<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, what would distinguish beginner, from an intermediate, and an intermediate from an advanced player? How would one operationally define the skill level that would necessary to create a distinction between the classes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->(similar to what Necro said)
I summed up my thoughts on this before in the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981" target="_blank">original spin-off thread</a>. Divide players up into categories based on experience, not skill. Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced would not be defined by KpD, but instead by achievements that could be attained quickly via skill or progressively via just playing the game. This basically means that an 'Advanced' server would indicate (on average) perhaps over 40 hours' total play or something. By that time you'd expect players to know the ins and outs of the game and be competant enough to carry out a comm's strategy quickly and efficiently.
Mostly its actually knowledge that divides players, not skill. If a player knows not to try to solo a Fade with an LMG, if he knows that an Onos will just swallow his HA/HMG/Welder, if he knows that a lost Fade can sometimes spell a lost game, they are much more prepared to play alongside more skilled players and not drag them down as horrifically as if they were to commit the aforementioned crimes. Something as basic as knowing to stay with your teammates so they can pick up your weapon if you die and keep it alive is far more important to me than someone who can take on a Skulk 1 on 1. These are both basic examples, but the experience-based example is so much more valuable to your team's experience than the skill-based example.
Anyway I wrote about it in a lot more detail <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1673905" target="_blank">here</a>, with <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1673948" target="_blank">reasons why K:D ranked matchmaking is flawed for global ranking</a>, <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1674016" target="_blank">explaining how milestones would work</a>, <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1674068" target="_blank">how to appease the competitive community</a> (customisable server 'matchmaking profiles'), and an explanation of <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1674089" target="_blank">how those profiles might look</a>.
Finally, unless a game is designed specifically for competition, you will never get a matchmaking system that is geared towards uniting players at the top end of the scale based on skill. For most games, this has always been and will always be the realm of organised servers and events. Reading the link above tells you my stance on this, give the admins more control of how to limit their playerbase. Then you can have a 'skilled' server for those who want it without infringing on how NS is played globally.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1677511:date=May 3 2008, 10:29 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ May 3 2008, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The purpose was to shield/help (whatever you'd like to call it) new players, rather than casual players.
But then you twisted 'new player' to mean 'casual player' (or you're replacing 'new player' with 'casual player'). And then you're changing 'casual player' to include 'top tier players on their day off', which is perfectly correct - but has lost the original intention.
So, try not to get sidetracked. The point is mostly about newer players that don't want to get owned while they're learning the ropes, and possibly top tier players that only want to play with other top tier players in a non-competition/league game; and all the people in between, where in general 'good games' are had between people of relatively similar skill levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Regardless of the intention of the original idea of this topic, I agree the casual player group is distinct from new players and should be regarded as such. IMO "prohibitive skill differences" is only for new players since they're the only group to potentially scare away easily. As <b>Hari</b> said, casual servers will have a mix of skill levels and this should not change. IMO the convention should be: NS2Player/Beginner Casual/Open Competitve
In short, the original topic may be about "preventing high skilled competitive players from joining casual servers", but I do not support that idea. I think that would aggravate players unnecessarily and for little gain.
Matchmaking at this level is fine because it encourages players of like skills to play together and provides a way for them to join the same server. This is not the same as preventing certain skilled players from joining a game.
Crispy - I would caution you that it appears increasingly clear, writing in detail will lead to your effort being disregarded by people who would rather complain loudly than rationally debate the issue.
Anyhow, for what it's worth, I would be cautious of equating "play time" to "experience". A player can muck around on servers and still log as much "play time" as someone playing in a more dedicated fashion. Additionally, deadlocked games can run for some time, artificially inflating your "play time".
You could arguably say that it should perhaps be some sort of "Hours Played / Games Played" ratio, but again this can be skewed by playing inferior or superior opponents (making either a very short game or a very long game, depending on what you're doing), since strictly speaking all "equal experience/skill" games should run for the average time of an NS game.
