Addressing Prohibitive Skill Differences
Sarisel
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">a redirection of the "balancing skill" topic</div>The problem of prohibitive skill differences, raised in the previous topic (and several others), has not been properly addressed. Reserved slots, while promoting a certain level of play in the long run, do not address intrusions of players that are overly skilled into casual servers in the short run. These intrusions could last only a few rounds or could occur over the span of days and weeks - it depends in large on the competitive scene of NS2.
Solutions have been proposed:
1. Devise a ranking system that prevents competitive players from playing in casual servers.
2. Allow administrators to deal with undesirable players (i.e. kick/warn/ban).
3. Allow the server population to deal with undesirable players (i.e. kick/warn/ban).
Technically, options 2 and 3 have already been in existence in some form or another in NS1. However, these will not <i>stop</i> intrusions - they will only serve to foster animosity between casuals and competitives. There is controversy about the use of option 1, although it would serve to prevent intrusions if developed properly. If there are any other options that <u>prevent intrusions</u>, please mention them.
I'm wrestling with a few questions about this whole topic. Assuming prohibitive skill differences will exist in NS2...
Is it ethical/necessary to shield casual players from intrusions by competitive players or even players that are just much more skilled than casuals? After all, this means that the competitive/highly skilled player is being punished for being good. Regardless, many server admins have discriminated against skilled players in many FPS games. However, in this case the question is whether the developer (UWE) should take a similar stance.
If it is ethical/necessary, what kinds of benefits would competitive/highly skilled players get over casuals as compensation for being discriminated against? After all, with server-side rank restrictions, these players would lose access to many/most servers.
Solutions have been proposed:
1. Devise a ranking system that prevents competitive players from playing in casual servers.
2. Allow administrators to deal with undesirable players (i.e. kick/warn/ban).
3. Allow the server population to deal with undesirable players (i.e. kick/warn/ban).
Technically, options 2 and 3 have already been in existence in some form or another in NS1. However, these will not <i>stop</i> intrusions - they will only serve to foster animosity between casuals and competitives. There is controversy about the use of option 1, although it would serve to prevent intrusions if developed properly. If there are any other options that <u>prevent intrusions</u>, please mention them.
I'm wrestling with a few questions about this whole topic. Assuming prohibitive skill differences will exist in NS2...
Is it ethical/necessary to shield casual players from intrusions by competitive players or even players that are just much more skilled than casuals? After all, this means that the competitive/highly skilled player is being punished for being good. Regardless, many server admins have discriminated against skilled players in many FPS games. However, in this case the question is whether the developer (UWE) should take a similar stance.
If it is ethical/necessary, what kinds of benefits would competitive/highly skilled players get over casuals as compensation for being discriminated against? After all, with server-side rank restrictions, these players would lose access to many/most servers.
Comments
This is I believe the minimum way of increasing the enjoyment of everyone (not that the other ways wouldnt be helpfull too). If a new player joins an advanced server, he will probably be told quite quickly by his team that he should join the basic server.
If an experanced player joins an Basic server,
a) They can hardly call themselves "good" as they are knowingly playing on a new player server
b) Server admins will have a reason to kick good players as they were warned that the server was for new players
Will griefers exist... yes. But the vast majority of players just want to have fun, as an experanced player or a new player and will self associate based on how they feel thier own skill level is.
You could of course turn the hud element off with something to the effect of cl_showskill 0.
And as for griefers, it is up to the admins and players to take care of them?
While having players be able to kick people themselves does help in some cases, the % needed to kick someone needs to be very high to prevent abuse, but at the same time groups of players will join at once, or players will join with bots so that the playerbase doesnt have enough people to kick.
No matter what way you cut it, without server admins it is impossible to prevent griefers (and even then I have been kicked from servers for killing the server admin too often, at least in that case I know which server not to go back to again).
Instead we should be focusing on giving players the tools so they can know that a stack is happening or the aproximate skilll level of a server so they can have the most fun, by switching teams, or joining a diffrent server.
You could of course turn the hud element off with something to the effect of cl_showskill 0.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
my skill level is over 9000
While having players be able to kick people themselves does help in some cases, the % needed to kick someone needs to be very high to prevent abuse, but at the same time groups of players will join at once, or players will join with bots so that the playerbase doesnt have enough people to kick.
No matter what way you cut it, without server admins it is impossible to prevent griefers (and even then I have been kicked from servers for killing the server admin too often, at least in that case I know which server not to go back to again).
