effort on moderate difficulty) and veterans could stay out of training servers and know what level of competence to expect from the <b><!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->vast majority of unlocked "moderate skill" servers which would likely comprise ~80-90% of the total server list at a given time<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the vast majority of servers are going to be unlocked, then why should the devs develop an intricate stat system that is only going to be used by a minority of servers? A simpler system needs to be devised if the application is so limited.
<!--quoteo(post=1675830:date=Apr 14 2008, 06:14 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 14 2008, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This argument hinges largely on your definition of worth. I would define it in this case as being synonymous with fun, because the purpose of purchasing a game is to have fun with it. According to my first rebuttal in this post, and by the definition I just gave, a system like this would increase the worth of a given account.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it hinges on the money that you pay for a game. If you pay for a game, you don't expect to be barred automatically from servers just because you can't play it as well as you would like to. Edit: <u>moreover</u>, what if you have a friend or family member that plays on the same account? Is it okay to limit that person's access to servers just because <b>you</b> happen to suck or be too good?
If you want to make a game more fun, you can devise a system that is inclusive rather than exclusive (as I describe in another topic in the ideas and suggestions forum).
<!--quoteo(post=1675830:date=Apr 14 2008, 06:14 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 14 2008, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With all that said: Overall I think that you're right in that <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->a locks-system is still inferior to a reserve slot system<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> with soft tests via player rankings from a system like this, perhaps enhanced by a rating given to a server by an admin of that server's community's values (teamwork, twitch skill, etc.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We agree on this level.
It is one thing to be kicked to make way for a RSlotter, it is quite another to be prevented from even trying to get a RSlot in the first place.
Again, considering the difficulty inherent to statistically analysing NS, this would lead to outcry amongst players. It would put an immense pressure on statkeeping at a GLOBAL level, rather than letting individual server admins decide what sort of player they'd like frequenting their community. Keep it simple, keep it local, with server side stats and no automatic debarment.
Exactly how it sounds. When a player can't frag another player no matter how hard he tries, the other player is clearly better. This is how I'm defining prohibitive, which I thought should be obvious.
<!--quoteo(post=1675834:date=Apr 14 2008, 06:27 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 14 2008, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say a "fair amount" with respect to frustration, but what is a "fair amount"?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A fair amount is a literary term used to describe how often I've seen noobs raging at being unable to frag clearly better players. They're so angry that they don't change anything, because change is hard, and would make them worse to begin with, which wouldn't let them accomplish what they're trying to do, kill makaveli.
Are you asking me to quantify a user's play experience? I can't do that, but I can approximate some aspects of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1675834:date=Apr 14 2008, 06:27 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 14 2008, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, it hinges on the money that you pay for a game. If you pay for a game, you don't expect to be barred automatically from servers just because you can't play it as well as you would like to. Edit: <u>moreover</u>, what if you have a friend or family member that plays on the same account? Is it okay to limit that person's access to servers just because <b>you</b> happen to suck or be too good?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't think that's a good argument, you're saying that I should automatically have access to all content immediately just by buying a game. World of Warcraft is terrible as a game, but it sets a precedent for locking out some content to begin with. You could easily extrapolate your argument into the expectation for newbies to be able to pug with veterans on locked servers. Further, shared accounts necessarily break any steam stats system, there's nothing that can change this - it's one of the reasons I changed my mind in regard to whether RSS or Locks was a better system.
Please tell me how <i>"to be kicked to make way for a RSlotter"</i> is an <i>'inclusive'</i> system and not an <i>'exclusive'</i> system. Then prove to me that it would be worse (stressing player enjoyment over other considerations) to be restricted from joining a server in the first place, than it is to get <b>kicked</b> (in favour of someone else that happens to be an admin- or server-'favourite') in the middle of a round that you: may or may not have had a lot of fun with, may or may not be in the middle of communicating with someone, may or may not have greatly contributed to, etc.