I do concur with your other suggestions, to varying degrees, but I would just be cautious of play time being experience.
By the way Har, my posts will be as long as they need to be. If this means a 2000 word post on game balance, then that is what will happen. If you can't cope, perhaps you should restrict yourself to ranting about those evil capitalist admins in the discussion forum.
<!--quoteo(post=1677772:date=May 5 2008, 08:42 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 5 2008, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Crispy - I would caution you that it appears increasingly clear, writing in detail will lead to your effort being disregarded by people who would rather complain loudly than rationally debate the issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This statement is incredibly ironic when you read the next part, which clearly indicates you haven't read the posts I linked (containing the details of the suggestion). <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyhow, for what it's worth, I would be cautious of equating "play time" to "experience". A player can muck around on servers and still log as much "play time" as someone playing in a more dedicated fashion. Additionally, deadlocked games can run for some time, artificially inflating your "play time".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Simply logging time on a server won't get them the milestone achievements that I described in a post I really cba to link for the umpteenth time. You need a small amount of skill to progress, but it's not as prohibitive as TF2's more ludicrous achievements that pretty much only encourage farming. Really, 'time' is not how its quantified in the slightest, it's based on performing a number of different skills that are intrinsic to basic, intermediate and advanced NS play. These are designed so that they can be achieved by all with time (time spent actually playing NS), but most of them not by sitting in a server with a paper-weight sitting on your right mouse button.
To be quite honest Crispy, I was making reference to the comment in THIS thread, vis a vis:
"This basically means that an 'Advanced' server would indicate (on average) perhaps over 40 hours' total play or something."
I do concur with your other suggestions (and since I seemingly have to specific, I was referring to your other posts, the concept of milestones, the accuracy of K:D,etc) to varying degrees, but I would just be cautious of play time being experience.
I don't see how this ties into complaining without reading posts, I made an entirely valid statement based on the comment you made in this thread. Are you jumping to conclusions? I mean, if I hadn't read your suggestions, why would I say I concur with them?? *confused*
<!--quoteo(post=1677772:date=May 6 2008, 03:42 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 03:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By the way Har, my posts will be <b>as long as they need to be</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yyeaah, well that's the thing mate. They're <b>much longer than they need to be</b>.
Ok, haven't read the whole topic, so sorry if I'm restating or whatever, but my opinion on the topic:
Go with number 2. Yes, it will be abused. No, it will not completely solve the issue. Yes, people will still whine. But I think it is the best option. I played for quite a while on a casual server in NS and we had our fair share of super players entering. Some of them were elitist jerks and stat######s, and they got kicked. Others simply pwned us, but weren't mean about it, and actually ended the game. They were not kicked. About 95% of the time I was happy with the way this system worked. And I don't know if either of the other ways would work that well.
And please, no option 1. I did enjoy playing with the great players of NS on a server that they could not get into if rank barred them from "lower level" servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1677776:date=May 5 2008, 09:59 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 5 2008, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677776"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...I would just be cautious of play time being experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Time spent playing NS does constitute experience according to this method of qualification. To be more specific, time spent performing beginner/intermediate/advanced tasks within an NS game means you are gaining more experience of important actions in NS, those actions intrinsic to beginner, intermediate and advanced level of play (competitive play I would place above this category as an option for server admins to support via a matchmaking profile).
I agree it doesn't constitute a significant increase in skill, and by no means does it signify a leap in FPS skill, but it does constitute experience of the game. My definition of an experienced player is 'they know the game', not 'they are good at the game' (the latter would be my definition of a skilled player). When you know the game intimately even if you don't have the greatest aim you can probably still help build, weld, heal, inflict damage, communicate, spend res wisely, parasite, bait, kill RTs and so on. If you're able to do all these things you're still an asset to the team in my book.
