Community Question: Campaign Rewards and Unlocks

(BioSnark) #41

I’m able to beat players with better aim in ET:QW if I have reduced spread. I also don’t think further stratifying a skill difference between players and, by extension, between teams, is ever a good idea.

(Humate) #42

If that is consistent, then they arent that much better than you in aim.
Their skill doesnt compensate for the unlock. :slight_smile:

(DarkangelUK) #43

Regardless, a portion of the skill gap is still closed by the addition of player unlocks that aid in its closure. Would he beat the better enemy as much without the reduced spread? Probably not. Would he beat the better enemy as much if they both had the reduced spread? Probably not. By the fact that there’s an outcome variance due to these player awards in the first place means that the skill balance has been upset, regardless if that upset means it’s making the outcome come closer to a 50/50 split.

(tokamak) #44

So now there’s two arguments being used against unlocks.

  • Unlocks widen the skill-difference between players because skilled players are able to obtain more unlocks faster
  • Unlocks bridge the kill-gap between players because less skilful players are able to enjoy advantage on a particular area in which better skilled players ought to excel.

These two are mutually exclusive so please pick just one. I think neither apply because developing your character in the way that best suits you is a skill in and of itself that grows as the player comes to grips with the game and the particular way he plays it.

For instance, a player with poor-aim can either chose to avoid situations where aim is relevant so he doesn’t have to spent any resources on covering his weakness. Or he finds that for his role in the game he’s going to need some shooting so he compensates with higher accuracy. You’ll find that the player that avoids his weakness will get more resources to spent on his strength and be a more effective albeit more specialistic player.

And then we haven’t even entered in on the fact that higher accuracy on your weapon is only amplified with better aiming skills. A player with good aiming skills will benefit way more from a lower spread than a player with poor aiming skills.

All in all I think you guys are just clinging to some phony nostalgia. Developing a more inclusive system is hard but just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean it’s impossible and it certainly doesn’t mean we need to throw everything out and go back to basics.

(DarkangelUK) #45

I think you’re confused dude, my reply was directly related to BioSnarks example, but since you mention it, the flux is constant. If the better player has the unlock and the standard player doesn’t, then the skill gap is increased. If the better player doesn’t have it and the standard player does, then it’s reduced… would’ve thought that was obvious.

(tokamak) #46

It wasn’t specifically addressed at you.

(BioSnark) #47

[QUOTE=tokamak;395914]- Unlocks widen the skill-difference between players (and teams) because skilled players are able to obtain more unlocks faster

  • Unlocks bridge the kill-gap between players because less skilful players are able to enjoy advantage on a particular area in which better skilled players ought to excel.

These two are mutually exclusive so please pick just one.[/QUOTE]

These are absolutely not exclusive which is why I mentioned teams. The winning team will have more unlocks via xp distribution and opposing team player attrition/replacement. This doesn’t mean every player on the winning team is more skilled than every player on the loosing team. The skill difference can be reversed via player replacement and the winning team will still have an artificial advantage.

(tokamak) #48

So… does your issue lie with the skill difference widening or narrowing?

(BioSnark) #49

Neither. I think I already said that in ET:QW’s campaign system the upgrades usually widen skill difference. In most persistent systems they don’t scale to skill but playing time. Different upgrade system distribution may not be equally harmful but that’s all still missing the point.

I’ll be repeating what I said in previous posts in this thread, again: Upgrade systems damage the integrity of a skill based shooter by introducing an artificial handicap. There may be less harmful ways of implementing and distributing this handicap but, again, it is still harmful. In any game and as with any other feature, if the implementation or distribution of upgrades doesn’t add more than it damages then it should be removed or somehow reconfigured to be, on balance, a net benefit to the playing experience.

I do not think SD’s implementation of upgrades achieved a net positive result in the past. If they were a different developer, I might have a different vote to cast and opinion on what I think they should do.

(tokamak) #50

So… it’s narrowing?

(BioSnark) #51

As I just said, doesn’t matter if it has no correlation to skill, whatsoever.

(tokamak) #52

Then colour me confused.

(BioSnark) #53

Pretty much what I was getting from your posts, yes.

(amazinglarry) #54

Now there’s a surprise…

Although admittedly I agree, no permanent unlocks. I do have to say it was pretty fun leveling up in Brink, and it’s been interesting in MW3 (I conned a friend into gifting it to me), but I prefer the level playing field and rewards for sticking through campaigns.

(Humate) #55

I actually prefer zero unlocks, just not for pub play.
The skill spectrum is so wide on pubs that the chance of an unlock actually having any significant impact, is pretty small.

(tokamak) #56

The true value these rewards off is the implementation of long therm path-dependant choices.

You could compare it to an RTS like Starcraft. It’s perfectly possible to start the game where both players have all the technology and all units available from the start. It would still be a decent game. But what keeping these things under wraps and making players spent their resources on uncovering them does is that it creates an incredibly deep game where you truly need to weigh the decisions you’re making.

Limitation creates depth. It amplifies the gap between strengths and weaknesses and it means a player can’t just keep on making up his mind on the spot without any consequences.

(DarkangelUK) #57

I doubt that counts quite towards shooters. Reduced recoil, greater clip size, increased damage… choices generally go down the same route but the outcome is then changed due to what ever unlock the player is flaunting at the time. Those unlocks aren’t quite as decision dependant in a shooter as they are in a RTS.

(tokamak) #58

Then that’s what needs to change. The reward system needs to be more responsive. Light weapon combat is very prominent in the game and therefore exceptional efforts within this part need to be rewarded far more than the average joe. A player choosing to specialise in assault would have to forego a lot of other perks in order to excel in this.

(SockDog) #59

Sorry been away with work.

I’m calling you out on your tripe and you’re ignoring any pertinent points to focus on misinterpretation, exaggeration or just being a plain old pedant to do anything but respond.

What Sockdog does however is to suggest some magic fairy as a substitute for what’s supposed to be a masterfully fine-tuned clockwork. It’s the magic wizard or nothing and that just spoils the entire discourse.

Sorry for not banging my head again the wall over and over and over again. I make no wild claims that “my idea” is better or even workable (not that you’ve offered any discussion to suggest either way, “your way or no way”, apparently) . All I am suggesting is that the path SD has chosen of using RPGish elements, XP, short and long progression, persistent and non-persistent upgrades has always without question brought with it baggage. Something you’ve always been very quick to lay at their feet as being due to their ineptitude because in your eyes a perfect system is quite easy to achieve.

By comparison all I am saying is that maybe a step back is necessary. Maybe look at what makes the game fun in the first place, that I think would be the multiplayer FPS and the objective class gameplay. Then see if there isn’t another way to add onto it instead of just trying to band-aid over and over again.

And lets be clear here. You’re the one mentally masturbating over what you want in the next SD game then stomping and name calling around the forum to prove it. I’m simply suggesting a shift in focus given a tangible issue. If you want to avoid the drama, perhaps stop being such a smart arse and so defensive and simply discuss things openly.

(SockDog) #60

Also have to say it’s very interesting to see the difference in poll results between here and facebook. Clearly some very different demographics taking part over practically the same voting sample.