Community Question: Measuring Player Skill

(DarkangelUK) #121

Wow, it’s like you didn’t even bother to understand the post and guessed what was said there… failread.

(SockDog) #122

[QUOTE=tokamak;403005]Yeah and while they’re at it include a collectible trading card system, full kinect support and an in-game auctionhouse because all of those things have as much to do with SD games as DayZ.

What you’re doing here is dragging in stuff that’s so far out, just complete brainfarts for the lack of an actual solution. This is akin to Gingritch plan of colonising the moon in order to boost his election campaign. It doesn’t solve anything, it’s just a nice distraction that can’t seriously be discussed.[/QUOTE]

DayZ shows a game can be satisfying and have progressive, persistent value without being reliant on some patchwork of bodges and excuses just so a group of people can relate a number as skill rather than actually making judgement based on their ability to play the game well. I course don’t mean they should make a DayZ clone, just engage similar ‘out of the box’ thinking instead of wasting resources on a proven to be flawed system.

and you’re welcome.

(tokamak) #123

Just like his brilliant ‘AI reward director’ solution that will replace xp-distribution, this one is just as open to interpretation. Admit it, you have no idea what he’s specifically talking about either.

Oh wait, looks like he just confirmed it himself.

[QUOTE=SockDog;403007]I of course don’t mean they should make a DayZ clone, just engage similar ‘out of the box’ thinking instead of wasting resources on a proven to be flawed system.
[/QUOTE]

And the same can be said for the TCG, the Kinect and the auctionhouse. All out of the box thinking that perhaps brings this miraculous solution. It’s just a red herring disguising the lack of constructive input.

I care about this stuff. This discussion can go to enormous depths if you allow for the fact that a more intelligent aproach to xp-distribution can go a long way towards solving this.

(SockDog) #124

[QUOTE=tokamak;403008]Just like his brilliant ‘AI reward director’ solution that will replace xp-distribution, this one is just as open to interpretation. Admit it, you have no idea what he’s specifically talking about either.

Oh wait, looks like he just confirmed it himself.

And the same can be said for the TCG, the Kinect and the auctionhouse. All out of the box thinking that perhaps brings this miraculous solution. It’s just a red herring disguising the lack of constructive input.[/QUOTE]

And your solution? Some magical theory of everything which will never be exploited and never fail to correctly reward even the most innovative unforeseen strategies and tactics? The ultimate goal of which will be to imbalance gameplay and inflate egos. Oh dear.

You’re in no position to point to an unexplored idea or suggestion when your own “solution” has been tried multiple times, failed and you then shrink behind a pointing finger and cry, “well you didn’t try hard enough”. If it’s so easy, I’m sure SD would love to take you on board to show them how it’s done. I make no claims that my ideas are flawless, yet it seems they are never met with criticism, just all out scoffs of ignorance.

In fact it’s amusing that you belittle the use of AI to distribute and balance games when you expect nothing more than AI to work on an XP system. Major difference seems to be that you want to reward individual players in currency and epeen while I’m suggesting a softer system that works on the team and balances play.

And honestly, you’re that short on an actual real argument that you need to blatantly ignore the relevance of DayZ as far as gameplay mechanics and then tack on obviously irrelevant and exaggerated examples.

(Stroggafier) #125

In competitive games, skill is measured by seeding, a player would have an “active seed”, a historic high seed and a tier or competition level. These are relative measures of skill, rank a player against all other players.

Other point systems, measures, scores, ratios etc can be included as an aside, but player skill is ranked according to their active seed position.

How it might work:
As new members join the competition they begin at the very bottom seed until they begin to “win”. Wins result in obtaining the highest rank from the pool of seeds from the opposing side in order of seed. That is the highest seeded winning team member can take the highest opponent seed, then the next highest rank is offered the next highest opponent seed, etc. The loser dropping to a position immediately below the winner’s position as a result.

Seeding does not require any other measure, points or weighting system.

Games can be free-for-all against all comers, or within a restrictive tier structure. Seeding volatility is reduced by facing-off players with only similar seeded positions (within a reasonable margin of each other), using tier clip levels, or categories e.g. entry/bronze league, mid-tier/silver league, and top-tier/gold league, or by using a sliding range say seed+/-1% at the lowest levels to seed+/- 100% at the higher levels.etc. Matches across tiers is done by only the top, say 5%, in that tier. Dropping into lower brackets happens when a player’s relative seed is reduced below the clip level for that bracket. Tiering rigor can all be subject to say, player volumes at any point in time, so for example, as volumes rise, more rigor can be imposed, or conversely, as player volumes drop, wider tiers can be allowed.