There will always be simple ways of preventing the milestones from being easy to exploit (which for some reason Valve have chosen to ignore?). All you need to do is make sure stat-tracking is only enabled with more than X number of players on the server, or per team. Sure, there will still be farming, but it will have to be a lot more organised and the end benefit only allows a player to play on a different server, which isn't a big deal. Even if some absolute noob farms up all of the milestone achievements and they join an advanced server, at that stage it is the role of the players or an admin to get them to leave if they clearly aren't up to scratch.
Griefers will always be in the game, the only first-party support you can give is to empower the player or admins with quick and effective methods of punishment. UWE have already said they are looking to use VAC in NS2 since it has proven itself so effective. The rest is up to the server ops.
Any solution this thread can agree on will still never be able to solve griefing or stacking, because there will always be methods of fooling any electronic system.
Crispy, chief, I agree with you. I was just making a reply to the literal interpretation of that comment.
The milestones are a very interesting idea, one small point is that it won't help very very very casual players, but at the same time I don't think any very very very casual players are going to be put out by it. I mean, if they're hardly playing, then they've nothing to worry about, no?
Anyhow, definitely very interesting at this stage.
I don't see a problem with skilled players being able to play with less skilled players..thats how you learn and get better. If you set the bar low, then thats what will be produced, mediocre leveled players. But when a veteran is among newer players, that person is ABLE (hopefully chooses to) teach the other players if asked, or give advice as the game progress from what he sees. Also the fact that players learn from another by observance, a lesser skilled player, watches a veteran, seeing what he does, then later able to do the same things, helping that player to become better.
Another thing I have learnt is, I've gotten better by playing against higher skilled level players then myself, because they challenge me to push and try that much harder to win or beat them, but taking all this away is a huge blow to the game, at least as far as I believe.
It's all a question of degree, Sar. I mean, all of us here are in favour of fun play, but if people just nob around and not play cooperatively then they may as well just be teamkilling.
Probably better off playing CO, it seems to be aimed more at the very VERY casual players.
<!--quoteo(post=1678288:date=May 10 2008, 09:06 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ May 10 2008, 09:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678288"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most players don't learn or even want to learn - they just want to play a fun game. There's no need to impose your own standards onto other players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm.. I fail to see how observance has anything to do with imposing. If anything its the opposite, they CHOOSE to, not forced. Thats like saying, don't ever be a journey men and LEARN from experience union workers, or tradesman because they should ONLY work within the same work field and not teach/show/and be and example for the newer employees.
And if you want to talk about imposing, FORCING veterans to play on a server only with other veterans is the very meaning of imposing, the lack of CHOICE.
As far as them wanting to learn, that is their choice to make and I hope it will be available for them.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1678332:date=May 10 2008, 10:24 PM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheGivingTree @ May 10 2008, 10:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678332"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmm.. I fail to see how observance has anything to do with imposing. If anything its the opposite, they CHOOSE to, not forced. Thats like saying, don't ever be a journey men and LEARN from experience union workers, or tradesman because they should ONLY work within the same work field and not teach/show/and be and example for the newer employees.
And if you want to talk about imposing, FORCING veterans to play on a server only with other veterans is the very meaning of imposing, the lack of CHOICE.
As far as them wanting to learn, that is their choice to make and I hope it will be available for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're misinterpreting the observation - it has to do with <b>you</b>, not the players. You're assuming that players watch veterans (or higher skilled players) and learn from them. You might do this, but most players don't do this - usually they are just apathetic to it all and just either play along or quit and go somewhere else when the going gets tough. There is actually very little learning going on in the majority of pub players. That's why it's not really correct to argue that highly skilled players should be allowed to mow through pubbers just because you think that pubbers want to learn from this. This is you imposing your beliefs and generalizing it to all players. Not only are you assuming that learning is a priority, but you're also assuming that people can actually learn from players who are prohibitively more skilled than they are. There is an optimal skill range where it is possible to learn if players want to - but if there is a massive skill gap and a slaughter ensues, there is very little to learn and a lot to get frustrated over.