Instead we should be focusing on giving players the tools so they can know that a stack is happening or the aproximate skilll level of a server so they can have the most fun, by switching teams, or joining a diffrent server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually agree about not restricting players. However, a few points:
Griefers may go as far as creating new accounts with different steam IDs, but with a restriction system this will at least require them to pay UWE for each steam account that they go through. Likewise, suiciding and other ways of lowering skill would require effort and time. It would discourage many potential griefers. The same goes for players joining in groups or with bots. Yes - where there's a will, there's usually a way - but a lot of this could be discouraged.
Personally, I don't think griefing would be very prevalent even without a restrictive system and that developing a restrictive system would do more harm than good. And I agree about empowering players, which is the whole idea behind finding a cohesive matchmaking system. However, this is more of a "what if" discussion.
In an ideal world, players would categorically "fit" into a given server status that was "just right" for them, and when they showed promise they would move up the chain to the next micro-increment of server skill once it was unlocked, and conversely the lowest end of their servers would be locked so that they could ascend this grand chain of servers until they hit cal level, or just stayed intermediate if they were more casual.
<!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->In practice<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> though, as we've discussed (many times now), it seems like soft rankings that would display a graph of player skill on mouse over the server info icon on the server browser, combined with a system of player awareness as well as reserve slots and an arbitrary server-defined "values" system (including server defined "expected" skill level) would be more practical, and might result in a similar outcome with far less effort from the dev team.
The problem with that is, if the percentage is made to be so high, you'll never actually kick anyone. Because players are A) too lazy to vote and/or B) completely indifferent - they just don't care enough. There's also the issue with how when someone initiates a votekick, it kind of breaks the flow of the game; players have to put up with this nuisance (however brief) before they can get back to actually playing the game.
Since we're talking about stacking: Can we have a vote-changeteam system in place, as well as a vote-kick system then? Of course the downside to that is the same problems I've illustrated above, just made even more prominent because votes may happen more often. <b>edit</b>: Oh and it might turn out to be rather useless since someone might just get annoyed that he got his team changed and leave. In that case, as an additional or alternative suggestion, have a vote-balanceteams system in place; that takes into account players' preferences (an additional menu item when a vote is initiated) to stay on the teams they're currently on.
If it is ethical/necessary, what kinds of benefits would competitive/highly skilled players get over casuals as compensation for being discriminated against? After all, with server-side rank restrictions, these players would lose access to many/most servers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to clarify, I don't think anyone has really been talking about preventing competitive players from playing with <u>casual</u> players. Once you're in a casual server, you're all ready hooked <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> . The point is to prevent <u>new</u> players from being scared away.
As far as ethics, competitive players, in general, will not want to play with new players if they can avoid it. The only ones who will are essentially greifers who fall into the "bad player" category. They want to rack up lots of kills easily and feel good about themselves.
Still, this definition of 'bad player' seems different to Radix' 'bad player'. You could call it uhh.. an anti-social player, or something.
Skill will vary widely with time of day, day of the week, month of the year. It is very difficult to pin down a uniform level that will stand the test of time.
A better system is one that dynamically updates as games are played. This takes into account any holiday fluctuations or sudden changes in overall skill.
Advanced, Normal, and Basic are terms that will not find a general consensus. You could have top tier players arguing that league play is advanced exclusively. Strong community servers will argue that they have "advanced" play because they have a good grasp of teamwork and tactics. All of this does not help Basic servers, where you are facing woefully green Comms who think that Basic will help them learn the ropes.
No, that sort of server label has problems. We've discussed similar labels in other threads, but with very key differences.
Options 2 and 3 keep any decisions local and based on the current players in the server. This means that if its a bunch of top tier players taking a break, then they can vote out anyone who is playing the fool. If its a bunch of greenhorns then they'll be able to vote off the fade who is tearing up their base solo.
Note that, in general, this should not be a penalty on skill, and should not be a method to vote off the opposing star player. Unfortunately, it does still rely on the morality of the players involved and so there will always be that risk. Ideally however, a player would only be "noticed" if they were playing exceptionally well.
At the end of the day, it is a system of majority rule with an admin veto. If the majority of people on the server want you out, then you're going out, regardless of how nice you're being. It isnt a perfect system, absolutely far from it, but its not one that can be removed with any ease.
I also believe NS is a game that needs to address this issue more then any other because of the profound inequalities designed into it with the use of resources (an onos will pwn a marine with no gear, a heavy+hmg will pwn a skulk). these inequalities are sometimes vastly accentuated by player skills.