Seeding is not a cumulative score, but rather a relative score - announcing a player’s skill relative to others. But players can still drop in position as others rise above them, or even become unseeded/“retired” if idle for too long (say several months), keeping their seeding only in historic context. Should they want to re-enter play at any time, they would be allowed to compete as if their seeding were current - that is until their next game was won/lost.

The supporting argument is that in order to win, a player must have “skill” regardless of what that “skill” might be, without trying to define and weigh any particular subset of behaviours. In team competition, it could be argued that the skill being demonstrated is the ability to choose a winning team. However, given a sufficiently high number of games, probability is very small that that particular skill could sustain a player’s raised rank for very long.

Since seeding is not an accumulated score. Hence, developers interested in having “skill” scores reflect the frequency and number of games played will not like this approach, as a high rank does not necessarily reflect voluminous or continuous play to sustain, notwithstanding long player idle periods. That is, its not the number of games a player wins that counts, its the level of the players that one wins against that counts.

(tokamak) #126

[QUOTE=SockDog;403009]I make no claims that my ideas are flawless, yet it seems they are never met with criticism, just all out scoffs of ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
Your ideas aren’t even flawless, they’re not concrete enough to have flaws. There’s just no substance to discuss here.

Whatever one can say about them, you’ll always respond that we don’t understand. I know bullcrap when I see it, that’s the one thing my study has been really useful for with teachers all up in their own arse about ‘strategic governance assesment’ , ‘personal entrepeneurship’ and ‘innovative dynamic synergy’. It’s like they pull words out of a straw hat to find their newest subject for their next research paper about political science.

(SockDog) #127

[QUOTE=tokamak;403017]Your ideas aren’t even flawless, they’re not concrete enough to have flaws. There’s just no substance to discuss here.

Whatever one can say about them, you’ll always respond that we don’t understand. I know bullcrap when I see it, that’s the one thing my study has been really useful for with teachers all up in their own arse about ‘strategic governance assesment’ , ‘personal entrepeneurship’ and ‘innovative dynamic synergy’. It’s like they pull words out of a straw hat to find their newest subject for their next research paper about political science.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like an academic version of LA LA LA CAN’T HEAR YOU.

(badman) #128

Please keep it civil, guys.

(tokamak) #129

Of course scattering items across the map to prompt players to explore the giant island and get themselves in all kinds of interesting situations is what suits a survival game. Same goes for Terraria and other sandbox stuff. Why would any of that apply to a team-based assault mode? It’s a completely different goal! Why would by the end of the match the dude who gathered the most items across should be rated the highest?

Would you really believe I’m not interested in hearing about a revolutionary new approach taken from a highly popular mod mostly done by one guy? Why would I want to shut myself to that? By all means, if there’s a whole new way to turn the tactical shooter genre on its head then please elaborate. The thing is, you don’t have an actual solution. All you propose is to adopt this ‘out of the box thinking’ to a different genre. That’s too easy. Different genres have different problems which require different solutions. You’re now pointing at a system for a completely different genre and call it profound.

(Humate) #130

Simply put, in ET and ETQW any score thats based on true influence will piss on objective players.
Therefore its not wise to have a true score.

I would keep XP as it is. Keep it as a teaching tool.
Overvalue teamplay, just dont promote the score as the be all and end all. :slight_smile:

/advice

(tokamak) #131

What do you have in mind with objective players? Lemmings?

(Humate) #132

I dont have anything in mind.
Its not the objective players fault that the game is about eliminating resistance and controlling areas.
Therefore its unfair to create a true score representing influence. ET’s charm is derived from being inclusive of all types of players and players should feel encouraged to add their 2 cents. Any true score will slap them in the face, and thats just not a good idea.

(tokamak) #133

If you make the score context sensitive, IE reward players for performing in the relevant locations then it is exactly the kind of player you described that gets rewarded.

(Humate) #134

Exactly. So if an objective player rambos it up, clears the area and then plants on the generator - a true score will only consider the actions prior to planting the objective. Thats not your typical objective player though which is my point :slight_smile: As I said ET is inclusive of all types of players, the objective itself which takes zero skill; is a classic role for them. They shouldnt be penalised via a true score.

(SockDog) #135

[QUOTE=tokamak;403022]Of course scattering items across the map to prompt players to explore the giant island and get themselves in all kinds of interesting situations is what suits a survival game. Same goes for Terraria and other sandbox stuff. Why would any of that apply to a team-based assault mode? It’s a completely different goal! Why would by the end of the match the dude who gathered the most items across should be rated the highest?