Also, nobody is talking about forcing veterans to play on servers only with other veterans. Veterans aren't necessarily prohibitively skilled at the game. However, if players are too damn good for a server, they shouldn't be playing there and ruining the fun for others. If that involves putting them agaist one another in a subset of servers, then so be it. The whole premise of this thread is that a player should not be allowed to use his skill to ruin the fun of players in an entire server. The best way to learn is to make it fun.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1678475:date=May 12 2008, 02:10 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 12 2008, 02:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where do you draw the line on how good someone is?
Will a CAL-I NS2 player be banned from ALL servers?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes because that's obviously the best solution <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Joking aside that's part of the reason why this should be a newbie only server feature and not an every server feature. Enough people come to these forums to whine about being "too good". I'd hate to see that become an epidemic.
I wholeheartedly agree. There should only be 2 types of servers.
A newbie server (siege maps in rotation, banning for skill etc..) and a non-newbie server. (the ideal of which would basically be a tactical gamer that didn't ban for team attacking a gorge that completely neglected ability2 until he realizes that he needs to heal himself, at which point you jump in front of his spray and get some health)
If you want a TRAINING server, that's cool. That's something others are addressing and it looks like it could work better this time round.
Once you're out of the training server, I don't think there's any need for "skill banning". Ban disruptive players, but don't be tagging it as skill banning. Bear in mind that most people playing right now are going to have a big headstart when it comes to NS2.
Sure, we're all back to square one, but we all have a knowledge of the mechanics, the strategies, Fading, Lerking, bit of chair experience, and we're going to put the crunch on the true new players.
The solution is not to segregate, but to encourage people of varying skill levels to play together and <b>not be bumhats</b>. That transcends most forms of griefing, and leaves no doubt as to why people are kicked.
Otherwise, as I've tried to point out before, people will see skill banning as completely legitimate and normal, which can be taken to dangerous extremes.
<!--quoteo(post=1678397:date=May 12 2008, 12:37 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ May 12 2008, 12:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But people don't play a game to learn; they join a trade, or go to school, to learn. People plays games to have fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I play games because I have fun learning and getting better at playing them. That is my definition of fun. I enjoy finding a new/better way to accomplish a task. People play games for many reasons, chief of them is usually enjoyment, the SOURCE of that enjoyment is what is different between people. Like the guy that does it to pass an hour, the guy that enjoys that the game has a system where as a player, if you get really good, you can make a significant difference on a team,(Take team fortress 2, even a really good player on that game can get owned by a noobie, not saying the same exists for NS, but there is a big margin of difference)
My personal opinion is that games should be easy to learn and hard to master and just like everything in life theres people who know how to do something adequately, and people who know what to do if ###### hits the fan (i.e. know the basics so can they can innovate). If you decide to separate who can play with who based on their "skill" level who will lead the team to victory with a good solid strategy? How are people going to develop strategies and improve existing ones, you will have new people trying to figure out basic strats when instead you could have a good person teaching them fundamentals just by being on their team. Those "newbs" would then know the basics and would be able to try new ways of doing things.
When I was learning how to play warcraft 3 I didn't ask for advice from other people who were just learning, I was able to watch replays of people better than me so I could understand the basics. NS2 is going to be a fps, the only real way to learn to play a fps is from experience or having people teach you. In NS1 I learned by listening to people who were better than me, watching them when I was dead or next to them and getting involved in the community, if you artificially restrict people from playing with each other I don't see how that will help the game grow or add depth to the game. Just don't restrict peoples freedom of playing on different servers, let the community decide who they want to play with!
<!--quoteo(post=1678288:date=May 10 2008, 07:06 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ May 10 2008, 07:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678288"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most players don't learn or even want to learn - they just want to play a fun game. There's no need to impose your own standards onto other players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And a lot of players like games with a skill curve that isn't flat. TF2 is pretty easy to get into, but I find myself not playing it too often because there's only so much improvement I'll get from putting more time into it. I suspect the primary reason I've stuck with NS so long is because there's always more room for improvement. Obviously you don't want to create a game that's prohibitively hard to get into, but I do think that replay value (which is influenced by the learning curve) is something important to focus on.