RSlots, as I've said many times before, does not solve the issue that Radix brings up: <i>"Frustration due to prohibitively large gaps in skill between players reduces the fun level of a server, and removing that element would make negate a fair amount of frustration, resulting in a greater overall enjoyment for the server participants assuming that there was going to be an extreme gap in skill."</i>
Rather than continue to bash the idea (even going to the trouble of creating a new thread - and there is no doubt whatsoever that this is simply just bashing: <i>"Feel free to add to this list."</i>), provide a system that <b>does</b> address this issue (again, RSlots do not address the issue, for reasons <b>including</b> what is to follow). Do not argue whether this issue is negligible or not, or get nitpicky about what 'defines' certain terms; because many have already stated that these <b>are</b> real issues, so you will have to give us the benefit of the doubt.
This <b>is</b> slightly off-topic, but since it's been brought up (again) in <b>this</b> topic, I'll include it here. RSlots are a system based entirely on meritocracy and/or favouritism (to varying degrees, based on admin-control/player-say, but always present). In one sense, you could consider that 'community-oriented', but in another sense you could consider that 'elitist'. RSlots only caters to a small portion of the potential playerbase - and while that is no reason it shouldn't go in, that <b>is</b> the reason I stress that RSlots are a 'feature' and not a solution. Simply put, do not bring RSlots into a discussion about "Restricted Ranked Servers" or solving the issue of how to reduce player frustration caused by prohibitive gaps in skill (esp. in regards to new players and first impressions) since RSlots are entirely irrelevant - if not counter-productive.
A fair amount is a literary term used to describe how often I've seen noobs raging at being unable to frag clearly better players. They're so angry that they don't change anything, because change is hard, and would make them worse to begin with, which wouldn't let them accomplish what they're trying to do, kill makaveli.
Are you asking me to quantify a user's play experience? I can't do that, but I can approximate some aspects of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just wanted the definitions so that the topic doesn't progress in unnecessary directions. It's necessary to know how often this happens because that helps to define the cost:benefit of developing a system to control these events.
<!--quoteo(post=1675869:date=Apr 15 2008, 07:57 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 15 2008, 07:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675869"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really don't think that's a good argument, you're saying that I should automatically have access to all content immediately just by buying a game. World of Warcraft is terrible as a game, but it sets a precedent for locking out some content to begin with. You could easily extrapolate your argument into the expectation for newbies to be able to pug with veterans on locked servers. Further, shared accounts necessarily break any steam stats system, there's nothing that can change this - it's one of the reasons I changed my mind in regard to whether RSS or Locks was a better system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a difference between locked content that you can unlock versus locked content that always remains unlocked. With respect to skill, there is a very real possibility that some players will just not be able to unlock more advanced servers without first playing with advanced players - a Catch-22.
While there are similarities between server owners who choose to limit access to their servers via a password and server owners who might use a skill-restricted system to also limit access, the difference is in how many servers would be restricted. If you use the ranked servers idea, you will be encouraging admins to use skill restrictions - similar to how ms_bs 1 sounds like an awesome idea for many server ops. This leads to players being locked out of servers more often than they would be in the absence of such a system.
In short: implementing ranked servers will increase the number of restrictions on players and decrease the value of the game - and WoW's precedent is not welcome.
<!--quoteo(post=1675879:date=Apr 15 2008, 10:27 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 15 2008, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Two or three things:
Please tell me how <i>"to be kicked to make way for a RSlotter"</i> is an <i>'inclusive'</i> system and not an <i>'exclusive'</i> system. Then prove to me that it would be worse (stressing player enjoyment over other considerations) to be restricted from joining a server in the first place, than it is to get <b>kicked</b> (in favour of someone else that happens to be an admin- or server-'favourite') in the middle of a round that you: may or may not have had a lot of fun with, may or may not be in the middle of communicating with someone, may or may not have greatly contributed to, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"To be kicked" implies that you had an opportunity to even compete for a slot on the server - hence inclusive - whereas a ranked server does not give you even that opportunity - hence exclusive. Done.
