Uncharted 3

[Cheezdoodles]

If they don't make any difference then why have them? Reload speed and magazine can make a significant difference at times when it gets busy. I never beat anyone in a straight firefight in that multiplayer game even when I started firing first.
.

If u shot first and u don't kill them that means you have poor aim (aka u suck). Try aiming for the head. I'm sorry, and I mean no offense but that is reality.

I'm not crap, as I can do well in some games. .

Any shooter I play I can consistently keep my kill death ratio above 2 and I run and gun. Point is, if u don't do well across all shooters, ur probably just not very good at them.

Starting to play the game after launch (when everybody is lvl 70 a not that these levels imply anything regarding skill- however they have some map knowledge) just adds to that. Sure, play a game over time and u might become slightly better at it. Point is, ur probably just not very good at shooters. I have lots of friends that aren't very good at shooters. They still enjoy themselves online even if they get raped.

U sound like a bad looser/cry baby tbh. Don't like dying? Get better or play something else.

U being tiered against a bunch of people that would make you good is just u not liking to loose!

want to see everyone having a fun time, instead of the emphasis always on the best having fun at the experience of the lesser capable players.
.

The emphasis is not to have fun at the experience of lesser capable players.

There will always be some people that have a particular gift for shooters, and some people who dont. Those people will die more than the "gifted" people. That's just how a competitive shooter is. Pitting noobs against noobs will lead to the same thing, some will be the best of the noobs.

I agree that pitting experienced players vs new players might be flawed, and pitting players together that have played less than say 10 hours online is something i can support. However I completely disagree to having tiers or any sort of balancing mechanic that try to make up for people sucking.





.

The bitching comes because they can't compete.
.

They can't compete because they suck at these kind of games! Doesn't matter if one weapon is slightly better or not. If ur halfway decent, u should still kill these experienced players.

I saw the same bitching in mw threads which is ridiculous as all the best perks and weapons are unlocked at very low levels. If u suck and can't handle loosing - get better - stop playing - or learn to loose.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Any shooter I play I can consistently keep my kill death ratio above 2 and I run and gun. Point is, if u don't do well across all shooters, ur probably just not very good at them.

I'm definitely not as good as many because I don't play them as much. I have limited time, and far too many games, like many people. But that's the same with every game and sport, and the way those who don't invest as much time as others still get enjoyment from their pastimes is because they have the opportunity to play against like-abilty players. Someone can enjoy playing football once a week because they play against local teams and not the flippin' Premiereship.

U sound like a bad looser/cry baby tbh. Don't like dying? Get better or play something else.

Well that's utter crap. I don't care about losing. I applaud better play. I'll compliment a good shot or similar over the mic that takes me down. All I want is a decent game where I have a fighting chance and the people I play against have a fighting chance. When playing something like Warhawk and being on the winning team with the opposition hemmed in, I'll let some escape so they can have some actual fun. 'Get better' shouldn't be a requirement to have fun. The game should be fun to play, and you naturally get better as a result, without requiring hours and hours of un-fun training.

U being tiered against a bunch of people that would make you good is just u not liking to loose!

Bollocks. I don't want superiority. I don't want to win every time. I just want a decent bit of fun. If you can't tell the difference then it's understandable how you don't understand the need for better balanced online gaming.

There will always be some people that have a particular gift for shooters, and some people who dont. Those people will die more than the "gifted" people. That's just how a competitive shooter is. Pitting noobs against noobs will lead to the same thing, some will be the best of the noobs.

Do you not see the difference between pitting Dover Athletic (7th in the Conference South football league) against Staines Town (15th in that league) and against Arsenal (5 leagues higher)? Nor the difference between pitting a guy with moderate shooter skills against a player with moderate shooter skills, or one who can headshot a moving target at 200 metres?

Given the choices:
1) Tier your competitive sport/game/hobby so people are pitted against like ability players.

2) Throw everyone into a big pot and leave some players completely dominating and others getting completely mullered

...how do you explain 2) is better than 1) for everyone beyond? How do you explain that it's better for online shooters where it's not employed in any other competitive sport/game/hobby.