There should be a point ranking system a-la Mario Kart but with three different skill levels. Once you get to a certain point level you stop gaining points (or even lose points) if you continue playing on beginner skill level and must go to more advanced servers to keep gaining points. There would be three levels. At the third level, or 'Advanced Level' whether you get points or not is based upon your point level relative to your opponent's point level. I'm not sure if this would work, but it would make sure that a player had a certain amount of experience before being thrown into combat with very skilled people. And even then the significantly more skilled people would be battling each other because they are closer in points.
Not sure if this would be possible, but it could work well.
EDIT: The points could just be assigned levels too, but I think plain old points is a less competitive atmosphere for a team game (compared to H2+3 and CoD4 which use levels).
Interesting. So you make the incentive to gain points then (to what end though? rank? unlocks?) and if you're not in the right skill level as you should be you simply don't gain points. But yeah, it hinges on getting people to *want* to earn points.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1680014:date=Jun 2 2008, 07:38 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Jun 2 2008, 07:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680014"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Interesting. So you make the incentive to gain points then (to what end though? rank? unlocks?) and if you're not in the right skill level as you should be you simply don't gain points. But yeah, it hinges on getting people to *want* to earn points.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While there have been threads about unlocks that are non-gameplay affecting I don't think there need to be any. Players will want to have the most points for the biggest e-peen. Players that don't care about points shouldn't be forced to for the sake of unlocks IMO, those players won't be competitive anyway and there's no reason to remove content from them since they'll likely be the largest player base.
I like playing TF2, but the unlock system seems exceedingly silly to me.
The "points" would function as a prohibitive barrier of entry into the higher echelon of NS play. If you are just starting out you have no points and can't get into the middle or upper tier servers, you can only play on beginners servers. Then, when you graduate to the middle level of play you can still game on the beginner servers, you just won't be getting points or a challenge (plus the players on that server would be aware that you were playing out of your skill level). This process would remain consistent when you reached the top tier of play. Once in the top tier you gain points according to the relative skill level of the people around you.
You are right in asking, why would people want points? But that's like asking why people in Halo 2 and Halo 3 want levels. It's self-satisfying!
I think its a little like 9 year olds playing basketball with Shaquille O'Neal. Sure a 9 year old is going to learn about basketball more quickly while playing against someone much better then they are, however while 1 great player is playing with a server full of new and moderate players, the great player is the only player of consequence on the server. the rest of the 31 players are sitting on the bench.
How often has a great player been on an average/noob server and killed 2 fades with a single shotgun? 4 fades before dieing with the shotgun? 4 fades, a lerk, and 10 skulks? that is like a 25:1 return on resources in the hands of a player significantly better then his opponents.
For me this is a fatal flaw to an otherwise fun and interesting game.
Comments
I summed up my thoughts on this before in the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981" target="_blank">original spin-off thread</a>. Divide players up into categories based on experience, not skill. Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced would not be defined by KpD, but instead by achievements that could be attained quickly via skill or progressively via just playing the game. This basically means that an 'Advanced' server would indicate (on average) perhaps over 40 hours' total play or something. By that time you'd expect players to know the ins and outs of the game and be competant enough to carry out a comm's strategy quickly and efficiently.
Mostly its actually knowledge that divides players, not skill. If a player knows not to try to solo a Fade with an LMG, if he knows that an Onos will just swallow his HA/HMG/Welder, if he knows that a lost Fade can sometimes spell a lost game, they are much more prepared to play alongside more skilled players and not drag them down as horrifically as if they were to commit the aforementioned crimes. Something as basic as knowing to stay with your teammates so they can pick up your weapon if you die and keep it alive is far more important to me than someone who can take on a Skulk 1 on 1. These are both basic examples, but the experience-based example is so much more valuable to your team's experience than the skill-based example.