As for how it is worse to be restricted versus RSlotted: you have less choice as to which servers you can go to, especially if your ranked server just happens to have a reserved slot system as well. If servers aren't ranked, you are more likely to find another server where you can enjoy yourself - a server which isn't close to saturation and possibly even without reserved slots. It's not an "either or" argument here - the point is just to show why restricted ranked servers aren't beneficial overall.
<!--quoteo(post=1675879:date=Apr 15 2008, 10:27 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 15 2008, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RSlots, as I've said many times before, does not solve the issue that Radix brings up: <i>"Frustration due to prohibitively large gaps in skill between players reduces the fun level of a server, and removing that element would make negate a fair amount of frustration, resulting in a greater overall enjoyment for the server participants assuming that there was going to be an extreme gap in skill."</i>
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Rather than continue to bash the idea (even going to the trouble of creating a new thread - and there is no doubt whatsoever that this is simply just bashing<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->: <i>"Feel free to add to this list."</i>), provide a system that <b>does</b> address this issue (again, RSlots do not address the issue, for reasons <b>including</b> what is to follow). Do not argue whether this issue is negligible or not, or get nitpicky about what 'defines' certain terms; because many have already stated that these <b>are</b> real issues, so you will have to give us the benefit of the doubt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The red text in the quote is hilarious. On topic: I'm not arguing that RSlots solve the argument that Radix raises or that the issues raised are not real, but I am arguing that <b>ranked servers are not the answer</b>. It's important to note the distinction - I made this topic to summarize the problems with the idea, to show that my arguments aren't "flawed and contradictory", and to illustrate the opportunity cost of pursuing ranked servers over other game development options.
<!--quoteo(post=1675879:date=Apr 15 2008, 10:27 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 15 2008, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This <b>is</b> slightly off-topic, but since it's been brought up (again) in <b>this</b> topic, I'll include it here. RSlots are a system based entirely on meritocracy and/or favouritism (to varying degrees, based on admin-control/player-say, but always present). In one sense, you could consider that 'community-oriented', but in another sense you could consider that 'elitist'. RSlots only caters to a small portion of the potential playerbase - and while that is no reason it shouldn't go in, that <b>is</b> the reason I stress that RSlots are a 'feature' and not a solution. <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Simply put, do not bring RSlots into a discussion about "Restricted Ranked Servers" or solving the issue of how to reduce player frustration caused by prohibitive gaps in skill (esp. in regards to new players and first impressions) since RSlots are entirely irrelevant - if not counter-productive.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same can be said for the restricted ranked servers idea. Either you have a bunch of different skill ranges that play together and have no access to the outside world, or you have a situation where a complex stat-checking system is designed for a ~ 5:90:5 distribution of servers for beginner:mainstream:competitive. In either case, there is still elitism because there is segregation based on skill.
Edit: As far as RSlots being irrelevant or counter-productive towards decreasing prohibitive skill gaps - just look to the BaD server and G4B2S as prime-time counter-examples to what you are claiming.
Reserve slots will help the games become more fun, and help the balance more than a broken restrictive stats system will.
A rank-lock system as I've proposed it does not create a catch-22. The only case where it would be a catch-22 is if prohibitively few (or no) good players played on intermediate servers (which should comprise the vast majority, see below) which is very unlikely. This is why I only proposed that extreme skill gaps should be regulated, because as you've mentioned, you must play against good players to get better. The criticism you've given here misses the fact that average players need only to play with above average players to improve, and it also can very easily be construed to read as wanting to force veteran and newbie players together, which I think everyone will agree is a terrible idea.
<!--quoteo(post=1675885:date=Apr 15 2008, 11:45 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 15 2008, 11:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675885"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you use the ranked servers idea, you will be encouraging admins to use skill restrictions - similar to how ms_bs 1 sounds like an awesome idea for many server ops. This leads to players being locked out of servers more often than they would be in the absence of such a system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This impulse would be more than countered by the fact that the majority of server admins want to draw a large playerbase, and that leaving their server open to everyone would better accomplish that goal.
