Community Question: Measuring Player Skill

(SockDog) #341

[QUOTE=Humate;403831]SD already kind of does that with their dynamic spawn times.
The longer it takes to complete an objective the quicker the spawn.[/quote]

I don’t think this goes nearly far enough to balance matches.

Exactly, and it should be open to interpretation.

Such interpretation is a double edged sword often resulting in full frontal lobotomies.

Skill ranked games = fun but challenging :slight_smile:

Skills ranked by a formula set by the developer? Skills that can be manipulated? Ranking reliant on a large pool of players to be effective?

I dont think its wise for the dev to ignore them completely.

Only as a matter of commercial appeal. Not seeing your K/D or XP shouldn’t affect your ability to enjoy a multiplayer class based objective FPS now should it? :slight_smile:

I have no qualms with players getting aroused over -xp/score/stats/medals/etc
Provided that the game itself is brilliant, I see no reason why these people shouldn’t be able to herp derp. :slight_smile:

And if the game’s brilliance is impacted by either the players herp derping (maybe even not to a degree to warrant a kick but still frustrating) or it being designed around the need to encourage that derp ti werp (playing barbie). Which of course brings us full circle to building a game around XP to facilitate this and then spending hundreds of hours trying to make the XP system work enough that it doesn’t ruin the underlying game.

(Humate) #342

I don’t think this goes nearly far enough to balance matches.

Yes the skill differential often is too large for the reduced spawn time to compensate.
A strong handicap, is a great idea in theory but it would essentially urinate on the sense of a legit victory.
Not only from the perspective of the stronger team but for the weaker team as well.

Skills ranked by a formula set by the developer? Skills that can be manipulated? Ranking reliant on a large pool of players to be effective?

Well assuming you want to play an even fair game, thats what it will come down to.

Only as a matter of commercial appeal. Not seeing your K/D or XP shouldn’t affect your ability to enjoy a multiplayer class based objective FPS now should it?

Again provided the game is awesome, not at all. :slight_smile:
But in a competitive game, i would say its good idea to have them.

And if the game’s brilliance is impacted by either the players herp derping

Then the game isnt brilliant enough to overshadow that fact. :slight_smile:
For me ETQW’s brilliance did overshadow the negative aspects associated with -medals/xp/stats.
Kudos Paul Wedgwood Kudos!

(SockDog) #343

[QUOTE=Humate;403836]Yes the skill differential often is too large for the reduced spawn time to compensate.
A strong handicap, is a great idea in theory but it would essentially urinate on the sense of a legit victory.
Not only from the perspective of the stronger team but for the weaker team as well.

I can see that perspective but I can also see many games that are empty victories, frustrating chores and all out abandoned messes because of the existing system. Such a system could even be optional and scalable. I’m of course coming at this from an obtuse angle, that being L4D Campaign but the principle is that you maintain challenge through constant minor adjustments.

[quote]Well assuming you want to play an even fair game, thats what it will come down to.

Not if you based a fair game on the effectiveness of the two active teams rather than via a flawed set of formulas applied across stats over some unknown time period. The former is simplistic and adaptive, the latter complicated and rigid.

Again provided the game is awesome, not at all. :slight_smile:
But in a competitive game, i would say its good idea to have them.

So there is the problem, hiding behind these other distractions instead of building an awesome game.

And yes, if we take competitive gaming in the same light as sports that stats are important. My concern is just the corruption they present, in a competitive environment I don’t think anyone would care (or be allowed to play as part of a team) if they were stat chasing.

Then the game isnt brilliant enough to overshadow that fact. :slight_smile:
For me ETQW’s brilliance did overshadow the negative aspects associated with -medals/xp/stats.
Kudos Paul Wedgwood Kudos!

Agreed ETQW wasn’t overly affected but it was still there, we all saw it happen. It shouldn’t be tollerated if there is an opportunity to perhaps do things differently. Thing was when you look at Brink you see where things like XP and character building without doubt undermined core game mechanics like class switching.