Anyway I wrote about it in a lot more detail <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1673905" target="_blank">here</a>, with <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1673948" target="_blank">reasons why K:D ranked matchmaking is flawed for global ranking</a>, <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1674016" target="_blank">explaining how milestones would work</a>, <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1674068" target="_blank">how to appease the competitive community</a> (customisable server 'matchmaking profiles'), and an explanation of <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103981&view=findpost&p=1674089" target="_blank">how those profiles might look</a>.
Finally, unless a game is designed specifically for competition, you will never get a matchmaking system that is geared towards uniting players at the top end of the scale based on skill. For most games, this has always been and will always be the realm of organised servers and events. Reading the link above tells you my stance on this, give the admins more control of how to limit their playerbase. Then you can have a 'skilled' server for those who want it without infringing on how NS is played globally.
But then you twisted 'new player' to mean 'casual player' (or you're replacing 'new player' with 'casual player'). And then you're changing 'casual player' to include 'top tier players on their day off', which is perfectly correct - but has lost the original intention.
So, try not to get sidetracked. The point is mostly about newer players that don't want to get owned while they're learning the ropes, and possibly top tier players that only want to play with other top tier players in a non-competition/league game; and all the people in between, where in general 'good games' are had between people of relatively similar skill levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless of the intention of the original idea of this topic, I agree the casual player group is distinct from new players and should be regarded as such. IMO "prohibitive skill differences" is only for new players since they're the only group to potentially scare away easily. As <b>Hari</b> said, casual servers will have a mix of skill levels and this should not change. IMO the convention should be:
NS2Player/Beginner
Casual/Open
Competitve
In short, the original topic may be about "preventing high skilled competitive players from joining casual servers", but I do not support that idea. I think that would aggravate players unnecessarily and for little gain.
Matchmaking at this level is fine because it encourages players of like skills to play together and provides a way for them to join the same server. This is not the same as preventing certain skilled players from joining a game.
Anyhow, for what it's worth, I would be cautious of equating "play time" to "experience". A player can muck around on servers and still log as much "play time" as someone playing in a more dedicated fashion. Additionally, deadlocked games can run for some time, artificially inflating your "play time".
You could arguably say that it should perhaps be some sort of "Hours Played / Games Played" ratio, but again this can be skewed by playing inferior or superior opponents (making either a very short game or a very long game, depending on what you're doing), since strictly speaking all "equal experience/skill" games should run for the average time of an NS game.
I do concur with your other suggestions, to varying degrees, but I would just be cautious of play time being experience.
By the way Har, my posts will be as long as they need to be. If this means a 2000 word post on game balance, then that is what will happen. If you can't cope, perhaps you should restrict yourself to ranting about those evil capitalist admins in the discussion forum.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyhow, for what it's worth, I would be cautious of equating "play time" to "experience". A player can muck around on servers and still log as much "play time" as someone playing in a more dedicated fashion. Additionally, deadlocked games can run for some time, artificially inflating your "play time".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Simply logging time on a server won't get them the milestone achievements that I described in a post I really cba to link for the umpteenth time. You need a small amount of skill to progress, but it's not as prohibitive as TF2's more ludicrous achievements that pretty much only encourage farming. Really, 'time' is not how its quantified in the slightest, it's based on performing a number of different skills that are intrinsic to basic, intermediate and advanced NS play. These are designed so that they can be achieved by all with time (time spent actually playing NS), but most of them not by sitting in a server with a paper-weight sitting on your right mouse button.
"This basically means that an 'Advanced' server would indicate (on average) perhaps over 40 hours' total play or something."
I do concur with your other suggestions (and since I seemingly have to specific, I was referring to your other posts, the concept of milestones, the accuracy of K:D,etc) to varying degrees, but I would just be cautious of play time being experience.
I don't see how this ties into complaining without reading posts, I made an entirely valid statement based on the comment you made in this thread. Are you jumping to conclusions? I mean, if I hadn't read your suggestions, why would I say I concur with them?? *confused*
Yyeaah, well that's the thing mate. They're <b>much longer than they need to be</b>.