I think solution #1 in the OP has potential but there would have to be a sliding scale for it to work well. A simple system of 3 categories of players and a server setting that restricts one or 2 categories of players from joining could encourage players to want to straddle a catagory by abusing the scoring system (eg, a proficient player killing themselves on turrets repeatedly after they had a great last round so they can still play on the lowest skilled server...for it to work well, it could use a system where the server sets what specific groups of players could join, for example... only the bottom 85% of players could join, or where only the top 50% of ranked players could join, or where only the top 10% and bottom 10% are restricted
solutions 2 and 3 are vary smilier and i think are also ineffective in addressing the issue. both options i think promote a culture of hostility in response to the issue in that if a person is a vary effective player but on the team with the the ability to kick/warn/ban then often there is no action taken, meanwhile the other team feels the teams are stacked, that its unfair. on the other hand, when the admin on the losing team kicks the top player on the other team, it can still look like the admins (or people voting for action) are biased...basicly it is a small set of circumstances where a person being kicked/warned/baned will seem appropriate to everyone on the server, much less the person being kicked/warned/banned.
another solution would be to have handicaps for selected groups of players. for example, a server could pick the team for players in the top and bottom 10% of ranked players to keep the teams even. another example would be to give a -20% damage bonus to the top 5% of ranked players or slow their movement speed. You could even help out newbies with this system by giving them +damage or a shorter respawn time. A system like this would allow anyone to play anywhere regardless of skill, however it would also allow a server to moderate the effectiveness of individual players to promote an even matchup of uneven players.
Interesting view.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also believe NS is a game that needs to address this issue more then any other because of the profound inequalities designed into it with the use of resources (an onos will pwn a marine with no gear, a heavy+hmg will pwn a skulk). these inequalities are sometimes vastly accentuated by player skills.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to agree.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think solution #1 in the OP has potential but there would have to be a sliding scale for it to work well. A simple system of 3 categories of players and a server setting that restricts one or 2 categories of players from joining could encourage players to want to straddle a catagory by abusing the scoring system (eg, a proficient player killing themselves on turrets repeatedly after they had a great last round so they can still play on the lowest skilled server...for it to work well, it could use a system where the server sets what specific groups of players could join, for example... only the bottom 85% of players could join, or where only the top 50% of ranked players could join, or where only the top 10% and bottom 10% are restricted<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, never thought of that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->solutions 2 and 3 are vary smilier and i think are also ineffective in addressing the issue. both options i think promote a culture of hostility in response to the issue in that if a person is a vary effective player but on the team with the the ability to kick/warn/ban then often there is no action taken, meanwhile the other team feels the teams are stacked, that its unfair. on the other hand, when the admin on the losing team kicks the top player on the other team, it can still look like the admins (or people voting for action) are biased...basicly it is a small set of circumstances where a person being kicked/warned/baned will seem appropriate to everyone on the server, much less the person being kicked/warned/banned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->another solution would be to have handicaps for selected groups of players. for example, a server could pick the team for players in the top and bottom 10% of ranked players to keep the teams even. another example would be to give a -20% damage bonus to the top 5% of ranked players or slow their movement speed. You could even help out newbies with this system by giving them +damage or a shorter respawn time. A system like this would allow anyone to play anywhere regardless of skill, however it would also allow a server to moderate the effectiveness of individual players to promote an even matchup of uneven players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had proposed this (or similar) in another thread. (with the focus on new players given better ability for survival, and advanced players having their threat level lowered). How you are buffed/debuffed depends on your rank in regards to the server's rank. eg. noob playing on a moderate will get a health buff, expert playing on a moderate will get a damage debuff.
But because both these ideas change the consistency of the game, I'm not really all for them myself.
Overall though, good post.
<!--quoteo(post=1676884:date=Apr 27 2008, 03:14 AM:name=Termy58)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Termy58 @ Apr 27 2008, 03:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676884"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did I start a chain of topics or what.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hm? What are you referring to?
His topic was the original, "make NS less elitist" thread which spawned all of these threads about matchmaking, rankings, and reserved slots.
Whatever system is chosen, it should never directly affect the mechanics of the game. When you start changing around how fast someone can move and how much damage they give/take it only serves to create confusion and ill feeling. You need to know how many shots it takes to kill a Skulk or a Fade or the game becomes totally broken, and no-one will want to play.
By all means have this as a server-side plugin that I can avoid, but don't make the game dynamic so I have to check a scoreboard before knowing whether to shoot or run.