They can't compete because they suck at these kind of games! Doesn't matter if one weapon is slightly better or not. If ur halfway decent, u should still kill these experienced players.

I didn't say otherwise. The fact that the better players are given better equipment to pick on lesser players is just adding insult to injury.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

[

I'm definitely not as good as many because I don't play them as much. I have limited time, and far too many games, like many people.

It has little to do with time. I get these kill ratios from the first hour or so of most shooters I play. Unless there is some ridiculous map knowledge element. Ofc practice helps but some people are just terrible at shooters. I suck at fighting games. I just suck at them.

I work 12+ hours a day and play video games on average about 0.5 hours per day ( meaning I may play for 3-4 hours during one particular day of the week). I still rape 99% of the people playing mw.

This is just because I know the dynamics of aiming (basically the same in every shooter) and unlike ( what seems to be the case for some 50% of people playing shooters) I'm not stupid enough to get fooled by the same trick more than once ( perhaps twice I the trick is amazing).

However I play far to little to be really good.

. 'Get better' shouldn't be a requirement to have fun. The game should be fun to play, and you naturally get better as a result, without requiring hours and hours of un-fun training.

One of my best mates really loves mw3. He utterly sucks. Usually bottom 3. He still loves it! Never whines about higher levels having some unlocked weapon. ( which doesn't really matter unless we are talking rocket launcher vs say a knife) . U have the fairest chance in the world: u have the game, he has the game, rules are the same for both of you.

Do you not see the difference between pitting Dover Athletic (7th in the Conference South football league) against Staines Town (15th in that league) and against Arsenal (5 leagues higher)?

Why do crap teams even compete in the national cups? Because playing against the best might be fun even if u loose. I'm sure if u ask any semi pro footballer that has met a good team in the fa cup what he match he remembers most fondly after he retires is when he played arsenal (and lost)

Challenges are fun

Given the choices:
1) Tier your competitive sport/game/hobby so people are pitted against like ability players.

2) Throw everyone into a big pot and leave some players completely dominating and others getting completely mullered
.

I fully support pitting noobs against noobs for the first say 10 hours of a game. although this is still not perfect because amongst those noobs There will be people who can aim and thus completely rape everybody.

One thing that I would like is more BALANCED TEAMS. I remember on pc there where games that would even reshuffle teams mid game if there was some complete domination happening. I often would like the chance to switch teams mid game if that was possible - to join the loosing side!!!

After that I'm for a big mosh pit. Simply put its fair! I also like variety. I like having the chance to sometimes meet the best player out there, maybe I can learn and in any case it's fun to see em dominate.

In any case, I care about playing with as little lag as possible. That's it.

Seeing how many crap players there are that play for example mw day in and day out, even if they have a kill ratio of 0.33. I think ur underestimating people's ability to have fun even thought they are not winning.

I didn't say otherwise. The fact that the better players are given better equipment to pick on lesser players is just adding insult to injury.

The equipment is only there to keep players playing. Not to make u all powerful. The differences are small, so small that only bad losers choose to whine about it. Do you not get killed by a headshot either way? If u use ur mind to fool him, can u not beat him?

U will never play a mp game that doesn't have some sort of tier system. What if it's the most amazing game in the world? Sure u die a lot but does that mean u cannot have fun??

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think most game companies need to do a much better job of finding ways to match players of like ability. My better games are BF3 and NHL, and in either one, I prefer a tough match to a quick and thorough domination. It will never be perfect, but I think in general it can be better. There are people who won't even bother trying to play online because they know they're not good enough to play against the abundance of hardcore players. It would be in the interest of the game companies to find ways to encourage those people to play online, while at the same time pitting the best players against each other so they can have a fun and challenging experience as well. It's pretty much a win-win scenario, if they put the time in to do it. There is something to be said about playing against better players. You learn a lot by playing against better players.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It has little to do with time. I get these kill ratios from the first hour or so of most shooters I play. Unless there is some ridiculous map knowledge element. Ofc practice helps but some people are just terrible at shooters. I suck at fighting games. I just suck at them.