(edxot) #344

in order to build a rank i have suggestion.
you must build neural network and train it. but not with bots. train it with results taken from observation of real games, played by real people (by watching players victories/defeats and actions).

that is the only way you will be able to find out what is really important in every map / situation (objective), for attacking, and for defending.

maybe this way, certain actions that usually are not scored (magic smokes, mine destruction, “fitting” in the team, reconessance and comunication, etc… whatever needed to win) will have the right weight in the evaluation of the player skill.

just remember, winning is the top gold (not frags or xp). otherwise this game turns into a stupid sniper or vehicle/rocket war.

(Humate) #345

I can see that perspective but I can also see many games that are empty victories, frustrating chores and all out abandoned messes because of the existing system.

Yeh usually players that are conscious of empty victories; will either take their foot off the pedal, switch teams or call for a shuffle.
In my experience the pedal method is the best as the intention is concealed from the opposing team. If the weaker team end up winning as a result, their win isn’t tainted, and they can enjoy it as if they earnt it. The thing I like about that approach the most, is often their wins give them a big head, and they start talking a bit of trash in chat, and that removes any sense of the need to be fair, on the following map. :wink:

And yes, if we take competitive gaming in the same light as sports that stats are important. My concern is just the corruption they present, in a competitive environment I don’t think anyone would care (or be allowed to play as part of a team) if they were stat chasing.

I do understand that if there are stats, that players collectively might lose focus of the developer’s intention. I also understand that in the event that players dont perform well, any major focus as a collective might create an uneasy feeling about the game. All of these things are valid.

(SockDog) #346

[QUOTE=Humate;403963]Yeh usually players that are conscious of empty victories; will either take their foot off the pedal, switch teams or call for a shuffle.
In my experience the pedal method is the best as the intention is concealed from the opposing team. If the weaker team end up winning as a result, their win isn’t tainted, and they can enjoy it as if they earnt it. The thing I like about that approach the most, is often their wins give them a big head, and they start talking a bit of trash in chat, and that removes any sense of the need to be fair, on the following map. :wink:[/quote]

Valid points I can’t disagree with, this certainly happens. However it’s equally true that there are plenty of times where a team either through being unaware, knowingly ignorant or just plain maliciously meditated will stack a team to get an easy win, over and over until they pretty much manage to join the server.

In my Q3 days it was quite simple, if you got 1st without breaking a sweat YOU left the server. I just don’t think a lot of people do this. Hell, I’ll be honest and say that at times, being the guy who happily swaps teams for balance or numbers can become a chore and annoying when you know that it’s going to very rarely result in more than a short term fix.

So yes, I understand some sort of autobalancing might take away from a victory but the question that needs to be asked is whether that 1 in… 20?50? crazy victories is worth more than the 19?49? demoralising, frustrating and negative loses that were beyond your control.

Hell, I’d rather have a proper team balancing option but even if you could pull evenly skilled players into two teams that would still contradict people wanting to play together. IMO it seems better to allow people to play however they please but balance the game around their skill/accomplishments.

(TheG4mer) #347

What do you think is the most important stat for player skill?

I think a skill-o-meter would do the best.

(Humate) #348

Also players of various skill levels come and go throughout the course of a match, and completely mess with whatever balancing the game has done.

(SockDog) #349

Well if the game is constantly compensating it also solves that problem or at least offers a more dynamic solution. Balancing would need to work in both direction and not be permanent. You couldn’t, for example, give a losing team high powered weapons because they were doing poorly without also having the ability to remove them when things balanced out, of course you could do something like having a magnetic storm occur which would boost one side’s weapons (or weaken them) and then simply dissipate the storm when necessary.

Does still leave the “feeling cheated” problem but I do wonder if a more consistent and fun pub game experience would be preferable to the very random one we currently have in games.

(Humate) #350

OK, lets say I wanted to screw around with this system for fun sake. :slight_smile:
I join the server, my team is really terrible and they have been given a small handicap.
I do nothing to help the team and I continue doing nothing, until the game buffs me to the desired level.
After 15minutes stuck on 1st objective, I go ape**** on the enemy.