<!--quoteo(post=1675885:date=Apr 15 2008, 11:45 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 15 2008, 11:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675885"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->WoW's precedent is not welcome.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh okay, well I'm glad that's settled. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
My take here is that the source of disagreement hinges on one of two points:
1. If skill is tightly controlled into several different ranges, then players can get stuck in those ranges. This is where a catch-22 can occur. I am not disagreeing that if you have a large enough range in the distribution of skill in most servers, improvement can occur. You proposed that only extreme skill gaps get regulated - but I am not certain if all proponents of the ranked servers idea are in the same boat. I am just illustrating that they should be.
2. If you were all in the same boat in that only prohibitively large skill gaps should be regulated, then there are problems:
a) The system that needs to be developed to achieve stat-checking will require a lot of effort (see point 2 in the OP) for a minimal role in the actual game - since most servers will be mainstream. I think we agreed on that before.
b) We're assuming that such prohibitively large skill gaps will exist in NS2, although UWE is purportedly making the game much more accessible to new players. I think the skill gaps will exist more at the teamwork level in competitive teams. This is definitely my opinion about NS2 and actually I personally hope that there will be plenty of room for individual excellence.
Regardless of whether or not b) will stand, there exist less restrictive means to accomplish the same goals.
<!--quoteo(post=1675905:date=Apr 15 2008, 03:07 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 15 2008, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675905"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This impulse would be more than countered by the fact that the majority of server admins want to draw a large playerbase, and that leaving their server open to everyone would better accomplish that goal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am aware of this. This anticipated server admin behaviour adds to the cost:benefit argument of developing such a system in the first place. However, I made the argument for the sake of completeness.
As do I. If your prediction here turns out to be correct, I will in all likelihood spend my money elsewhere. TF2 burned me once as a steam game I expected to be deep, which turned out to be one of the most boring wastes of my money since No Country For Old Men. I have no reason to pay money so that I can be shown how to get to Sesame Street.
Accessibility may have more to do with making it easier for a new player to understand what is going on in the game in general terms, and contribute with teamwork, not necessarily skill, rather than artificially limiting pros to prop up the contributions of noobs.
However, if large skill gaps do not exist, then it would be a tragedy, as Radix says. And I would cry into my plush gorgie at night.
Accessibility may have more to do with making it easier for a new player to understand what is going on in the game in general terms, and contribute with teamwork, not necessarily skill, rather than artificially limiting pros to prop up the contributions of noobs.
However, if large skill gaps do not exist, then it would be a tragedy, as Radix says. And I would cry into my plush gorgie at night.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's why we're discussing ranked servers and matchmaking in the first place. Skill gaps can and should exist in a deep game. The goal is to lessen the impact those gaps have rather than lessen the gaps themselves. I'm going to see that again so it won't be misconstrued. Ranked servers and matchmaking "hide" the gaps from new players, it does not eliminate or lessen the skill gaps between new players and pros. That is the general idea.
But right now, even if skill gaps do end up existing, it sounds like you would want UWE to spend a significant amount of time developing a complex system that won't even accomplish what you're looking to achieve (prevent the "elite" players from buggering up the games for everybody else).
Here is something that I <i>would</i> be willing to concede:
Initial player accounts are given the option to have access to beginner-level servers (as indicated by server icons) versus "the rest" of servers. This choice is made independently from rankings. Perhaps a third choice would be to "peek" at "the rest" of the servers to see what kind of gameplay is occurring. Afterwards, the player can decide to remain in the beginner-level servers or go to "the rest". Once the player selects to get access to "the rest" of the servers, the beginner-level servers are no longer available for access. (The player might be able to appeal to reverse his choice through something like NSGuides.)
This, I think, would prevent the "newb raging" that is being talked about. However, it won't stop "elite" players from entering the majority of servers (if we're looking at the 5:90:5 beginner:mainstream:competitive server distribution). Instead of applying ranking for these, it would be much simpler for there to be a community uplink that identifies steam_IDs and IPs of players that are not desirable on servers with particular labels - as voted upon between server administrators. This sounds unethical to me, but then again, servers in NS have been persecuting good players on their own since the game was released.
So your belief is that inclusivity is about opportunity? That because you gave someone the chance to join a server that in a few minutes' time they'll be kicked from and not be able to join anyway, through no fault of their own mind you!, it's inclusive rather than exclusive?
