Community Question: Measuring Player Skill

(tokamak) #161

Part of your essay is already addressed by my previous post. The moment you make victory a modifier to your xp rather than a flat-rate the validity of your xp-gains becomes more important. This is already in case of an inaccurate xp-distribution system and making it more accurate will only make playing the game more rewarding.

Now, the next point is about rewards rather than skill-measurement but worth discussing nonetheless (although we already had an official thread for this) For permanent unlocks and the way players branch into their rewards I’ve got two points to make:

  • Letting a player ‘train’ into certain skillsets (IE improving is accuracy by shooting often, or improving his medic potency by doing more medic stuff) is problematic. This is a way more forceful way of rewarding a player than simply a prominent distribution system. Players will set goals in what they want to reach, their efforts to reach these rewards will compromise the efforts of winning the campaign.

  • HOWEVER letting players chose specific perks in which they wish to grow is a great idea. And this is what ties in with the xp.

You need three layers:

  • The permanent layer, most relevant to this discussion. Permanent rewards come in the form of boosters. Say each booster is worth a 10% increase in the rate in which you acquire skills in a particular talent tree (offensive combat /defensive combat/ supply management /specific class abilities). Per level up a player receives a booster which he can place on any tree. Having these boosters in place will dictate the rate in which he will specialise during the campaign. So rather than receiving advantages right from the bat, he’ll still have to work for it. But unlike ‘training’ his skills he can still gain the xp from any way he likes.

  • The campaign layer: This is the familiar one in ET games. Simply the bonuses acquired throughout the campaign only this time affected by boosters planted in the permanent layer.

  • The life layer. Players need to grow in potency during the time in which they’re alive. Think hp rewards, or faster supply regen, or more offensive potency, all subtle advantages that grow at a flat rate from the moment he spawns but also boosted by his in-game efforts. What this is does is that it adds more weight to staying alive. It stops people from frivolously wasting their lives and only making the ultimate sacrifice if it matters. It prompts players to depend on their team-mates more and they’ll be more dependant on their health/ammo and buffs. Furthermore the xp system can take this into account and allow special bonuses for eliminating or reviving /supporting players that have built up a lot of power from the moment they spawned.

Don’t worry, I did indirectly refer to a few things in your post but most of it was just old wine in new bags and not really worth any further elaboration.

(DarkangelUK) #162

[QUOTE=tokamak;403097]
Don’t worry, I did indirectly refer to a few things in your post but most of it was just old wine in new bags and not really worth any further elaboration.[/QUOTE]

Weird, that’s exactly what I was thinking about your broken and game dampening XP system. So you’re all for dulling down the game, forcing the player down and route and going against emergent gameplay all the while spending way too much resource on something that shouldn’t require it? Seems you’ve never answered any of that at all.

(Humate) #163

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.

Im not a fan of XP but im not against it either.
I definitely do not perceive it to be a “key performance indicator” and I doubt there will be a score that will prompt me to feel that way. Therefore any extra XP as a result of a win is kind of meaningless to me.

That said, I think XP’s value mid-game is assuring the player they are on the right path.
Its only a major problem when the developer pushes it as the be all and end all of the game, which is what they did in Brink.

Even though KDR and KPM are actually pretty significant stats when it comes to “winning”, I dont think these need to be advertised to the player mid-game either. I’m fine for it to be displayed at the end though, even if the player only gets to see their own stats.

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.

It doesnt bother me, if they do - again XP isnt significant anyway :slight_smile:

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.

What it does do is alleviate concerns of value particularly when a team has lost the match. Oh we lost but at least I did x y and z, yay for me!!!one Conversely it lets the winning team know whether the game was carried or whether it was an even effort all around. We like to think ET and ETQW are about teamwork, but its far more about collective skill with a sprinkle of team-work.

(tokamak) #164

I did. I’ll summarise:

  • A robust list of do’s and don’ts is not what I’m after. It needs to be more flexible than that. More modifiers and less flat rewards. Therefore the system of ‘hot’ payers and ‘hot areas’ in which your xp gets boosted. Completing or defending an objective should be a modifier on top of the xp you contributed directly towards that goal.

  • An total modifier applied to your total xp at the end of the game based on the win or loss against a team based on their average rating. So even if there’s a case of perversity within the system, then statpadders that aren’t giving all to contribute to their team will see their xp/min lowered as the burden they form they present to the team will lead to more losses and thus more negative xp modifications.

  • And honestly, how cheap is the ‘wasting resources on developing it’ argument? This is just a standard argument you can use against any innovation within gaming. “Lets just not do it because we might waste our time” coming from a guy spending hours upon hours discussing this matter for free. That’ s rich.

(DarkangelUK) #165

[QUOTE=tokamak;403100]I did. I’ll summarise:

  • A robust list of do’s and don’ts is not what I’m after. It needs to be more flexible than that. More modifiers and less flat rewards. Therefore the system of ‘hot’ payers and ‘hot areas’ in which your xp gets boosted. Completing or defending an objective should be a modifier on top of the xp you contributed directly towards that goal.
    [/quote]
    It’s still restrictions, it’s still subconscious pointers to the player that they’re rewarded for sticking within the confines rather than experimenting. You set rewards and penalties, you pave a path you want them to go down whether you like it or not. There’s no denying that, and if you do then your head’s in the clouds. In fact if you’re completely writing that off as non-existant, then everything you’ve said holds absolutely no substance. If you honestly believe that XP has absolutely no impact on how someone chooses to play the game then you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You’re removing the players freedom of choice with XP carrots then blaming it on the player for wanting to play how they want to even more than Brink did… where is Brink now?
  • An total modifier applied to your total xp at the end of the game based on the win or loss against a team based on their average rating. So even if there’s a case of perversity within the system, then statpadders that aren’t giving all to contribute to their team will see their xp/min lowered as the burden they form they present to the team will lead to more losses and thus more negative xp modifications.

