Community Question: Measuring Player Skill

(Dormamu) #141

[QUOTE=Exedore;402877]…
As many of the comments here have indicated, if players don’t think a rating system is solid, it diminishes the urge to excel. And screw that!
:flamethrower:[/QUOTE]
Why not dish out the general rating system and implement a new system where players will be rated by their personal skills in different challenges. Challenges like those in Brink, but more elaborate and more diverse, the player will try to be better and how much time they will spend in those challenges will actually be reflected in their game. Why not implement “challenges” who will make you learn something useful and rate your progress against others, something to make you try to best your latest results and be better, something like:

  • Strafe jumping maps like those in W:ET when you actually learned how to strafe jump;
  • Aiming maps like those of Raziel in RTCW, to help you learn how to aim;
  • Only head-shots maps/challenges to make you shoot better;
  • Target practice maps/challenges to rate your crouch, walk, running aim/speed/etc.
  • Nade shooting maps/ dynamite locations planting challenges
  • Fk hard team-play maps/challenges who will teach(rate) you what/who to help/support/kill/defend if you are a medic/engi/etc.
    You will rate the players in specific/range of skills, but those ratings will not interfere with the actual game, you will give them the means to brag about their time on a specific map/challenge, the KDR on a specific challenge, the means to improve their skills and be the best they can be :D, you will give them the real deal :D, the real KPI a FPS player wants! <== i somehow exaggerated here, so… go with the flow :smiley:

PS> Also a Kobayashi Maru challenge to teach you how to lose :smiley:

(SockDog) #142

[QUOTE=Dormamu;403046]Why not dish out the general rating system and implement a new system where players will be rated by their personal skills in different challenges. Challenges like those in Brink, but more elaborate and more diverse, the player will try to be better and how much time they will spend in those challenges will actually be reflected in their game. Why not implement “challenges” who will make you learn something useful and rate your progress against others, something to make you try to best your latest results and be better, something like:

  • Strafe jumping maps like those in W:ET when you actually learned how to strafe jump;
  • Aiming maps like those of Raziel in RTCW, to help you learn how to aim;
  • Only head-shots maps/challenges to make you shoot better;
  • Target practice maps/challenges to rate your crouch, walk, running aim/speed/etc.
  • Nade shooting maps/ dynamite locations planting challenges
  • Fk hard team-play maps/challenges who will teach(rate) you what/who to help/support/kill/defend if you are a medic/engi/etc.
    You will rate the players in specific/range of skills, but those ratings will not interfere with the actual game, you will give them the means to brag about their time on a specific map/challenge, the KDR on a specific challenge, the means to improve their skills and be the best they can be :D, you will give them the real deal :D, the real KPI a FPS player wants! <== i somehow exaggerated here, so… go with the flow :smiley:

PS> Also a Kobayashi Maru challenge to teach you how to lose :D[/QUOTE]

Love this idea. Buy in might be tough but it seems to be less a compromise and more added value. Play challenges to buff the peen and the game proper to show off the peen. I wouldn’t even object to challenge scores being used at the end of match cool down.

The fact that you could easily add this type of content (in comparison to full maps) means you could keep feeding in levels/ranks and keeping the game relevant to the pokemon crowd while also making substantial changes to the full game.

(BioSnark) #143

k/d is a meaningless rating for actual skill unless each kill and death are somehow multiplied against the other party’s k/d ratio. The same is true with all other flat ratios. They all give a binary 1 or 0 when we all know kills in a server full of lemmings and newbies have a completely different value to kills in a server full of competition vets. The same is true for all other flat ratios that count their denominations in whole numbers and do not reflect that a multiplayer game has multiple players.
Other than to reflect my disappointment with the faith in these simplistic ratios, I don’t care about the topic so… carry on :penguin:

(Cep) #144

dons flame retarding outfit

The question that has been asked is “How to measure player skill?” however I am not sure from some of the comments made by SD staff that this is actually what they meant to ask.

In order to answer the original question we firstly we need to determine what player skill is?

In an FPS a player’s individual skill should be and is typically determined by the following:
Kill/Death ratio
Shooting skill (Shots fired/Shots hit)
Damage sustained/Time survived
Type of kills (long shots/head shots/nades/melee)

In an objective FPS where classes are involved there are more actions then just shooting so what else do we look for as a skill? Well since most actions are simplistic or are guided (use of F key, placement mapping for deployable) these cannot be considered skills as anyone can accomplish them, therefore we have to dismiss much of these as outlined below:

Buffing without some sort of complexity is not a skill.

