Multiplayer Gaming: Trueskill or Experience Accumulation? - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-10-2009, 02:15 PM
Averry's Avatar
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,636
Default Multiplayer Gaming: Trueskill or Experience Accumulation?

Forgive me for alack of a better term for Experience Accumulation.


IGN has this article about Gears 2 : http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/952/952647p1.html

Quote:
Fergusson said the Gears 2 team is considering doing away with the ranking bars in favor of leveling via raw experience points like the ones earned in role-playing games. Each player would now have a number next to their Gamertags that shows their level, and you would be able to track your progress to the next. TrueSkill would still be used for matchmaking purposes.

Console ranking systems were really first introduced when Halo 2 came out with it's complicated Truskill algorithm for it's different matchmaking playlists. It tried to ensure you played people close to your skill, and only rewarded you for winning.

Halo 3 expanded on that with keeping the trueskill, while also giving you overall Exp that transcended accross all playlists. They also expanded on that now giving you Exp rankings per playlist, that adds to your overall, while also keeping the trueskill ranking per playlist.


Call of Duty 4 introduced the RPG still accumulation system. You get points whether you win or loose....which is sort of a system of holding your hand. You are always rewarded no matter what as long as you get killz (of course there's bonuses for wining and whatnot). Couple that with a deep system of unlocking items and it's really rewarding.

Call of Duty's system works so well because the gameplay was built up around this. The system of perks, and weapon load outs still manages to play really close to balanced and fair. The game being set in the real world allows for a wide selection of weapons.

Halo's system is traditionally keeps the playing field equal with the same weapons for everybody. The sci fi setting makes it difficult to have 20 different weapons to choose from. After all even though call of Duty has all of those weapons, gameplay for all the submachine guns, machine guns, rifles, and ect. are pretty similar for those in the sub category.


With Gears perhaps ditching the trueskill system for accum. it brings up interesting questions for myself. Will Bungie be able to remain popular if everything goes for that sort of "constant rewarding" gameplay? Resistance 2, Killzone 2, and other games are opting for the RPG style.


Some downsides for both. Halo's suffers from the lack of being able to unlock items to affect your gameplay. Accum system tends to suffer from that "now I got it, what do I play for" syndrome.

Killzone 2 looks to have a deep system of unlocks, coupled with customizable class systems that appear to eclipse Call of Duty in terms of affecting how you play the game. Resistance 2 has accumulation, but it doens't really seem to affect much because you have all of those crazy weapons to choose from in the first place.

Personally I prefer the RPG system to a point, but sometimes you don't always even care if you win because it doesn't matter that much. It becomes more greedy grub match just vying for your own kills.

If Gears drops its system, it sort of leaves Halo standing alone against the trend.



What do you guys prefer?, why? and where do you perceive this will go, and where do you want it to go?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-10-2009, 02:21 PM
bryenfury's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 244
Default

cod style suits me well as I rarely play and when i do it's in spurts so my skill doesn't ever really get any better.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-10-2009, 02:25 PM
michealo's Avatar
Watcher of stances
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 27,497
Default

true skill is poop.

experience accumulation (ranking system) is the way to go.
granted, this doesn't take into consideration for people who play a ton, reach high levels and still suck but obviously it's not affecting them. they still continue to play for other reasons.
__________________
why hate? participate!
Elitist Indifference FTW
xbox live = Wrangl3r / PSN = thummper / wiiU = mm / steam = michealo
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-10-2009, 02:33 PM
Shadow1019's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michealo View Post
true skill is poop.

experience accumulation (ranking system) is the way to go.
granted, this doesn't take into consideration for people who play a ton, reach high levels and still suck but obviously it's not affecting them. they still continue to play for other reasons.
I understand the idea behind True Skill and like what it tries to do. Even if it's not successful. But I don't like the idea that rank can be attained simply by playing for a certain amount of time.

I would love to be able to look at a top 100 or top 1000 list or any rankings ladder and know that the people in the top 100 or whatever are actually better than the people below them - not that they simply have played more than those below them. Obviously, cheaters will screw up that system, but at least cheaters have to know how to cheat and risk getting banned for doing it.