Go with number 2. Yes, it will be abused. No, it will not completely solve the issue. Yes, people will still whine. But I think it is the best option. I played for quite a while on a casual server in NS and we had our fair share of super players entering. Some of them were elitist jerks and stat######s, and they got kicked. Others simply pwned us, but weren't mean about it, and actually ended the game. They were not kicked. About 95% of the time I was happy with the way this system worked. And I don't know if either of the other ways would work that well.
And please, no option 1. I did enjoy playing with the great players of NS on a server that they could not get into if rank barred them from "lower level" servers.
I agree it doesn't constitute a significant increase in skill, and by no means does it signify a leap in FPS skill, but it does constitute experience of the game. My definition of an experienced player is 'they know the game', not 'they are good at the game' (the latter would be my definition of a skilled player). When you know the game intimately even if you don't have the greatest aim you can probably still help build, weld, heal, inflict damage, communicate, spend res wisely, parasite, bait, kill RTs and so on. If you're able to do all these things you're still an asset to the team in my book.
There will always be simple ways of preventing the milestones from being easy to exploit (which for some reason Valve have chosen to ignore?). All you need to do is make sure stat-tracking is only enabled with more than X number of players on the server, or per team. Sure, there will still be farming, but it will have to be a lot more organised and the end benefit only allows a player to play on a different server, which isn't a big deal. Even if some absolute noob farms up all of the milestone achievements and they join an advanced server, at that stage it is the role of the players or an admin to get them to leave if they clearly aren't up to scratch.
Griefers will always be in the game, the only first-party support you can give is to empower the player or admins with quick and effective methods of punishment. UWE have already said they are looking to use VAC in NS2 since it has proven itself so effective. The rest is up to the server ops.
Any solution this thread can agree on will still never be able to solve griefing or stacking, because there will always be methods of fooling any electronic system.
The milestones are a very interesting idea, one small point is that it won't help very very very casual players, but at the same time I don't think any very very very casual players are going to be put out by it. I mean, if they're hardly playing, then they've nothing to worry about, no?
Anyhow, definitely very interesting at this stage.
Another thing I have learnt is, I've gotten better by playing against higher skilled level players then myself, because they challenge me to push and try that much harder to win or beat them, but taking all this away is a huge blow to the game, at least as far as I believe.
Probably better off playing CO, it seems to be aimed more at the very VERY casual players.
Hmm.. I fail to see how observance has anything to do with imposing. If anything its the opposite, they CHOOSE to, not forced. Thats like saying, don't ever be a journey men and LEARN from experience union workers, or tradesman because they should ONLY work within the same work field and not teach/show/and be and example for the newer employees.
And if you want to talk about imposing, FORCING veterans to play on a server only with other veterans is the very meaning of imposing, the lack of CHOICE.
As far as them wanting to learn, that is their choice to make and I hope it will be available for them.
And if you want to talk about imposing, FORCING veterans to play on a server only with other veterans is the very meaning of imposing, the lack of CHOICE.
As far as them wanting to learn, that is their choice to make and I hope it will be available for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're misinterpreting the observation - it has to do with <b>you</b>, not the players. You're assuming that players watch veterans (or higher skilled players) and learn from them. You might do this, but most players don't do this - usually they are just apathetic to it all and just either play along or quit and go somewhere else when the going gets tough. There is actually very little learning going on in the majority of pub players. That's why it's not really correct to argue that highly skilled players should be allowed to mow through pubbers just because you think that pubbers want to learn from this. This is you imposing your beliefs and generalizing it to all players. Not only are you assuming that learning is a priority, but you're also assuming that people can actually learn from players who are prohibitively more skilled than they are. There is an optimal skill range where it is possible to learn if players want to - but if there is a massive skill gap and a slaughter ensues, there is very little to learn and a lot to get frustrated over.