Tapping an objective is not a skill.

Since nothing added by objectives or class actions without some sort of hand/eye coordination or complex thought process can be considered skills then you cannot actually include them as an indicator of skill.

However you still want to promote objective play through class actions and objectives by showing that those players provided much needed support for their team. Since none of these actions are skill based then by definition you need to use a completely different indicator to highlight their contribution. Indeed the only thing that objective play can truly determine is the Win/Loss ratio of the team but we are interested in the player, since that was the original question.

Traditionally XP has been an indicator for objective player’s rankings, since they can see their contribution towards a game. However this is not an indication of skill, it is merely a reward indicator for their contribution to game play. Unfortunately developers tend to leave it at that by displaying an overall player ranking based on XP but this is incorrect.

This is why I believe the original question is not what SD really wanted to ask. I think the question really was “How would you reward players for playing well”.

Since it is obvious SD want to come up with some sort of ranking system then we really need to look beyond player skill and see what we can do about including objective play with player skill.

In order to correctly distinguish a “good” player in an objective FPS you will need two different measurements that brought together indicate the players ranking in a game.

For example let us say that SP or Skill Points are used as indicators of skill and XP or Experience Points are used as indicators for team play. A combination of both of these measurements will then fairly help to rank players and encourage either type (lone wolfs/team players) to work on their weaknesses if they want to reach a higher ranking.

So let’s look at a couple of typical abuse situations where this system would attempt to overcome them.

Sniper/Camping Noobs
Typically this type of player annoys team players since they are more interested in kill/death then helping their team achieve victory through objectives or support. However it would be unfair to rank them top of a game if you used a skill based attribute like K/D since they are likely to have a high kill to death ratio simply by keeping their distance from the action and scoring cheap kills.

At the same time you cannot penalise them in an XP based system because sniper support is extremely useful to a team so the better system is to marry up their high SP against their low XP and rank them accordingly. This should then mean a player who is highly skilled and completes objectives/supports their team mates will always outrank them.

XP Farmers/Whores
This type of player annoys most players since all they are interested in is raking up as much XP through cheap buffing/tapping. This can be achieved without actually helping the team for example setting up machine gun nests in ETQW/Brink where they are not needed or by supplying a friend with ammo/med packs somewhere away from the main battle lines in order to rack up XP. In an XP ranked system these players end up at the top, yet they displayed neither skill and in some cases were no help to their team either.

With a dual system their SP would be relatively low/non-existent against a moderate to high XP. The offset of a low SP to a high XP would again prevent these players from reaching the top ranks.

However this won’t necessarily prevent farming since it is used for unlocking. We can only assume that the next SD game will have unlocks but should XP be the defining factor if that is the case? Certainly not, we would want a system that unlocks based on another attribute such as the rank points generated as a combination of the two but that’s another topic entirely so let’s not digress.

So how would you score the SP/XP system?
Off the top of my head I think the easiest thing to do would be to use multipliers. Since XP is far easier to achieve in a game than SP you probably need to say that for every 10 SP awarded the multiplier is +1 to each XP or something similar (this is just a rough idea!!).

So if we consider 100 SP as very high and 1000 XP as very high:

Newbie:
5 SP + 100XP = 105 rank points
10SP + 50XP (+1 multiplier) = 110 rank points

Moderate skill lacking in team play:
50SP + 100XP (+5 multiplier) = 550 rank points

Bad skill great team play:
1SP + 1000XP = 1001 rank points

Great skill bad team play:
100SP + 0 XP = 100 rank points

Moderate skill good team play:
50SP + 800XP = 4050 rank points

Moderate team play, good skill:
80SP + 500XP = 4080 rank points

Again these are just rough numbers and are dependent on how SP/XP is dished out for each action and what penalties are suffered for deaths/losses but if you want a system to highlight the good players the bottom line is you cannot rely on XP alone and you cannot rely on a skill indicator alone, it must be a combination of the two.

If however SD really want to measure “player skill” then you must remove any notion of objective play as none of these are skill based until you introduce some sort of a complexity to performing the actions as someone mentioned in another thread, a puzzle or side game that requires skill to perform rather than hitting a single key.