Would you really believe I’m not interested in hearing about a revolutionary new approach taken from a highly popular mod mostly done by one guy? Why would I want to shut myself to that? By all means, if there’s a whole new way to turn the tactical shooter genre on its head then please elaborate. The thing is, you don’t have an actual solution. All you propose is to adopt this ‘out of the box thinking’ to a different genre. That’s too easy. Different genres have different problems which require different solutions. You’re now pointing at a system for a completely different genre and call it profound.[/QUOTE]

You mean like aspects of RTS and RPGs games that have been shoehorned into the FPS genre because they appeal to psychological drivers and sell games but have, if anything, a negative impact on the actual game? Of course we can never look at another genre (or in this case sub-genre) and use that as a basis of approaching a problem from a different angle. What we should do is stick with a recognised and flawed system and try to fantacize away its deficiencies.

For the sake of clarity I’ll point out I was referring to both Score and XP being removed. The reference to DayZ was more so illustrative of the ability for a game to allow people to progress without a numeric scale but instead based on their interaction with the world and making that interaction valuable. For the sake of score solely, my opinion is quite simple in as, much like XP, a score is wildly open to intrepretation and exploitation which ultimately undermines it’s true value, on that subject I’d prefer to be scored by my team mates which I think brings benefits greater than stroking the epeen. If you need stats put them somewhere private and out of the game where people can’t fixate on them.

Regarding DayZ I’m not going to spell it out but here is the gist.

One, it promotes real world skills over XP earned skills. You learn the map, you learn the locations, you learn limits, you learn dangers, you learn advantages, you learn behaviours. They are actual skills and knowledge that you pick up and apply in game. As we’ve laboured over in the past, XP unlocking skills only does so by limiting actual real skills being learned by the player. DayZ would be terrible if you had to sprint 10km to unlock the prone mode to sneak past zeds.

Secondly, DayZ allows freedom to choose. People can play alone or as a group, as a sniper or with a hatchet, off the land, scavenging or robbing people. Hell if you watched Rocket’s talk at Rezzed people have even been kidnapped by gangs and forced at gunpoint to scavenge weapons and supplies in heavy zed or dangerous areas. You simply kill all that when you bolt on a rigid progression system or to some degree put emphasis on score. It also raises some interesting options on teams, the individuals within them and their loyalties. Again the point is that you build a world for people to play in rather than rules for people to conform too.

Thirdly, quite simply DayZ shows that challenging the accepted and doing something that everyone says is never going to work can be very much viable and enjoyable.

The L4D AI Director stuff I’ve explained multiple times before, including in this thread.

And yes, you may say the points I’ve made are nothing new or original. Yet they exist to illustrate that they can be successful and not only in their original environments.

(INF3RN0) #136

The reality of it all is kpm, objectives, win/loss. Kills lead to objectives being cleared, objectives completed lead to wins, and wins are wins nuff said. That’s the FPS way…

BUT before someone jumps in saying HAY MAN I THROW GUD SMOKES GIMME COOKIE or HAY I AM CHESS-SMART BUT NOT SO MUCH SHOOTY! Why shouldn’t the goal be to make everyone feel ‘skilled/rewarded’ in some manner? The issue with stats/rewards is that players feel that they have to have ‘good’ stats in some area in order to feel that they are accomplishing something, ie kdr, xp, w/l, etc. Or you have big shiny fake medals that tempt you to shoot at deploys with your pistol for 20mins. Then there’s a global leader board that ranks players based on these stats, and once that happens everyone wants to be pro playa numba 1 in something.

This is my idea on how to deal with the whole stat/skill/reward situation- novel incoming #winning.

You will never be able to force all players to be sensible, so you gotta keep the main goal straight and simple. Winning is the ultimate goal is it not? A win should become the most important focus/stat for every player. It’s way to difficult to judge who contributes the most directly to a win, but obviously it should be more rewarding than a loss; so more xp for wins and less for loss (no xp/rewards for d/cs). No xp should be earned until the end, when you win as a team or lose as one- where in it is rewarded equally in each amount. This xp would go directly towards rank or whatever bs main content unlocks there are. Global stats (if there were any) for w/l would only show your win # (losses could be on a private personal page).