Would it remove those buffs even while our team are still sitting on the 1st objective 15minutes in?
Would it take it away from me, because Im the only one that went ape**** on my team or the entire team? If its the latter, wouldn’t it be fun to deliberately dominate so they lose all their perks, and then do nothing?

edit: btw im not taking the piss, just exploring the idea with you

(montheponies) #351

Not read the entire 15 pages to be honest- but generally i’d say there are a number of things that make up a skillful player - few of which can be reasonably and/or reliably measured;

Aim (measures: hs% , dmg/min)
Movement
Situational awareness
Tactical/Strategic ie. knowledge of map, objectives etc

I’m personally against stat publication - I enjoy the stats for a single game as much as the next whore but the online capture of every single stat reminds me of an old adage (paraphrased); you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The idea that we should try to measure skill for game balancing or to make it fair seems backwards. Build the game, make the rules and provided it has the capability to provide a high skill ceiling (without abuse) you’ll get a rewarding game. Not as if the rules for football or chess change based upon completed passes or number of moves to win…

You’ll never entirely balance a game - unless you hobble a good player/team or artificially boost a poor team/player…neither of which is satisfactory.

(SockDog) #352

[QUOTE=Humate;404003]OK, lets say I wanted to screw around with this system for fun sake. :slight_smile:
I join the server, my team is really terrible and they have been given a small handicap.
I do nothing to help the team and I continue doing nothing, until the game buffs me to the desired level.
After 15minutes stuck on 1st objective, I go ape**** on the enemy.

How does the game know when to take away those buffs, when we are still on the 1st objective 15minutes in?
Would it take it away from me, because Im the only one that went ape**** on my team? Or does the game take it away from the entire team? And if it does take it away from the entire team, wouldnt it be fun to deliberately dominate so they lose all their perks, and then do nothing?

edit: btw im not taking the piss, just exploring the idea with you[/QUOTE]

Hey I appreciate someone picking the idea apart rather than snobbishly dismissing it. :slight_smile:

If I’m missing the point please let me know but if you dominating the other team is enough to break any advantage that they may have then you’ve effectively balanced the teams and the system should scale back your teams buffs to provide more of a challenge.

I don’t think it should be based on an individual, otherwise we end up back where we were with XP and scoring and individuals manipulating the system. The point with this is that a it grades the team so even if it is comprised of 7 noobs and 1 pro the pro could indeed carry the team but the pro wouldn’t end up over powered.

I suppose there is a valid argument there that a team of people not playing seriously could still present a challenge to a the other team solely due to buffs they’d receive. I’d be a bit arrogant to say that would simply be a matter of balancing the buffs. Certainly still worth exploring IMO and I do wonder if ultimately getting a good, challenging game (even if it’s due more the the system tweaking the opposing team than the team themselves) surpasses this self granted delusions of fairness, because lets face it, many pub games are far less fair than they are whether you happen to be on a better composed team.

(INF3RN0) #353

I think the discussions in this thread should be less about distributing rewards and more about how to instigate more balanced player environments at this point. Incentives not to stack teams or join the winning team without killing the aim game or catering to the incompetent. XP isn’t exactly the best means of measuring that thus far to be blunt. In the end I could care less about any of it, simply because the satisfaction of just playing the game is enough for me, but I still do find it hard to believe this is even a hot topic. Most games don’t reward you for anything but kills/assists, but when you jump from a TDM to an SnD people are aware of the goal coinciding with making the kills count. Unbalanced games, good players, bad players, etc- it’s all just things we have to deal with and I have never really found it to be an issue that needed attention; in fact it was usually the means of implementing “solutions” to the said problem that resulted in much worse things. The main goal in every persons mind should really be to improve their personal game and of course try to win; the means of which are left to the players to figure out. Just in the whole of things I am starting to think that this is just another issue being blown out of proportion on the forum per usual and it all turns out awful in the end.

(Humate) #354

If I’m missing the point please let me know but if you dominating the other team is enough to break any advantage that they may have then you’ve effectively balanced the teams and the system should scale back your teams buffs to provide more of a challenge.

Basically I’m trying to figure out what breaking the advantage is in this system.
And how the game would figure this out.
Is it based on progress% vs game-time? <-- this seems like the logical one
Is it based on statistical data, like kill counts and k/d <-- hmm, maybe not
Is it based on team xp? <-- not your cup of tea

Assuming the system is using the progress% method, a team stuck on 1st obj 15 minutes in, wouldnt lose any of their team buffs, because its extremely difficult to win from that position. They would need to be 15 minutes in on the last objective to be even with the defending team. :slight_smile:

Maybe the solution is to take the TripleAAA approach and lower the skill ceiling, instead.
Or maybe its better to just have a hidden skill rating system, thats used when players call for a vote.