(tokamak) #145

[QUOTE=Cep;403056]In an FPS a player’s individual skill should be and is typically determined by the following:
Kill/Death ratio
Shooting skill (Shots fired/Shots hit)
Damage sustained/Time survived
Type of kills (long shots/head shots/nades/melee)

In an objective FPS where classes are involved there are more actions then just shooting so what else do we look for as a skill? Well since most actions are simplistic or are guided (use of F key, placement mapping for deployable) these cannot be considered skills as anyone can accomplish them, therefore we have to dismiss much of these as outlined below:

Buffing without some sort of complexity is not a skill.

Tapping an objective is not a skill.

Since nothing added by objectives or class actions without some sort of hand/eye coordination or complex thought process can be considered skills then you cannot actually include them as an indicator of skill.[/QUOTE]

The former is a cognitive skillset and the latter is a cerebral/intuitive skillset. What you, and many others are saying is that only the cognitive skillset should be rewarded. I just vehemently disagree with only rewarding a single playstyle like that.

(Cep) #146

But you have to remember Toka you are dealing with an application at the end of the day. It cannot interpret intuition as a skill which is why skill in games is based on cognitive ability alone. If there was an application based approach to interpret intuition I would agree with you but there just isn’t one available. This is why in order to add “skill” to an objective task you need more then just the click of a button, you need to attach some sort of complexity to prove that cerebral skills have been used.

(DarkangelUK) #147

What we’re saying is that a measurement purely geared towards a cerebral/intuitive skillset that’s based on XP can be faked and the results are miss-leading. You keep saying there’s a way to tweak it so it won’t be abused yet offer no explanation how, not even a smidgen. Now we know basing it on XP is a broken method, through several iterations it’s been broken… so what’s the key here that SD are missing, that they’ve been missing the whole time and will somehow manage to implement this time that will make everything magic and wonderful, accurate and not require constant adjustments to prevent abuse yet no penalize the player for actually thinking outside the box. Seems to me SD embrace emergent gameplay, but measures will need to be put in place to limit the scope of abuse, and that goes against that policy. So broken XP system on a boring game… nice

(Exedore) #148

I’d remove this from the equation. A shift towards providing a game as a service to players rather than a one-off product negates this.

(Cep) #149

Yes but if the update/fix period on Brink was anything to go by I’d agree with DUK on this one, unless of course your taking an Agile development approach on your new game?

(Smooth) #150

It’s not :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #151

All the examples of players playing the stats happen outside of combat. The medics join up far away in some hills for their supply circlejerk, the ammo crates in front of the spawn point, and I as well have been rabidly chasing around the players in my spawn waves to buff them as fast as possible, investing your supply right away so it can recharge by the time you’re at the battle is effective is an effective way of gaining xp. It’s not really an exploit but it doesn’t exactly measure skill either.

So all you need to do to halt this is to give the xp a huge boost when they happen within a combat context. You can do this through xp-boost zones around the hotspots in a map but you can also do it by measuring combat itself.

This is something I haven’t already mentioned btw. It’s in my notes but not yet on the forum. It’s taken from mmorpgs (they however use it to dictate when you can use certain items or when your mana and hp regains, not to determine xp gains). This is all behind-the scenes stuff, a player itself won’t notice when or what happens. It’s generally best not to reveal all the details to players as that only makes it easier to find the weak spots. Anyway, the xp-distribution will use it to allocate xp more accurately:

The moment a player damages something or someone or is damaged by something or someone, that player goes ‘hot’. A player will stay ‘hot’ for a while and every combat action will keep refreshing his status. Preferably there’s a gradual drop-off if there’s no combat action going on. Interacting with ‘hot’ players will generate more xp. This means that giving them health and ammo or even reviving them while they’re hot gives a bonus, after all it’s highly probable that you’re supporting them in a time where they need it most. Giving players ammo, health or reviving them way after the combat has happened is substantially less fruitful.

Now that’s just for team-interactions. I haven’t really figured out the offensive practices as there’s more perverse incentives in the way. Say, you could award more xp for killing ‘hot’ enemies because you’re eliminating them while they’re actively engaged in a fight which is where they have more potential to wreak havoc on the team. Prioritising a player firing away at you or team-mates is often better than taking out someone who isn’t yet up to speed. The problem with this is that it also discourages stealthy activity. Players may feel compelled to let the enemy take the first shot, at them or at their team-mates so they gain more xp. For that the system would even need to be more nuanced. Maybe keep it like described above but also award xp bonuses for damaging/killing enemies who have friendly targets in their sights.