You clearly have a natural aptitude for shooters, meaning you can learn and adapt to the game style faster than others. The time it takes you to develop your motor-neuron skills to get your thumb working to pull off immediate head-shot aiming is less than other folk, for whom it'd take years of practice to develop the same skills. Or rather, in the ordinary course events they will never be able to aim that way. I got reasonably good at headshots in U2 after playing the campaign a lot, but those skills quickly fade if I don't keep my hand in.

Why do crap teams even compete in the national cups?

That's an open, national competition. Not the day in, day out experience. By all means have open competition where the best players can shine, while noobs can try their luck. That doesn't mean the every day experience should be so imbalanced. There's a reason that as well as open natioanl cups, there are tiered leagues - playing game after game against impossibly stronger opposition and losing time after time isn't fun for the losers, isn't fun for the winners unless they're bullies who like unfair fights, and benefits no-one. You can't even improve your game if your the learning environment is too punishing, so it doesn't push the lesser team to become better.

I fully support pitting noobs against noobs for the first say 10 hours of a game. although this is still not perfect because amongst those noobs There will be people who can aim and thus completely rape everybody.

Why would you pit noobs versus noobs for the first 10 hours?

One thing that I would like is more BALANCED TEAMS. I remember on pc there where games that would even reshuffle teams mid game if there was some complete domination happening. I often would like the chance to switch teams mid game if that was possible - to join the loosing side!!!

I agree. I have done the same in WH, swapped sides to help the losing team, and with balanced teams it gives everyone a more sporting chance. That was one of my big issues with U2 that the best players (measured by level, as there's no other visible metric) tended to get grouped into the same team.

After that I'm for a big mosh pit. Simply put its fair!

But not ideal. In the same way putting everyone who wants to box in the same ring instead of dividing them into like abilities would be fair as everyone's in the same boat, but far from ideal in terms of giving the competitors a fair experience.

Seeing how many crap players there are that play for example mw day in and day out, even if they have a kill ratio of 0.33. I think ur underestimating people's ability to have fun even thought they are not winning.

Those people enjoy some rounds and hate other rounds. With better balancing they'd enjoy more games more of the time. Our time is precious. We don't to waste it sitting in lobbies waiting ages for games to appear, which requires the devs to come up with good netcode. We don't want to play a round getting spawn-killed, which requires the devs to balance the game to prevent exploits. We don't want to play a round where we're completely dominated by way better players, which requires the devs to balance the teams and players. Nor, if we're sportsmen, do we want to play a round where we completely dominate and have a boring 20+ minutes of shooting fish in a barrel. Just because people can find fun in the current system doesn't mean it can't be improved. In my circle of friends who aren't gaming forum frequenters, competitive online gaming has plenty of painful but easily solved issues. I don't see a single developer addressing these issues. I don't really see them even recognising them, which means things aren't going to progress. Thankfully there's a little progress in terms of online coop, but as we found the other day, limits like 3 players only means only competitive play is an option for some groups.

The equipment is only there to keep players playing. Not to make u all powerful. The differences are small, so small that only bad losers choose to whine about it.

It's unfair to call them bad losers. If they can never kill anyone and they get killed all the time, they'll look at the reasons why. If they see the other guy has different equipment unlocked at a higher level, that's what they'll blame. And if they have the same equipment, then they'll complain about being unfairly matched (some. Some are just sore losers!).

Do you not get killed by a headshot either way?

No. It takes several headshots. More for me with an AK47 than him with an FAL-SS, and my shots have less accuracy and more recoil making it harder to hit the head. So the guy who's better at shooters than me and can aim better gets the gun that makes it easier to aim and get headshots. And then there's 3 such people on their team and none on ours, so we can't do much at all (I still kept mobile, punched a few out, sniped one, but it was impossible to achieve the objective), and of course people on the losing team have no fun so quit, meaning only 4 players sometimes making even more lopsided...

U will never play a mp game that doesn't have some sort of tier system. What if it's the most amazing game in the world? Sure u die a lot but does that mean u cannot have fun??