Barring admins, the players of the current game are probably best placed to decide if someone is being ridiculous. A top tier fade might decide to pub it and practice his skulking or lerking in an easier environment. He might be hanging out with his friends, and not playing quite to the best of his ability.
The problem is that a GLOBAL rank/skill system will not take this into account. A local rank/skill system will. Further, a global system would effectively penalise the player for playing beneath his ability, whereas a local system would mean playing with friends on a lowbie server would not impact on their rank/skill rating on their top tier competitive server.
UWE really should not be openly endorsing skill kicking, nor even by implication.
I think most players can remember the start of the big division between clanners and pubs, and its really something that NS needs to move past. Certainly it doesn't seem to be as much of a problem in other games with far larger player bases.
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.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of hostility.
"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."
Short version:
"The point is mostly about <i>every player type</i>"
(you listed all of them, oddly)
"where in general 'good games' are had between people of relatively similar skill levels"
Now, see here's the thing, the point of the thread is about, and what my posts have been in reference to:
"Is it ethical/necessary to shield casual players from intrusions" (I argue that it is not possible on a global level)
"If it is ethical/necessary, what kinds of benefits as compensation for being discriminated against?" (since my answer was no, it rendered this question rather redundant)
So, try not to get sidetracked.
I'm surprised I didn't see it myself. Well done.
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Primarily, those names relate to experience, not ability or skill. Of course, it is inferred that an advanced player will probably be more capable than a Beginner player, but this is because of a mixture of skill and experience: the ability to map their superior experience onto their not-inconsiderable skill. Experience is a less divisive method of separating players, because all players will be able to reach the next tier at some point if they play enough.
I'd see it breaking down as the following:
Beginner - ideal for new players with little experience of NS or FPS games in general
Intermediate - ideal for medium-skilled FPS players who may be new to NS, and for experienced NS players who may still not be that great at FPS games
Advanced - ideal for very experienced NS players of medium to high FPS skill level
Now, any of those servers could be a casual server, and the advanced server could be a competitive server OR a casual server. My point being there is no need to go down the casual/competitive route because the competitive servers can self-regulate by passwording and putting the PWs on their websites/clan pages, so only the competitive community (the ones who want to play there) will seek out the PW.
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Primarily, those names relate to experience, not ability or skill. Of course, it is inferred that an advanced player will probably be more capable than a Beginner player, but this is because of a mixture of skill and experience: the ability to map their superior experience onto their not-inconsiderable skill. Experience is a less divisive method of separating players, because all players will be able to reach the next tier at some point if they play enough.
I'd see it breaking down as the following:
Beginner - ideal for new players with little experience of NS or FPS games in general
Intermediate - ideal for medium-skilled FPS players who may be new to NS, and for experienced NS players who may still not be that great at FPS games
Advanced - ideal for very experienced NS players of medium to high FPS skill level
Now, any of those servers could be a casual server, and the advanced server could be a competitive server OR a casual server. My point being there is no need to go down the casual/competitive route because the competitive servers can self-regulate by passwording and putting the PWs on their websites/clan pages, so only the competitive community (the ones who want to play there) will seek out the PW.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I respectfully disagree with the naming system. Personally, I would not allow a self evaluation with regards to personal player skill. It would not be as much of a problem for the beginner server, but it would be an issue for those who are intermediate/advanced.
By labeling the server competitive/casual/open it would be a broader caption of what is going, without allowing people to feel self-conscious about their skill. There needs to be no labeling of skill level.
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.
Casual/Competitive is very easy to distinguish:
Casual play is more process oriented, more socially inclined. Players who play here are not looking for a serious game, and if a few mistakes are made its no big deal as long as everyone had fun.
Competitive play is more result oriented over process. Both teams are striving to get that end game victory. Play here is expected to be taken seriously, and is expected that players here would exhibit the amount of competence a competitive player would have.
Since there is virtually no stat system that would provide any meaningful value, one should leave it up to the player to decide which path they want to take at any given time he or she decides to join a server.
<!--quoteo(post=1677611:date=May 4 2008, 09:54 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 4 2008, 09:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677611"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I respectfully disagree with the naming system. Personally, I would not allow a self evaluation with regards to personal player <b>skill</b>.
... ** ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--quoteo(post=1677609:date=May 4 2008, 08:44 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ May 4 2008, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Best naming convention imo would be:
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Primarily, those names relate to <b>experience</b>, not ability or skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><i>** further counter-arguments arising from a basic misunderstanding of the suggestion.</i>
Hmm, I think I would agree with Crispy. The Easy/Medium/Expert naming convention I had thought of before does imply a skill (or more accurately, a difficulty) ranking, while this one doesn't.