This system above stops really contrived ways of gaining xp dead in its tracks as isolating yourself from the match gives you low xp/min.

(DarkangelUK) #152

[QUOTE=tokamak;403069]All the examples of players playing the stats happen outside of combat. The medics join up far away in some hills for their supply circlejerk, the ammo crates in front of the spawn point, and I as well have been rabidly chasing around the players in my spawn waves to buff them as fast as possible, investing your supply right away so it can recharge by the time you’re at the battle is effective is an effective way of gaining xp. It’s not really an exploit but it doesn’t exactly measure skill either.

So all you need to do to halt this is to give the xp a huge boost when they happen within a combat context. You can do this through xp-boost zones around the hotspots in a map but you can also do it by measuring combat itself.[/quote]
So really you’re forcing the player down a path (if they care about XP that is) and making them play how the developer thinks they should play. Does that not completely diminish and discourage emergent play within the game? Tactics are thrown out in favour of XP. Why supply my team and rush together when I’ll get more XP for reviving them when they inevitably die closer to the objective? This ‘do as I want or you get no XP’ confined gameplay is really quite saddening and worrying for SD’s next game if this is the path they decide to take.

XP is causing people to be asses to gain more XP, so a completely convoluted and high maintenance system has to be put in place to keep it in check. This same system will also discourage emergent play and dull down the experience, open ended tactics and discovery will be pushed to the side and we’ll have the same experience over and over eventually reaching stagnant proportions (Brink comes to mind here). I am absolutely bamboozled as to why someone would want this! The more you go into the detail, the more I hate the idea of it.

The moment a player damages something or someone or is damaged by something or someone, that player goes ‘hot’. A player will stay ‘hot’ for a while and every combat action will keep refreshing his status. Preferably there’s a gradual drop-off if there’s no combat action going on. Interacting with ‘hot’ players will generate more xp. This means that giving them health and ammo or even reviving them while they’re hot gives a bonus, after all it’s highly probable that you’re supporting them in a time where they need it most. Giving players ammo, health or reviving them way after the combat has happened is substantially less fruitful.

I typed my “why gather and work as a team to organize a rush when I’ll get more XP for reviving and healing while in combat” part above before reading this part. Guess I saw a diminished experience before I even knew what you had in mind. Sorry dude but that’s a terrible idea, it reeks of “this is how we want you to play, if you don’t do it the way we want then you get no XP”. That’s going to get boring fast if everyone constantly conforms just for the XP ego stroke.

RtCW, fantastic experience, best team/class/objective based shooter I’ve ever played. Everyone played their role how they wanted and explored to find more intuitive ways to help the team and win the game. No lemming play or repetitive actions to unlock stuff or climb the scoreboard. No fear that you’ll be penalized for thinking. Having XP as a driver will never ever replicate that no matter how convoluted the system you think will work.

(INF3RN0) #153

So no one has any thoughts on removing mid-game XP and instead moving it to the end of the round? You gain say 2x the XP in all areas based on whether you won the round, which makes it a lot more sensible to try to win every round. Everyone here is all about over-complicating the problem and trying to impose restriction on players, when the real solution should be to just give more reward to the winning side regardless of how it was accomplished. Remove XP from the mid-game, give a fixed amount of XP to the win/losing sides, and instigate a separate XP rewards system for temp/aesthetic unlocks based on what a player accomplishes individually during the game. Skill of the individual should not be of that much importance, considering it’s a team effort and should be dealt with as one.

There’s no need to make players think they should be competing for displayed XP to prove that they were doing the most for their team. There is also no reason to try and judge who is being useful and who is not in the first place. If the whole team wins, the whole team should be rewarded equally. Personal awards/rewards are viable at the end of the game, but they shouldn’t be the primary accomplishment. It’s the win that’s the most important part, and the reward of winning should be the greatest incentive to be a good teammate. All this ‘measure my unrecognized/acknowledged skill’ is just bloated egocentric bs that is not going to help anyone and should not be a priority at all. Simplification is often a much more compromising solution than trying to appease every single person- especially with this mostly meaningless issue.