And add a tier system that balances the experience and I and everyone else will have more fun. You can also provide open-house games for noobs to jump in with experts. Just give people the choice to find the sorts of games that they enjoy. What's wrong with that?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think most game companies need to do a much better job of finding ways to match players of like ability. My better games are BF3 and NHL, and in either one, I prefer a tough match to a quick and thorough domination. It will never be perfect, but I think in general it can be better. There are people who won't even bother trying to play online because they know they're not good enough to play against the abundance of hardcore players.

That's exactly it. I'm only playing them because there's little else on offer. The only shooters I played prior to this gen were SW:Battlefronts on PS2. Getting PS3, my friends and I expected to be able to play online games together. The games offering online only offered competitive online, and it was always against far better players where we didn't stand a chance, especially in the early days. If you want to grow your market, you need to not be scaring people away! Although I feel online gaming can't be grown. As well as the imbalance, there's an endemic crappy attitude of insults and abuse. Warhawk was great in allowing hosted games and the chance to kick offensive players, but it also made finding a game hard all too often. Coop has more presence these days, and U3 is offering a lot there, but it also has stupid limitations like often only 2 players, or U3's 3 players when we had 4 in a party. Competitive multiplayer is necessary to allow a rich experience for lots of people. It just needs a little more consideration of the experience for everyone, which means providing partying mechanics so friends can play together (I like U3's buddy spawn for that reason) and providing better game balancing so players are competitive with their peers.

 

[Mobius1aic]

I'm so sick of the hand holding these days, and the complaints by people like Shifty Geezer, but alas, these days devs have to cater towards the idiots unless they really want to risk not selling enough copies or not have a lasting MP experience for the giant crowd of noobs.

But, I hate playing with idiots. It's a normal occurrence on BF3, and it drives me bat shit because it's those idiots that help to get you killed. The VOIP, Comma Rose and messaging system in-game (and I'm talking about on PC here) is gimped and less face forward so it's difficult to make sure the idiot in question gets the vocal thrashing he needs to get. Of course BF3 is a very team oriented game, unlike CoD.

This all makes me think of that short Kurt Vonnegut story "Harrison Bergeron" I read in middle school. It took place in the year 2081. In an effort to make everyone equal, people were forcibly handicapped, be it with creativity killing brain implants, beauty hiding masks, etc. What a terrible scheme. Competition is completely natural, and sometimes you really need to leave the fools to their own devices because they will just drag you down in the end. Games need to be more encouraging of noobs to keep on keeping on. SP and Co-op can serve in this capacity, but at the same time I think it's a waste of developer time and resources that would be put to better use in making a better MP game (BF3).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm so sick of the hand holding these days, and the complaints by people like Shifty Geezer

You'll be yet another of those who doesn't understand the difference between molly-coddling and fairness then. I suppose you raise your kids by hitting them every time they don't do everything exactly as you expect it to be done?

But, I hate playing with idiots.

If the idiots were tiered into another game, you wouldn't have to put up with them. And if you feel verbal abuse will put them in their place, you're a bigger idiot. No-one's going to respond well to being shouted at. If a person isn't good enough to do the right thing, they need to be taught and educated. If they can't be taught and educated, they need to be accepted. Belittling people is never beneficial.

...at the same time I think it's a waste of developer time and resources that would be put to better use in making a better MP game (BF3).

Again, add a better matchmaking system that puts people against similar gamers, which is next to no effort, and you don't need to waste time adding solo or coop game elements. It's the most sensible solution to please more people more of the time.



On a more U3 note, the artists really have done some stellar work. The materials are gorgeous, especially the leather jackets and such. Their shaders are awesome. The biggest letdowns are the low-poly scenery and aliasing, and the inconsitency scenery with traditional invisible walls.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'm so sick of the hand holding these days, and the complaints by people like Shifty Geezer, but alas, these days devs have to cater towards the idiots unless they really want to risk not selling enough copies or not have a lasting MP experience for the giant crowd of noobs.