Yes, you're right. Very inclusive - of those with reserve slots, that is.
There's nothing inclusive about what is very much an elitist system. RSlots are an <b>exclusive club</b> run by the admin, it's as simple as that.
If you really wanted an inclusive system, then you'd need games with servers that have no approachable limits - I don't think the FPS is for you, I guess you could try looking to mmo's?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for how it is worse to be restricted versus RSlotted: you have less choice as to which servers you can go to, especially if your ranked server just happens to have a reserved slot system as well. If servers aren't ranked, you are more likely to find another server where you can enjoy yourself - a server which isn't close to saturation and possibly even without reserved slots. It's not an "either or" argument here - the point is just to show why restricted ranked servers aren't beneficial overall.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, to be kicked from a server for no evident reason; <i>in the middle of a round that you: may or may not have had a lot of fun with, may or may not be in the middle of communicating with someone, may or may not have greatly contributed to, etc.</i>
is somehow <b>worse</b> than being restricted from a server you are too good, or not good enough for?
Right.
I'm not even arguing for ranked servers here, I'm just trying to show you that your stated benefits from RSlots are actually non-existent based on the nature of the RSlot system itself. It solves nothing, it's merely a feature; just as it might give the dedicated community(ies) something beneficial, it would cause problems of its own. If you somehow <b>still</b> think RSlots are inclusive, then well, you're a lost cause.
It really seems as if the only basis of your argument is 'choice'. And it's not even about <b>choice within the game</b> itself.
Try experience, or fun, or competition, or something gamers actually care for. Being kicked in the middle of a game is not a good experience. Being owned by players far better than you is not fun.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Edit: As far as RSlots being irrelevant or counter-productive towards decreasing prohibitive skill gaps - just look to the BaD server and G4B2S as prime-time counter-examples to what you are claiming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're telling me to look to the example of dedicated servers in a dying game where only the hardcore still play - and likely have the skills. Unless by decreasing prohibitive skill gaps you mean everyone's already at a high level?
Whoops, did someone forget about the other 90% of potential players?
You seem to have the misconception that NS2 will run the same way as NS1 is running now - not the game itself, mind you, just the external aspects. Like 'strong communities', games all played by mostly veterans, a very small number of dedicated servers - stuff you get at the end of the life of a game, you know, that kind of thing. And it might. Eventually. Just not for a long time, I expect.
Yes, you're right. Very inclusive - of those with reserve slots, that is.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->There's <b>nothing inclusive</b> about what is very much an elitist system. RSlots are an <b>exclusive club</b> run by the admin, it's as <b>simple as that</b>.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
If you really wanted an inclusive system, then you'd need games with servers that have no approachable limits - I don't think the FPS is for you, I guess you could try looking to mmo's?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. You're not going to get kicked from every reserved slot server. But you will not get access to a range of ranked servers. That's pretty straight-forward, right? You don't even have a chance to be included in ranked servers if you can't "play well enough" as defined by some arbitrary system.
2. Again, poor logical flow in your post in red. You're not convincing anyone by claiming that there's nothing inclusive in RSS.
3. I don't really see how you can connect a desire for inclusiveness to games with servers that have no approachable limits. There are different levels of inclusiveness and different contexts.
<!--quoteo(post=1676163:date=Apr 18 2008, 10:50 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 18 2008, 10:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, to be kicked from a server for no evident reason; <i>in the middle of a round that you: may or may not have had a lot of fun with, may or may not be in the middle of communicating with someone, may or may not have greatly contributed to, etc.</i>
is somehow <b>worse</b> than being restricted from a server you are too good, or not good enough for?
Right.
I'm not even arguing for ranked servers here, I'm just trying to show you that your stated benefits from RSlots are actually non-existent based on the nature of the RSlot system itself. It solves nothing, it's merely a feature; just as it might give the dedicated community(ies) something beneficial, it would cause problems of its own. If you somehow <b>still</b> think RSlots are inclusive, then well, <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->you're a lost cause<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
It really seems as if the only basis of your argument is 'choice'. And it's not even about <b>choice within the game</b> itself.