Also, nobody is talking about forcing veterans to play on servers only with other veterans. Veterans aren't necessarily prohibitively skilled at the game. However, if players are too damn good for a server, they shouldn't be playing there and ruining the fun for others. If that involves putting them agaist one another in a subset of servers, then so be it. The whole premise of this thread is that a player should not be allowed to use his skill to ruin the fun of players in an entire server. The best way to learn is to make it fun.
Will a CAL-I NS2 player be banned from ALL servers?
Will a CAL-I NS2 player be banned from ALL servers?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because that's obviously the best solution <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Joking aside that's part of the reason why this should be a newbie only server feature and not an every server feature. Enough people come to these forums to whine about being "too good". I'd hate to see that become an epidemic.
A newbie server (siege maps in rotation, banning for skill etc..) and a non-newbie server. (the ideal of which would basically be a tactical gamer that didn't ban for team attacking a gorge that completely neglected ability2 until he realizes that he needs to heal himself, at which point you jump in front of his spray and get some health)
If you want a TRAINING server, that's cool. That's something others are addressing and it looks like it could work better this time round.
Once you're out of the training server, I don't think there's any need for "skill banning". Ban disruptive players, but don't be tagging it as skill banning. Bear in mind that most people playing right now are going to have a big headstart when it comes to NS2.
Sure, we're all back to square one, but we all have a knowledge of the mechanics, the strategies, Fading, Lerking, bit of chair experience, and we're going to put the crunch on the true new players.
The solution is not to segregate, but to encourage people of varying skill levels to play together and <b>not be bumhats</b>. That transcends most forms of griefing, and leaves no doubt as to why people are kicked.
Otherwise, as I've tried to point out before, people will see skill banning as completely legitimate and normal, which can be taken to dangerous extremes.
I play games because I have fun learning and getting better at playing them. That is my definition of fun. I enjoy finding a new/better way to accomplish a task. People play games for many reasons, chief of them is usually enjoyment, the SOURCE of that enjoyment is what is different between people. Like the guy that does it to pass an hour, the guy that enjoys that the game has a system where as a player, if you get really good, you can make a significant difference on a team,(Take team fortress 2, even a really good player on that game can get owned by a noobie, not saying the same exists for NS, but there is a big margin of difference)
When I was learning how to play warcraft 3 I didn't ask for advice from other people who were just learning, I was able to watch replays of people better than me so I could understand the basics. NS2 is going to be a fps, the only real way to learn to play a fps is from experience or having people teach you. In NS1 I learned by listening to people who were better than me, watching them when I was dead or next to them and getting involved in the community, if you artificially restrict people from playing with each other I don't see how that will help the game grow or add depth to the game. Just don't restrict peoples freedom of playing on different servers, let the community decide who they want to play with!
And a lot of players like games with a skill curve that isn't flat. TF2 is pretty easy to get into, but I find myself not playing it too often because there's only so much improvement I'll get from putting more time into it. I suspect the primary reason I've stuck with NS so long is because there's always more room for improvement. Obviously you don't want to create a game that's prohibitively hard to get into, but I do think that replay value (which is influenced by the learning curve) is something important to focus on.
Not sure if this would be possible, but it could work well.
EDIT: The points could just be assigned levels too, but I think plain old points is a less competitive atmosphere for a team game (compared to H2+3 and CoD4 which use levels).
While there have been threads about unlocks that are non-gameplay affecting I don't think there need to be any. Players will want to have the most points for the biggest e-peen. Players that don't care about points shouldn't be forced to for the sake of unlocks IMO, those players won't be competitive anyway and there's no reason to remove content from them since they'll likely be the largest player base.
I like playing TF2, but the unlock system seems exceedingly silly to me.
You are right in asking, why would people want points? But that's like asking why people in Halo 2 and Halo 3 want levels. It's self-satisfying!
How often has a great player been on an average/noob server and killed 2 fades with a single shotgun? 4 fades before dieing with the shotgun? 4 fades, a lerk, and 10 skulks? that is like a 25:1 return on resources in the hands of a player significantly better then his opponents.
For me this is a fatal flaw to an otherwise fun and interesting game.