But, I hate playing with idiots. It's a normal occurrence on BF3, and it drives me bat shit because it's those idiots that help to get you killed. The VOIP, Comma Rose and messaging system in-game (and I'm talking about on PC here) is gimped and less face forward so it's difficult to make sure the idiot in question gets the vocal thrashing he needs to get. Of course BF3 is a very team oriented game, unlike CoD.

This all makes me think of that short Kurt Vonnegut story "Harrison Bergeron" I read in middle school. It took place in the year 2081. In an effort to make everyone equal, people were forcibly handicapped, be it with creativity killing brain implants, beauty hiding masks, etc. What a terrible scheme. Competition is completely natural, and sometimes you really need to leave the fools to their own devices because they will just drag you down in the end. Games need to be more encouraging of noobs to keep on keeping on. SP and Co-op can serve in this capacity, but at the same time I think it's a waste of developer time and resources that would be put to better use in making a better MP game (BF3).

What you described is exactly the reason there should be tiered gaming, as Shifty suggested. You basically called him an idiot, and then validated every single point he made.

Tiered gaming would not affect the elite players, except to get them into better and more competitive matches more often. Like, I said, it's a win-win situation. Everyone gets better games with players of "like" ability.

I'm convinced some elite gamers don't want that, because they're people who believe their gaming skills are somehow meaningful, and dominating lesser players is important for supporting their fragile egos. Just about any time I hear someone talking down to other players on xbox live, I assume that person has a really difficult existence, and is looking for an easy to way to be an "alpha" personality, without having to back it up in real life.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Most games today have lag issues already without tiers.(which most noobs actually dont notice however heh).

There are problems with tiers. There is not nearly enough good players to go around. I would need to play against players in the top 1% tier to be evenly matched in games I play frequently, maybe even a higher than that. In all likelihood this would mean I would have to play with people outside of Scandinavia.

So i will be forced to play with lag (large distances) and/or wait forever to get a match going. I don't think I should get punished for playing a game well.

Also I doubt that any skill system manages to rank people properly, unless the game is death match based without objectives.

In any case, it's competitive matches. Go play coop.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Tiered gaming would not affect the elite players, except to get them into better and more competitive matches more often. Like, I said, it's a win-win situation. Everyone gets better games with players of "like" ability.

Its a loosing situation for elite players because they get laggy games! as elite is less than 1%.

I'm convinced some elite gamers don't want that, because they're people who believe their gaming skills are somehow meaningful, and dominating lesser players is important for supporting their fragile egos. Just about any time I hear someone talking down to other players on xbox live, I assume that person has a really difficult existence, and is looking for an easy to way to be an "alpha" personality, without having to back it up in real life.

I don't think u have encountered elite gamers. Very few talk down other players. Most people that do talk down other players actually suck. (maybe not compared to you)

Elite players on average don't, as they play clan battles and knows there is always some better guy out there.

I also think ur thought of blah blah alpha male blah blah is ridiculous. It's as stupid generalization as saying that all the bad players don't enjoy themselves even if they are loosing.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There are problems with tiers. There is not nearly enough good players to go around. I would need to play against players in the top 1% tier to be evenly matched in games I play frequently, maybe even a higher than that. In all likelihood this would mean I would have to play with people outside of Scandinavia.

Where compromises have to be made, like expanded tiers, then that's understandable. Alternatively you implement handicapping. Yeah, I know, that's not ideal, but if you have to pit the top 1% against the bottom 5% just to make up the numbers, to make it a good experience for those bottom players something has to be done. For a brief while I was at a fencing club, and the noobs were pitted against noobs. When I fought an expert, he didn't just thrash me over and over as he could have done, but focussed on practising key skills and giving me a chance. It's the same in any club. If you are a top tennis player and your local club only has moderate players, you can thrash them time and again, until they refuse to play with you and you stand alone, but if you want a game then you have to adapt or find another club that's more your level.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'd like the industry to recognise the issues and try to do something about them. Certainly the status quo of putting noobs up against vets and have them blown up for 30 minutes unable to even move around the map to find their way or get used to the feel of the weapons etc. seems an obvious mistake to make, and yet it's one that's constantly repeated.

Also I doubt that any skill system manages to rank people properly, unless the game is death match based without objectives.