Try experience, or fun, or competition, or something gamers actually care for. Being kicked in the middle of a game is not a good experience. Being owned by players far better than you is not fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again - here you make the assumption that you get kicked from all RS servers and that this happens often. However, you will definitely not be allowed to access a range of ranked servers. You're failing to show me "non-existent benefits" of RSS.
Good argument there with calling me a lost cause if I don't see things from your point of view. That's class right there.
And you need only to scroll up to the first point to see that the basis of my argument isn't "only about choice".
<!--quoteo(post=1676163:date=Apr 18 2008, 10:50 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 18 2008, 10:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're telling me to look to the example of dedicated servers in a dying game where only the hardcore still play - and likely have the skills. Unless by decreasing prohibitive skill gaps you mean everyone's already at a high level?
Whoops, did someone forget about the other 90% of potential players?
You seem to have the misconception that NS2 will run the same way as NS1 is running now - not the game itself, mind you, just the external aspects. Like 'strong communities', games all played by mostly veterans, a very small number of dedicated servers - stuff you get at the end of the life of a game, you know, that kind of thing. And it might. Eventually. Just not for a long time, I expect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No - again this shows how ignorant you are. The servers I am pointing out have skill-banned on many occasions and calling <BAD> hardcore just made me burst out laughing. You've just completely missed the point of the post you quoted and misrepresented my position.
FORCING them to play on "open newbie servers" because they're not good enough for the "restricted ranked server" only increases the division between the old guard and the new blood.
Integration is the key. Ranking will not work. Hard restrictions will not work.
Slotting is favouritism but it works because it encourages a community of players. This is how NS has worked and always will work. Any team based game relies on a community that understands the benefits and values of teamwork. Only by playing on a server reguarly, and getting to know your buddies, will you be able to cohesively play great enjoyable games.
Don't get me wrong - random pugging is good for the variety and a great test of your commanding or teamworking abilities. For the best results, however, you will want to have regular buddies who all understand each other's skills, and are all of roughly the same level.
A restricted ranked server works only for a closed community with a uniformly average skill level. It is a tomb.
An RSlot server at least allows new people the capacity to drift in, even if they aren't the world's greatest fade, and still contribute by gorging or being the builder marine. Slotted by merit if not skill.
Yes, it sucks to be kicked for a slotter, but the hypothetical "improved" RSlot system would at least show you the probability of being turfed out. If you're a good player, if you fit right in, then you'll be slotted easily. You at least get the CHANCE to make your case, as opposed to being barred from even trying to enter.
You may correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know no successful public NS server had such a draconian skill policy as to autokick anyone lacking in skill.
In a nutshell, the clue to the flaws with restricted ranked server is in the name.
As an additional aside, even if RSlots did not exist, admins would STILL kick you to make room for their regulars. Thats just how it work. If you disapprove (and I understand why people would) then the solution is to get your own server and do unto others..
Amusing, that. The one that coined the term is Sarisel.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As an additional aside, even if RSlots did not exist, admins would STILL kick you to make room for their regulars. Thats just how it works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right but it's "<b>how it works</b>" that I take issue with.
<!--quoteo(post=1676178:date=Apr 19 2008, 12:37 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 19 2008, 12:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676178"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would rather with RSS that you get a decent warning before you get kicked, AND that there would be an announcement (when an RSlotted player joined) and an option to elect to leave on your own; so you wouldn't just be picked randomly and kicked for no apparent reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you disapprove (and I understand why people would) then the solution is to get your own server and do unto others..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. I'll spend, and continue to spend, a significant amount of money to get my own server so that I can't be kicked from it. Brilliant.
I reiterate, if you do not like being kicked by an Admin, make your own server. There is no other solution to this. As stated, if there was no form of RSlotting whatsoever, Admins would STILL kick you for their friends. The only solution is to become an Admin yourself (or get friendly with one that has a nice server).