(Indloon) #154

So if there will be Double XP weekend event.

Everyone will be two times better than they were before event, correct? =P

(SockDog) #155

The more you focus on correcting the issues that just rewarding winning would bring the more you end up with a complicated XP/Score system. It’s a massive amount of energy to fight off ever larger branches of divinations. Ultimately you end up back with a negative return.

Have two teams play, at the end of the match have all 16 players allocate points to others on the server. Now you should be working hard to support your team mates and even if you lose at the end of the match you can still be rewarded for your efforts. Guess it can be open to exploitation but you know what else, it’ll take a few days to code into the game and more time can be spent on gameplay rather than some dumb meta game around 100 different stats.

(tokamak) #156

[QUOTE=Indloon;403082]So if there will be Double XP weekend event.

Everyone will be two times better than they were before event, correct? =P[/QUOTE]

That’s a really ugly idea.

So no one has any thoughts on removing mid-game XP and instead moving it to the end of the round? You gain say 2x the XP in all areas based on whether you won the round, which makes it a lot more sensible to try to win every round.

Yes, there should be huge modifiers in place for completing rounds and matches. In Brink and ETQW it’s too minor.

If the whole team wins, the whole team should be rewarded equally.

In a competition setting perhaps, but in public matches this size you’re more competing with your team-mates than with your opponents. You want to be the most productive member in the team, the best oiled cog in in the machine, and for that you need to distinguish players on their individual feats within the context of the match.

The more you focus on correcting the issues that just rewarding winning would bring the more you end up with a complicated XP/Score system.

Yes, I see no problem with that. I can’t be sophisticated and detailed enough. What appeals to me so much about this is that it’s being applied in a multiplayer in an action game. Unlike in an rpg where the xp is simply your level vs the mob’s level, you’re actually measuring direct actions on their merits. That’s an unique challenge.

So really you’re forcing the player down a path (if they care about XP that is) and making them play how the developer thinks they should play

The more simple the system, the more rigid and forceful it is. It takes a dynamic and advanced system to allow for all the myriad ways in which a player can be useful. A bloated detailed list full with things that need to be rewarded to what extend is forceful and rigid, what I mean to do is to have an elegant system that recognises when a player is being useful or not. It needs to be dynamic and flexible for that.

(Stroggafier) #157

Good, so the majority is finally coming around to the idea that wins are the simplest, least obstructive and most encompassing way we measure “skill”.

However, what is still missing is “handicapping” of skills. This is the idea that winning is relative to the skill of the opponent, not merely a function of the number of games won.

I’ll wait until folks start coming around to that notion before mentioning “seeding” again. :smiley:

(tokamak) #158

Here’s the scoreboard of a game of DoWII I finished 5 minutes ago (not kidding check the timestamp).
Players are lauded individually for their contribution in three individual ways: In resources delivered to team, in units build, in damage dealt to the other team and in objectives points captured. These are then weighed against each other to determine the overall worth of the player. THEN this is put against the RATING of the opponent team according to the ELO system, this happens team-wide. Special accolade for the player who has done the most overall (which happens to me in this case, I’m especially proud because of the huge rating discrepancy with the rest of my team :D)

For a shooter you have three dimensions: Class actions, Combat potency and Objective captured. As discussed before teams in ET games are too large for ELO to make any sense so instead of the rating going up or down, it can be directly translated to an XP modifier (+22 rating becomes 122% xp increase).

This is then expressed in the XP/min of a player which then can be used for leaderboards.

The only controversial part here is the weight ratio of the xp gained in team/combat/mission but I see no reason to have it 1:1:1 for now. Any convincing arguments for skewing it are welcome.

The main concern here seems to be that particular playstyles that are effective are not rewarded under this system, but if you look at the enormity in which winning a match has on your xp/min then you’ll see that this system mostly rewards winning a match over anything else. It’s what you do within the match MULTIPLIED by the outcome that determines your xp/min. This means that even if the system was prone to stat-padding a player still would have to make sure that his actions contributed to the win and not just his own xp score.

Also if SD is interested in pulling yet another permanent levelling system, then DoWII is worth looking into as well. The rewards are handled most elegantly and don’t really give an unfair advantage in any way.