But I imagine 13 year old kids would go ape-shit if they couldn't reach a certain rank due to their skill. They'd say that it's unfair and that they "paid for the game" and all other sorts of non-sense.

But in my ideal system, all ranks would actually be indicative of skill, not playing time.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-10-2009, 02:35 PM
Averry's Avatar
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michealo View Post
true skill is poop.

experience accumulation (ranking system) is the way to go.
granted, this doesn't take into consideration for people who play a ton, reach high levels and still suck but obviously it's not affecting them. they still continue to play for other reasons.
Do you think it's poop because it doesn't work or you just don't like it?

I think it works, however there's no way to stop people from dropping their own levels, and such.

CoD doubles the Ranking system with rewards. Halo would need massive restructuring to include weapon rewards and such....

I think Halo definitely needs to implement a challenge sytem like Call of Duty....like Battle Rifle kills, Needler kills, Melee kills, Sniper Head shots, ect.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-10-2009, 02:47 PM
Mase's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow1019 View Post
I understand the idea behind True Skill and like what it tries to do. Even if it's not successful. But I don't like the idea that rank can be attained simply by playing for a certain amount of time.

I would love to be able to look at a top 100 or top 1000 list or any rankings ladder and know that the people in the top 100 or whatever are actually better than the people below them - not that they simply have played more than those below them. Obviously, cheaters will screw up that system, but at least cheaters have to know how to cheat and risk getting banned for doing it.

But I imagine 13 year old kids would go ape-shit if they couldn't reach a certain rank due to their skill. They'd say that it's unfair and that they "paid for the game" and all other sorts of non-sense.

But in my ideal system, all ranks would actually be indicative of skill, not playing time.
This is my major gripe with COD and games like it, I do prefer the Halo approach for many reasons. One, it makes it easier and more copable for new comers to play against similar skilled players, it also helps for those whom are good so they can actually have people who will challenge them. In COD I dont know how many times ive played with people who have presitged a time or two but thier skill doesnt match that. I dont know about anyone else, but if its too easy it takes all the fun and competitiveness away.

With games like COD, the only way to tell someones true skill is by looking through their win to loss and kill to death ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-10-2009, 02:47 PM
Hunting Wabbits's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,997
Default

I'm still waiting to see a game with handicapping. Skilled players should be able to manage with a more limited set of options. In a competitive environment it is ass backwards to give better gear or perks to stronger players since it only widens the gap in play. True competitive games would be equal equipment either with or without handicaps . Spotting weaker players a certain number of starting kills might be an effective way to handicap that kind fo match.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-10-2009, 03:50 PM
Cisco in HD's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 130
Default

Here's my .02 campaign mode aside, epic really killed GoW2 for me. There were lots of cool additions, the duels, the shield, using grenades as proximity mines, meat shield and horde. When it comes to MP they dropped the ball, then picked it up and dropped it again. Hell, when the second title update was out there was already word on a 3rd update in the works the day the 2nd update came out. Now they want to redo the ranking system! Why didn't they do that in the first place

With all this blundering I'm very skeptical about the possibilites of GoW3 happening, let alone being bought by me.

That being said... COD to me, had the best ranking system I've seen to date. Well organized, well implemented, told you your XP, when you'd rank up and what else you could do to quicken your ranking. Naturally someone with a higher rank by accum xp would do better than someone starting out because they knew what to expect, better perks, and better weapons. That's motivation enough to get good fast. not relying on a W/L record.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brothers in Arms Gets Cross-Platform Multiplayer PS3 and PC for 360 Master X Gaming Smackdown 9 08-17-2007 11:12 AM
Call of Duty 4 Multiplayer Hands-on Preview Master X Game Room 0 08-08-2007 12:29 PM
Halo 3 Multiplayer Beta Impressions- AWESOME james Gaming Smackdown 103 05-17-2007 08:38 PM
New Halo 3 multiplayer video on xbox live Master X HD DVD and Video Game Consoles 0 04-10-2007 02:07 PM
Resistance: Fall of Man Multiplayer update now available Gutter21 Blu-ray and Video Game Consoles 5 03-22-2007 02:36 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off