I take no joy in pointing this out. It is not an ideal situation, but it is how running a server works. I pay the money, I run the server, the people I like get to play on the server. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Sucks, but that's life.
I do not contest that it would be a good idea for a warning system - we've agreed as much elsewhere. I find the idea of asking for a volunteer quaint, but fundamentally sound. I know most people won't volunteer, of course, unless the game is going very badly.
As for spending a "significant amount" on running your own server....... make it a very good server and charge for RSlots. Better yet, make it a pay-to-play server running dedicated teams, and give the season winners a small cash prize sifted from the entry fee.
The cold hard fact of the matter is that ANY player faces being kicked from a server by the Admin. Any of us. If you're not an Admin, you have to accept this. NS, and I would imagine no other game either, would ever allow the player to override the man who is paying the bills. It just doesn't happen. Servers are a benevolent dictatorship, and always will be.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I reiterate, if you do not like being kicked by an Admin, make your own server. There is no other solution to this. As stated, if there was no form of RSlotting whatsoever, Admins would STILL kick you for their friends. The only solution is to become an Admin yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure you'd agree, an unattainable solution is not a solution at all.
I do however, understand and agree that 'that's just the way things are'. But you can't <b>defend</b> it.
Furthermore, its restriction and ranking are both flaws. Global ranking, at any rate. In fact, one could say there are three flaws - ranking, restriction, and ranked restriction. Both roots are bad enough on their own, but the whole is far worse than the sum of its parts.
Ranking is not just about keeping the "noobs" from the "pros", it also keeps the "pros" from the "noobs". I'm fairly certain that players who are working hard on a league night are going to enjoy kicking their feet up and relaxing on the lowbie servers with their more casual friends...
Furthermore, I don't recall you saying that you did not need an explanation? In fact, your first post regarded the WHY of the system. At best, you claimed to understand that it is "just the way things are" - but understanding that something IS the status quo is not the same as understanding WHY something is the status quo.
I'm merely trying to help you understand WHY things are the way they are.
Unattainable solutions? Servers are getting more and more affordable. It is child's play to set one up, and running costs can be mitigated by charging membership, putting banner ads on your server's community site, having exclusive content and competitions, etc. If enough players feel as you do, then you should have little problem in running it on a permanent basis. Some have already tried this, and it worked fairly well while the community was active.
By dismissing that sort of solution out of hand, your argument tends to come across as little more than sour grapes - "If I cannot run a server the way I want, then noone should be able to". I'm sure that isn't what you intended, but you just don't seem to be justifying why Admins should not be allowed to run a server the way they want.
If you only wish to accept your way of thinking, there is little reason in voicing your opinions at all, since it only seems to matter to you if you agree with them. If this is the case, I think a blog is the best place to express those opinions, a forum is for two-way communication.
(Hope that wasn't too long for you)
I did, in fact, read it. I just don't think it deserved much of a response.
I thought it was quite obvious that I didn't require an explanation. I understand the 'status quo' perfectly fine. Necrosis is being more than a little annoying and presumptuous by stating he's 'merely trying to help [me] understand WHY things are the way they are'.
Necrosis also seems to forget that the cost in running, maintaining and administrating a server isn't merely monetary, significant enough as that is.
Just because a server is "expensive" to run is not a justification for you to try and prevent those that can afford it from doing so.
If people can afford to run a server, and take the time to do so, then its their sovereign right to do so as they see fit. Its horribly capitalist, but that is how life goes.
You can't expect to force all server ops to "play fairly", I mean, they pay money specifically NOT to have to do so.
If you want to rant against capitalism, may I suggest the appropriate subforum?
Wait, so I said this when?
You have a remarkable talent for putting words in other persons' mouths. You should be a politician or a journalist.
I think you're missing the key point here. I'm not arguing against the 'status quo', ranting yes; I'm arguing against your proposed solution.
You seem to not understand that for most people, gaming is not a job, a subscription or a club; it's simply a way to entertain themselves and pass the time. Because I don't like the way admins run things, I should buy my own server, spend time and effort to maintain and administrate it, and 'do unto others'? Don't be ridiculous.