For more personal rewards/stat recognition drop a big fat detailed “round bests” stat board at the very end to give a quick pat on the back to the individual. Everyone’s got their own judgement of skill so why not have one too many special mention boxes. Tabbing during a game should only reveal player names/classes/pings/etc and since you only earn xp at the end of the game and have no idea if your currently “the top fragger, etc”, then players have nothing else on their minds than to do whatever it is they do to get a win. It shouldn’t matter what people are doing either (ie playing for kills, not being the right class, not being near the objective enough, etc) as long as it results in winning the game. However you choose to play, a win is still a win. There still should be some more in-depth rewards for those who need it, but that would still have to tie into the overall goal of winning. A more extensive and permanent personal rewards system can be a plus in a lot of cases and make players feel special/motivated. I would propose a separate xp entity for personal rewards (that would not be shown until the end-game) where in you are able to earn a shiny fake medal or possibly unlock special aesthetic gear to flaunt your achievements based on your proficiency in whatever area it is that you excel in (healing, killing, objectives, etc). To prevent senseless farming, you would simply take the same approach as winning xp and give more personal reward xp to those who were on the winning side. This means that even if you lost you would still receive a reward for whatever it was you were doing right, but you would be able to unlock it much faster if you were winning games at the same time.

The whole idea here is to turn the in-game stats/rewards into a purely end-round entity, and then motivate proper personal stat achievements/rewards by modifying the amount based on whether or not you won the round. The importance of w/l might make some people think that d/cing to avoid a loss would become too common, but it would completely negate every benefit of staying for the end rewards. It’s too trivial to try and rank skills, it’s too hard to complicated to try and propose a right and wrong way to play, it’s too distracting to know everyone’s personal stats mid-game, and generic stats/rewards for personal accomplishments always become a separate goal from the game itself. There might be better ways of going about it all than what I suggested, but I definitely think that making wins become the main measure of skill and influencing the development of all other sub-facets based on wins will help to prevent intentional selfishness.

(tokamak) #137

These were concrete concepts and made ET what it was, an incredible success.

Of course we can never look at another genre (or in this case sub-genre) and use that as a basis of approaching a problem from a different angle. What we should do is stick with a recognised and flawed system and try to fantacize away its deficiencies.

Sure you can, but if you do then you need to provide how exactly this will work. And that’s something keep on refusing to do. Even in this post. You still haven’t provided why scavenging would add anything at all to an ET style game OR why that would be a good indicator of skill. And because of that DayZ is as relevant to this discussion as Dance Dance Revolution.

One, it promotes real world skills over XP earned skills. You learn the map, you learn the locations, you learn limits, you learn dangers, you learn advantages, you learn behaviours. They are actual skills and knowledge that you pick up and apply in game. As we’ve laboured over in the past, XP unlocking skills only does so by limiting actual real skills being learned by the player. DayZ would be terrible if you had to sprint 10km to unlock the prone mode to sneak past zeds.

Knowledge can be considered a skill, but skill encompasses far more than just knowledge.

Secondly, DayZ allows freedom to choose. People can play alone or as a group, as a sniper or with a hatchet, off the land, scavenging or robbing people.

That’s the point of a sandbox.

Thirdly, quite simply DayZ shows that challenging the accepted and doing something that everyone says is never going to work can be very much viable and enjoyable.

That’s exactly what RPG and RTS elements allow for in a shooter. You don’t need the scavenger style for that to work, the scavenger stuff is only fun if the goal is surviving.

(SockDog) #138

ET being an incredible success ignores the boring old point that it was free. RTCW was an equal or even better game yet died at the hands of the easily accessible (ie FREE) ET. Damn look at all the F2P trash that is out these days, people want and will play free stuff. Lets stop hopping about on how successful ET was while ignoring how ETQW and BRINK failed to gain any major traction at all. Hardly the concrete concepts you make them out to be.

Sure you can, but if you do then you need to provide how exactly this will work. And that’s something keep on refusing to do. Even in this post. You still haven’t provided why scavenging would add anything at all to an ET style game OR why that would be a good indicator of skill. And because of that DayZ is as relevant to this discussion as Dance Dance Revolution.

LOL you’re just being ridiculous and ignoring an explanation and demanding some sort of design document that you know I won’t ever produce. Use your head for a minute and read between the lines and you’ll see perfectly well what I’m talking about. You’re either being intentionally stubborn or pitifully ignorant.

Multiple times in this and other threads I’ve explained in greater detail only for you to get all smart in reply to some minor point elsewhere in the reply. And don’t make out it’s me, every argument you get into on these forums involves you ignoring quite obvious evidence being presented to you. I see no point repeating myself over and over when you clearly just don’t want to listen.

(Humate) #139

Disclaimer: I should add that everything Ive posted is predicated on the assumption that this upcoming game, is using an ET damage model and movement system. If its not, then discussing things like KPM’s and KDR’s and accuracy is kind of irrelevant.

/cough

(INF3RN0) #140

Toka is well known for game-winning smoke grenades and tactical bird calls over VOIP. Killing skill is overrated!