I don't think it'd be too hard. Accuracy is a good measure of aiming skill. Points per minute is a good measure of ability to do something useful. Pairing up the former means players will be equivalent in firefights. Factoring in the latter means teams can be balanced on usefulness. Although I don't think I'd do that.

I don't want equality. That's stupid, and probably to be avoided as if all sides are equal than you tend towards stalemate. Someone somewhere has to have the upper hand to be able to win. It's just a matter of making sure all the players can be a part of the game, contributing something rewarding for them (whether that's the occasional kill or the occasional objective or the rare sneak kill or the awesome acrobatic evasion), come win or lose.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Where compromises have to be made, like expanded tiers, then that's understandable. Alternatively you implement handicapping.

NO! Punishing people for being good is my worst nightmare. Its progressive socialist taxes implemented in gaming!

There is nothing more annoying to get killed due to some "balancing" thing that artificially increases the skill of the opponent.

There will always be somebody out there that is better than you. Deal with it. Learn to loose!

If not, just play a game where who kills who just depends on throwing a dice.

Certainly the status quo of putting noobs up against vets and have them blown up for 30 minutes unable to even move around the map to find their way or get used to the feel of the weapons etc. seems an obvious mistake to make,.

I believe this is a silly statement. You are expecting people new to the game to go play competitive online and stand a chance???? There is a reason why say cod suggests that you play the single player stuff before you go online!!!!

Practice mode and/or tiering for noobs for initial hours.

When I fought an expert, he didn't just thrash me over and over as he could have done, but focussed on practising key skills and giving me a chance.

YOU ARE COMPARING PRACTICE VS COMPETITIVE ONLINE.

When that Expert played competitively he would go all out .

Further that comparison cannot be made to a shooter. The only thing u can do is allow the noob to KILL YOU, at the expense of hurting ur teams progression, stats , xp intake and whatnot. I cannot just be blocking your slashes. It's killed or be killed! Its WAR!

Just have proper team balancing and a PRACTISE mode.

I don't think it'd be too hard. Accuracy is a good measure of aiming skill.

No it's not. Depends on what weapon you use and how you play. You can be laying down cover fire for your team at the expense of accuracy rating, yet u might have excellent aim.

I play run and gun and usually hip fire with smgs. My accuracy is only 20%. Phil uses snipers, 30% accuracy. I still have far better aim. (actually close to 80%-90% when sniping, unless I do qs in mw3).

Further. Me running like a maniac and shooting gives worse accuracy than say u camping a the only entrance to a building.

Points per minute is a good measure of ability to do something useful. Pairing up the former means players will be equivalent in firefights.

Nope. Many ways to get points.

I don't want equality.

Ehm then why tier??

It's just a matter of making sure all the players can be a part of the game, contributing something rewarding for them (whether that's the occasional kill or the occasional objective or the rare sneak kill or the awesome acrobatic evasion), come win or lose.

U can still get an occasional kill today.or play say medic in bf3.

 

[Arwin]

What the complication is for situations like Shifty's, is that there is little else to do for the matchmaking system than keep the party together. Where it is already difficult to quickly match players that belong together, keeping the party together gets precedence (as it should) at the cost of balance. What further complicates things is that the ranking of the player at the game level is not necessarily very indicative of how good he is. Take me for instance - I've generally done quite well so far in the (few) online Uncharted 3 matches I played, partly still because I played a fair amount of Uncharted 2 Beta. But that ranking has been wiped clean twice over since (once for launch of Uncharted 2, once for Uncharted 3, and I've even played a handful of Uncharted 3 matches). Also, there are always insecure folk who make a new account so they can rank up again, unbalancing everything all over. And then whether or not people happen to talk to each other, and listen to each other, can make a world of difference again. And then, to keep it with Uncharted, a player like me will, even if he's not good, be careful to balance out his kill/death ratio for the win of the team. If I die too much, I keep a low profile and stick to the better players and give them cover fire and watch their backs. But ranking up is mostly related to your kill ratio, not your death ratio, which leads people not to care about the team result. Killzone mitigates that slightly by giving a significant (1.5x) experience bonus for the winning team.