<!--quoteo(post=1677611:date=May 4 2008, 09:54 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 4 2008, 09:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677611"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Casual/Competitive<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--quoteo(post=1677569:date=May 4 2008, 10:37 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 4 2008, 10:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, going by the OP, it specifically states "casual servers". That runs the whole gamut from top tiers on their day off, through average players, down to new players who don't even know that the trick is to centre the bad guy in the crosshair and left-click.
...
"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--><!--quoteo(post=1677594:date=May 4 2008, 07:07 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ May 4 2008, 07:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677594"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right. So good on you. You've just pointed out a flaw in the 'casual' naming convention; it does not address prohibitive skill differences.
I'm surprised I didn't see it myself. Well done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-Thread Topic+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thread Topic)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Addressing Prohibitive Skill Differences"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>** further counter-arguments arising from a basic misunderstanding of the suggestion.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmm, I think I would agree with Crispy. The Easy/Medium/Expert naming convention I had thought of before does imply a skill (or more accurately, a difficulty) ranking, while this one doesn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1677609:date=May 4 2008, 08:44 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ May 4 2008, 08:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Best naming converntion imo would be:
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Primarily, those names relate to experience, not ability or skill. Of course, it is inferred that an advanced player will probably be more capable than a Beginner player, but this is because of a mixture of skill and experience: the ability to map their superior experience onto their not-inconsiderable skill. Experience is a less divisive method of separating players, because all players will be able to reach the next tier at some point if they play enough.
I'd see it breaking down as the following:
Beginner - ideal for new players with little experience of NS or FPS games in general
Intermediate - ideal for <i><b>medium-skilled</b></i> FPS players who may be new to NS, and for experienced NS players who may still not be that great at FPS games
Advanced - ideal for very experienced NS players of medium to <i><b>high FPS skill level</b></i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1677611:date=May 4 2008, 09:54 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 4 2008, 09:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677611"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I respectfully disagree with the naming system. <i><b>Personally, I would not allow a self evaluation with regards to personal player skill.</b></i> It would not be as much of a problem for the beginner server, but it would be an issue for those who are intermediate/advanced.
By labeling the server competitive/casual/open it would be a broader caption of what is going, without allowing people to feel self-conscious about their skill. There needs to be no labeling of skill level.
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.
Casual/Competitive is very easy to distinguish:
Casual play is more process oriented, more socially inclined. Players who play here are not looking for a serious game, and if a few mistakes are made its no big deal as long as everyone had fun.
Competitive play is more result oriented over process. Both teams are striving to get that end game victory. Play here is expected to be taken seriously, and is expected that players here would exhibit the amount of competence a competitive player would have.
Since there is virtually no stat system that would provide any meaningful value, one should leave it up to the player to decide which path they want to take at any given time he or she decides to join a server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dunno Harimau, you told me when I need to accept when I lose, can you do the same?
If you're going to behave like this, then lets follow it up.
Stacking is only partially connected to prohibitive skill difference. Why are you continuing to discuss it?
Griefing is only partially connected to prohibitive skill difference. Why are you continuing to discuss it?
Ranking is only partially connected to prohibive skill difference. Why are you continuing to discuss it?
Then you decide to take a pop at me for "twisting" the topic, when in fact I am completely on topic and addressing "prohibitive skill difference" with regards to how hard it is for a GLOBAL system to take into account LOCAL casual play, and why we should not be endorsing "skill kicking".
Taking the BETTER THAN SLICED BREAD Myth ranking system, a superb Alien player is equal to an average all round player. Observe as the Fade destroys all comers, but is technically on an equal rank to his opponents.
I'm not sure why you've quoted FW saying "Casual/Competitive", because the OP also said "Devise a ranking system that prevents competitive players from playing in casual servers", so FW's comment is entirely relevant. I'm also not entirely sure why you saw fit to quote myself quoting you. I'm just going to reiterate my abridged version of what I had quoted you on:
Harimau implies "The point is mostly about <i>every player type playing</i>, where in general 'good games' are had between people of relatively similar skill levels".
Forgive me, but it's not the most illuminating thing I've read. It's rather obvious. You follow up by quoting your own misguided reply (my comment was directed at your accusation of my "twisting" the topic) and end by parroting the thread title.
Bit of a nonsensical post?