:slight_smile:

(SockDog) #355

I think progress is the logical choice. In Brink the opposite approach seems to have been taken with simply ending a game before everyone got pissed off. I’d suggest you aid those people who are pissed off so they can get back into the game.

Buffs wouldn’t necessarily need to be dramatic or permanent, they could also be location focused. You could for example have a team which is being spawn camped have a armour boost similar to Q3 which ticks down, this may give them enough to break through but not enough to overpower the team and win the objective. If we got exceedingly funky you could have weather elements play a role with fog or heavy rain providing additional cover for an attacking team. Maybe a defensive team being steam rolled would be aided by a flood blocking a direct path of attack.

I think the key would be never to directly attack a player, just hinder or increase/decrease their combat effectiveness.

Again, I’m talking purely a means to balance out random pub games here. Semi-serious pickup games and compeititive games would likely fair better with some other system for progress. Ultimately I’d just like to join a server and play without needing to swap team, be daddy or quit multiple times just to find a quick but fair game.

(INF3RN0) #356

I always thought dynamic spawn timers, mg nests, and anti-spawn camping biased map design were all that were needed. There’s no need to offer any other kind of advantage considering there’s no valid reason to do so. Stopwatch is the best means of revealing other factors that can lead to one-sided games though such as map design, but honestly if I was being completely outmatched I would rather just be forced to deal with it and hope for a better game after. Not everyone can be winners and that is fine by me. The only fair games I ever experienced were in promod pugs where there was an even distribution of good players that understood the game mechanics, could aim, and used the comms. There were the seldom pub games that were great, but all we can do is just let those things happen on their own.

(badman) #357

Just wanted to stop by and say that this thread has been great thus far - big thanks to everyone for your insights!

Carry on…

(SockDog) #358

Have you ever seen them do much to swing favour to an outclassed team? Seems they’re often more empty gestures than preventers. It also bears repeating that I’m talking about team balancers not map balancers. If there is an issue with map balance then the Devs should fix it and not rely on something like this to compensate for bad design.

The valid reason to do so is to maintain a challenge for both sides. If you drop any delusion that a pub game is a competitive game then ultimately you have two teams who want to be entertained, challenged and play a good game, dare say they want some fun. Where pub games fail most is that there are many elements to balance the actual teams that are playing, leaving many poor experiences in mind before gaining one good one.

As for sticking with it like a man, pugs, fair teams etc. This doesn’t solve the problem, it’s expecting a vast majority of players to interact with the game on a level that will never happen. I wouldn’t for a second demand the removal of two balanced or specific team facing off against each other, that’s totally awesome on a different level. I’m just saying that on a random pub match more could be done to give a consistent experience rather than focus (or hide) behind a delusion that it has to be this way because gaming is tough and for real mens, despite the tough real mean having preselected teams, regular servers or pug games that remove the majority of the issues.

Anyway. To not get drawn so far off topic I’ll repeat myself, something which isn’t far off your W/L is the most important thing. Judge a player by his team’s performance not the performance of players as a judgement of how well the team performs. If you need individual recognition do it in a way that doesn’t encourage people to be individuals but instead pick, at random, fun or amazing achievements during a game to display to the server (or use on the website).

(Dormamu) #359

[QUOTE=SockDog;404057]… If we got exceedingly funky you could have weather elements play a role with fog or heavy rain providing additional cover for an attacking team. Maybe a defensive team being steam rolled would be aided by a flood blocking a direct path of attack.
…[/QUOTE]

i can dig it! Something like the Baserace, give a strong base for the weakest team :smiley:
@Badman - We only need a beta to put those ideas to the test :smiley:
SD, don’t put all your resources in gratifying the player so you can fk the gameplay.
Do not forget:“The most gratifying award any player can receive is the joy that comes from skill development that contributes to team success”. not player success … so…make me happy and change the title to: “Community Question: Measuring Team Skill” :smiley:

(Humate) #360

The valid reason to do so is to maintain a challenge for both sides.

You take the good with the bad, when you know what the alternative solutions are in trying to maintain that.