The only way to do proper competitive online, given that you already have enough players to be picky, is to have some kind of ranking system combined with having enough people who play. The best way to do it would be to have a ranking system that is based on your skills per genre. Something like Starcraft, that has a league system, should work too, and make matchmaking a little easier. You can focus directly on matching people from the same league to begin with.

Note that Microsoft already implemented a basic form for this called Truskill or something like that. I don't know how effective or widely used it is, but I'm getting the impression that it currently doesn't work very well. I think the smartest thing to do for next-gen (or this gen) would be for the platform holder to design a system and mandate supporting it from all titles going forward.

The alternative that I've been personally thinking of, but don't know if I'll ever have the guts/energy to do, is to set up a gaming club, where people actually come over to game together, talk strategies, and form local and regional competitions, much like sports clubs. I would support it with a good foundation for helping gamers develop social skills, diagnose possible psychological development issues and so on. I think this could do wonders for some parents, who could simply restrict gaming time to 'club-only' for problem cases, which could then later be reinforcing itself to losing club membership if behavior either at home or at the club is out-of-line.

But the best part is that you could much more easily form groups of people who like to play together, have fun together, learn from each other and so on, while still having all the benefits of physical interaction, meeting people in person, etc. I would probably mandate Move Fitness / Sports Champions / Dance Central 2 style sessions after stressful gaming sessions. Perhaps something where the winners have to dance, and the losers go all out on the boxing dummy in Move Fitness.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

NO! Punishing people for being good is my worst nightmare. Its progressive socialist taxes implemented in gaming!

It's not a punishment, but a badge of honour. The best plays will still be the best because their superior skills would outweigh inferior gear. As you say, the gear shouldn't make a difference. And bare in mind balancing can be performed to many degrees and doesn't necessitate reducing seasoned players to dumb targets for noobs to pick on. But that wouldn't be the approach I'd like to see taken.

I believe this is a silly statement. You are expecting people new to the game to go play competitive online and stand a chance???? There is a reason why say cod suggests that you play the single player stuff before you go online!!!!

Practice mode and/or tiering for noobs for initial hours.

Most games don't have practice modes. Most games don't have the option to learn the layouts without someone shooting at you. At least the games I've played.

YOU ARE COMPARING PRACTICE VS COMPETITIVE ONLINE.

When that Expert played competitively he would go all out .

Further that comparison cannot be made to a shooter. The only thing u can do is allow the noob to KILL YOU, at the expense of hurting ur teams progression, stats , xp intake and whatnot. I cannot just be blocking your slashes. It's killed or be killed! Its WAR!

It's not WAR, the greatest suffering that people endure as they fight for their survival, but a game people play for fun! And my anecdote wasn't a direct example of how behaviour should be in game; only how attitudes towards noobs should be and are in other hobbies. When that same expert enters a competition, the noob can also enter a competitoin. The two will be pitted against opponents of equivalent level giving them both a chance to achieve something. The noobs will not be pitted against the experts because they haven't a hope, and would only learn not to bother because of that. Are you against that, and believe every competition should be completely open so that new contestants never have a chance of accomplishing anything until they have mastered the art?

Just have proper team balancing and a PRACTISE mode.

Generally I'd agree, although practising is both a little boring and not representative of playing humans with their novel approach. I'd rather practice...fencing skills or footy skills against opponents than against a wall or practice dummy. Only not if my practice partners are so far ahead of me that I can't compete nor learn.

Ehm then why tier??

That's not making everyone equal, but grouping people into a narrower range of abilities where a lower end of that tier can still compete with the upper end despite the upper end having superiority.

U can still get an occasional kill today.or play say medic in bf3.

But this view is forcing a 'tough luck' attitude onto lesser players, whereas the alternative is giving them a better experience. Why are you against giving lesser players a better, more fun experience? I don't understand that mentality. I can understand not wanting to ruin the game for better players, but as I see it now there are basically two opposed views trying to usurp the other - 'we don't care about less capable players nor crap experiences for them', versus 'we don't care about the uber elite and would happily gimp their fun'. Where's the sensible middle ground?