(INF3RN0) #159

(Don’t be intimidated by the read- I would seriously like to hear some kind of response)

So as far as we know permanent XP is only meant to influence rank and possibly non-essential unlocks in SD games? That’s been the trend at least. Then there’s the temp campaign unlocks like in ETQW. The problems caused by XP are of course focus only on; top xp awards, medal farming, rank farming, unlock farming, leaderboard stats, etc. Then there’s the problems with distribution of XP which are judging what deserves more reward and what’s not being taken into account. The pro’s of XP is to promote non-selfish action and motivate players to use teamwork. XP could really be dumped all together considering it really only serves the purpose of adding a layer of flare non-important to the core game play and attempting to encourage synergy that should already be happening in a team game. Tooltips are a simple enough means of informing players of what actions have use.

The issue is when XP becomes the main focus of players, rather than the actual game itself. In the end the current XP system only really adds distraction from the main objective, since it attempts to rank player importance based on the assumption that some actions are better than others? Trying to enforce and reward specific actions more than others really is an awful way to go about it. Should a medic healing people be given more value than a medic who kills half of the opposing team via self-healing? You can’t put numbers on every action saying one is more helpful than another, because the dynamics of these games don’t work so repetitively. If anything the players should be left to their own devise and feel unrestricted in exploring all aspects of play style. There is no proven ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to play, and there’s plenty of cases where the seemingly unorthodox will beat the by the book role play style. This is the reason why XP should not try to enforce game play, but instead be separate. Like I said there should be two systems of XP, one for win/loss and another for individual performance.

Players can still be rewarded for their individual actions however, and there can be a way to make this XP have a more direct impact on the game itself rather than just a mini-game that causes more distractions than benefits. An example I can think of is using individual-action earned XP as a means of giving players a visual identity. If your a medic who heals a lot, the XP you earn from healing will reward you with an aesthetic gear item (chain of unlockable items) that will allow your teammates to recognize that your a strong support medic, and they can follow you/group into fireteams if they are looking for someone to always be there to back them up. A more hybrid assault/heal medic can again receive a similar treatment, but in this case their teammates will know that they might not be able to depend on them consistently. If your a player who get’s a lot of kills then again you receive an item in a chain of gear that shows players that you get a lot of kills; a support medic might see this and decide to follow you around because he knows your going to be worth the effort; the same going for a player who completes a lot of objectives. That’s the jist of the idea, and it would allow players to help inform their teammates of what their play style is via the XP they collect through their direct actions in game.

Another way to further the idea of making individual XP less of a reward for constantly performing pre-determined actions of importance is to have separate rewards for every standard action. This is meant more for the temp campaign unlocks (reduced spread, instant revives, etc). Separate trees of unlocks for each style of individual play reward the success of a player in whatever action they are preforming. A medic who is able to revive/heal a lot of their teammates will unlock the ability to revive faster or gain extra med-packs during that campaign, or other things of that nature. A hybrid-medic who self-heals can still unlock the extra-medpacks, but will obviously gain xp at a slower rate; they may however gain weapon unlocks at a faster rate than the pure support medic. A soldier might have more useful weapon unlocks than a hybrid medic however, which would encourage a player focusing on kills to play a more direct class; but the opportunity to self-support would be available if they deemed it necessary. A lemming-objective player could focus on completing all the mini-objectives in order to gain a faster objective completion unlock when they moved on to the main objectives, while an objective player who liked to clear objectives themselves might focus more on unlocks that would benefit their weapon play. A lot of this was present/available in ETQW for example, but there was a lot of cases where unlocks were earned through non-helpful action (a lot vehicle related though), where in a lot of these unlocks function perfectly fine in the infantry only setting.

Again the whole of the permanent side of the XP systems (minus the campaign unlocks to prevent imbalance) would be subjected to a multiplier based on whether or not a round was won or lost. The ability to earn individual XP would still be there for both sides regardless, but the incentive to gain permanent individual XP faster would be to actually win the game. Identifying the mistakes that lead to a loss should always be left up to the players involved, and when winning is viewed as the main goal and comes with a bigger piece of the reward pie, there’s a lot less of a reason not to “try” and do everything within your means to win. Leave it to the players to explore and experiment with the diversity of the game and their desired play-styles, instead of requiring everyone to play a certain way or pre-judging the value of their actions. I’d have to use Brink as a solid example of how much was lost when it came to the opposite approach…

(DarkangelUK) #160

Tok: It’s like you missed most of the thread ¬_¬