Crispy - FW beat me to it, but I would agree that the problem is that one cannot judge their own level of skill other than by comparison with other players on their server.
A person could be "quite skilled" on Server A, but rubbish on Server B. Like temperature, it is a relative, not an absolute. Consider the following :
Player One utterly destroys Player Two. We can say that Player One is on average "better skilled" than Player Two (assuming the act is repeated enough times for luck to no longer be a factor).
Player One has a 50:50 W:L ratios against Player Two. We cannot say that either is better skilled than the other, nor can we say that they are both high skilled or both low skilled. Two players of the same skill will, on average, end up in a draw over time. That could be two high skilled players, two average players, or two low skilled players.
Now, consider this problem over a GLOBAL scale. It just becomes too hard to accurately rank and follow. Even the likes of Halo will track two separate statistics for the purpose of automatching.
Personally, I feel that the LOCAL scale is easier to implement. At the LOCAL scale, you have a smaller number of players and an easier to generate "average". This makes it easier in turn to estimate when a player is "too skilled". A GLOBAL system involves many hundreds of players and servers, in many millions of combinations, leading to chaos when ranking. LOCAL scales can neatly bypass this issue.
Again, tying this into the main topic, the key is to think LOCAL when assessing skill differences.
Now, when a person suggests "Beginner" "Intermediate" "Advanced", the problem is WHO assesses these ranks? GLOBALLY you might be a newb but on your LOCAL server you might be godlike. Does that mean your server is Beginner? Or does it mean that you are Advanced?
It's all relative, and very hard to ascertain with any degree of certainty at a global level.
That is why I feel a better system is to label the playstyle. I disagree with the terms being bandied around (Competitive vs Casual) because they're really not that dissimilar to the whole Ranked vs Unranked school of thought.
NS would appear to fall into, 3 or 4 groups.
- League players running specific teams under competition rules
- Top tier players capable of running pickup games
- Average player looking for a decent game
- NSPlayer looking to kill 5 mins by "pwning noobs"
The first group can run quite well on private servers in what would be a truly "Competitive" basis.
Second group overlaps with the third group in that they want a "proper" game of NS, but you're talking an order of magnitude in difference with regards to cooperation. Any 6 league-level players are going to be somewhat aware of certain strategies, tactics, and gambits, but that information may only be known by a comparative handful of "average players" (average taking to mean that they form the bulk of players, not a comment on skill).
The final group are just people nobbing about.
Our problem is keeping group two and three in happy co-existence. Easy enough at a local level, but globally very hard to do.
I am not confident that a three tier server nomenclature would adequately cover these playstyles, but I do agree that playstyle is what needs to be addressed GLOBALLY, rather than "skill".
Forgive the emphasis on GLOBAL and LOCAL, but it is becoming increasingly necessary.
In summary -
On a GLOBAL level, we can regulate servers by playstyle.
On a LOCAL level, we can regulate by comparative skill.
In my humble opinion, of course, and I do realise this differs from the point of view of others. It means that any player can choose their playstyle, but can be discouraged from putting a spanner in the works of the "average skill level" on those servers.
I dunno Harimau, you told me when I need to accept when I lose, can you do the same?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't get it. What did you say that has made me lose the argument?
What I've understood so far is that the casual/competitive naming scheme does not address prohibitive skill differences, and as such is out of the window.
And apparently, it is now required for servers to have a global ranking system in order to introduce a Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced naming scheme. Do you now support a ranking system? Can we restart that discussion? <i>(Just so you don't accuse me of lacking reasoning or reading comprehension, and I know you were going to, yes I know you don't support a ranking system. It's sarcasm. I shouldn't really have to explain this.)</i>
Just to sidetrack the thread even further <i>(yes I did, Necrosis)</i>; I do support global stats-tracking, and allowing players to view others players' stats profiles (as well as pre-game 'icons' mentioned in the I&S forum). In that case players could still see whether other players actually 'fit' into the designated server rank name. Would that be enough for you, Firewater?
edit: yeah, I chose to ignore Necrosis. Sue me. His posts are very prickly (relax dude), repetitive (my eyes are getting carpal tunnel syndrome-true story) and don't make a lot of sense; or at the least, are too obscure so that any sense that may be present in the posts is hidden behind a veil of bull####. Necrosis, some friendly advice: Learn to (actually) be concise (and not just saying you're trying to be in the same long-winded post). <i>(Yes, I realise this is rather contradictory, as this has hardly been concise; but I often feel that I have to explain the littlest things to you people, or you won't understand.)</i>