My Warhawk experience was my first ever online competitive experience. It started with free-for-alls and as new players we couldn't move without getting harrassed by excellent fliers, and we could never learn the flying skills because we'd get shot out of the sky instantly. Then rank capped games appeared (dunno if it was a later inclusion) and the experience was alot more fun. I started as a noob in much quiter noob-filled games, eventually getting to the stage where I was quite dominant. At which point I levelled up to a rank that was excluded for the noob games and I was back as a relative duffer. But I had had chance to develop the basic skills and tactics to at least compete with these middle tiered players, and over time refined my own skills to compete better. I see four tiers in any competitive game as being very workable. There'll be the most amateur league for noobs and those who aren't very good. Performing well there moves you up to the next level, with a very top tier. I expect I'd probably settle at the bottom end of the second to top tier. Allow for custom games like WH to enable friends of very different abilities to play together, and that'd be the best improvement across the board with little disruption to the general online exprience. Measuring that may be trickier, as you point out with your criticism of things like accuracy, but that can be worked out. eg. measure accuracy only when scoped in, and ignore blindfire accuracy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But ranking up is mostly related to your kill ratio, not your death ratio, which leads people not to care about the team result.

In that vein, I think the addition of treasure hunting really hurts the coop experience. Players will break with the current cooperative aspect, whether a coop objective or just helping their team, to race to the treasure.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Not into the idea of handicaps. We can skip the argument about what elite means as a percentage of players. Perfectly matched skill on skill at all times can't work. What I'd suggest for tiering is a 3 tier split: beginner, intermediate, expert. Base it on ranges of score/min. There will still be a large variance in skill level in each tier, but it would eliminate the top from frequently crushing the bottom. From a business point of view, it makes sense. You are more likely to have more people playing, and learning to play online. From a players perspective, it should give you better matches, because the variance in skill level should be reduced. As for a party system, they have many options they could use for determining party skill (average of x players, top x players, top player, average minus high and low etc). You would have players getting crushed as they move up into expert and being tiered back down into intermediate. As long as you took their average score/min over the last five to ten matches, depending on the length of matches in the game. Splitting in this way should do everything they need to encourage people to play, give people better matches, and shouldn't affect the quality of connections if each of the three tiers is populated with enough players. The only downside I see is potentially slower match making. If it takes an extra 20 - 30 seconds to get a better game, I don't see it being a huge problem.

And for the egoists, the score accumulated in each tier could be tracked separately. Show score/min, kill to death for each, or whatever other metrics are recorded, for each tier. That way a good score in expert is more "meaningful" than a good score in intermediate.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'd add a fourth tier for an entry level. The first few hours of familiarising yourself with a game, which can be weeks or months for someone new to two-stick shooting, is very different to the following experience of playing the game properly. If core gaming is to expand to new audiences it needs to provide somewhere for them to play. Expert shooters would fly through the ranks quickly enough to never be bothered by it. I like Arwin's notion of a platform-level ranking so excellent players can get right into the excellent games, but this is a U3 thread.

 

[PSman]

Just finished it and, WOW!, what an absolutely amazing experience. The production value and set pieces are just mind-blowing. I also find the gameplay to be better than the previous UC. This time around there are more variety instead of just going to the next area and killing enemies. In all, UC3 is much more epic and a lot more immersive than the previous UC.

and I don't understand the complain about the aiming since I actually find it to be more precise than the previous UC. It's a little slow on standard setting, but all you need to do is adjust the camera turning speed up a notch and all is good.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Just finished it and, WOW!, what an absolutely amazing experience. The production value and set pieces are just mind-blowing. I also find the gameplay to be better than the previous UC. This time around there are more variety instead of just going to the next area and killing enemies. In all, UC3 is much more epic and a lot more immersive than the previous UC.

and I don't understand the complain about the aiming since I actually find it to be more precise than the previous UC. It's a little slow on standard setting, but all you need to do is adjust the camera turning speed up a notch and all is good.

More precise? You have to be kidding me. The aiming is completely broken on "standard".