See above, whip crack away. You’re having to derive a method of combating perversion that has spawned from the very system you created. Create a broken system, encourage abuse, further complicate system to deal with abusers and affect the experience in the process. We’re back to a terrible idea.

  • And honestly, how cheap is the ‘wasting resources on developing it’ argument? This is just a standard argument you can use against any innovation within gaming. “Lets just not do it because we might waste our time” coming from a guy spending hours upon hours discussing this matter for free. That’ s rich.

It’s as cheap as the life span of the game. Brink has been ditched and left with a broken system. You say Brink was on it’s way there yet was the worst received SD game (by the PC community any way) by far. The only way it won’t require constant tweaking is if you turn it into a boring game then everyone stops playing, you leave it open and the XP system gets abused… inherent flaw.

Really, hours? Are you playing the drama queen card now? And lol @ innovation within gaming, is that what you honestly think this is? You’re so blinded by the system that you can’t see you would be driving it towards the dullest gaming experience in existence. Had you played the other games, and the popular games that thrived and still thrive today without XP, then you’d see. “Lets just not do it because we might waste our time” heh, you think 3 games and 7 years is just not doing it? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. But well that’s incorrect, the results have been getting worse… and you want to drive new lows.

Brink got boring fast, really really fast. Measures put in place by SD that said “this is how we think you should play!” was its undoing.

(SockDog) #166

Yet you have no problem using the exact same argument when it’s related to including/developing more popular and alternative game modes. Seems you’re lacking any semblance of objectivity here. It’s fine to throw not only more and more resources at something clearly shown to have problems but also potentially sink the genre even deeper into a mire of distractions. Yet you feel it’s ridiculous to do likewise on something nearly every other successful FPS multiplayer game has done, EVER.

(Humate) #167

I’m curious, you say players shouldn’t feel restricted to play a certain way. Is there a condition that it needs to be within the context of the match? Lets say theres a group of players that like to drive around an Armadillo and run Strogg over the entire game would that piss you off? Or what about a player that spends the entire game trying to stroybomb everyone? Maybe someone that plants HE charges in hallways? Blaster only kills? Knife stab only? Husky+3rdeye kills only? DMC’s on prone snipers in the hills? Defib kill only? Supply crate kills on AFKs? Mid air oblits? Mid air rails? Mid air sniper shots out of Anansis?

EDIT: what about stroybombing anansis?

(SockDog) #168

This is why I say if you’re going to have an XP system it should be applied across the whole team based on far simpler criteria (Team A’s performance vs Team B’s performance). This granular approach with ever more complicated rules just creates more and more situations where actions are, at best, not rewarded equally to others and, at worst, they’re positively discouraged. You might not want someone goofing off the entire match but that goofing off could be something that breaks a solid defence.

If on top of Team XP (of some description) you also then add a peer scoring system so you can penalise or reward players you feel stood out for you during the game. This has two benefits and I’m sure some flaws but lets me positive for a second. Firstly, by allowing your team mates or even the entire server allocate you a score you allow a very refined and maybe even at times narrow perspective to be drawing judgement against. No more does there need to be complicated or drawn out rules in order to score, instead you need to insure that your actions in game have an actual impact on your team mates. So secondly, it means the players on the server become socially responsible to for each other, no longer are you and everyone else individually working some XP system, you’re being encouraged to work together as a team.

I know these are high and farty concepts, some would even require I produce a thesis on them before any serious consideration could happen, I certainly know there would be areas and flaws within that might discount their use totally. Yet, at their core, the aim is to shift the focus from the individual and place it back on the team, it’s not reliant on a defined state in order to reward or even complicated rules.

(DarkangelUK) #169

[QUOTE=Humate;403106]I’m curious, you say players shouldn’t feel restricted to play a certain way. Is there a condition that it needs to be within the context of the match? Lets say theres a group of players that like to drive around an Armadillo and run Strogg over the entire game would that piss you off? Or what about a player that spends the entire game trying to stroybomb everyone? Maybe someone that plants HE charges in hallways? Blaster only kills? Knife stab only? Husky+3rdeye kills only? DMC’s on prone snipers in the hills? Defib kill only? Supply crate kills on AFKs? Mid air oblits? Mid air rails? Mid air sniper shots out of Anansis?

EDIT: what about stroybombing anansis?[/QUOTE]

If people are going to be asshats then they’re going to be asshats, no amount of ridiculous XP bribing is going to stop that. I think what Inferno means is that those that would want to think outside the box and handle a situation different will think again if it means they’ll lose a lot of potential XP doing so. This idea sounds like DRM, it’s put in place to stop those that abuse the system, but ultimately it’s the genuine users that are going to suffer because of it.

(tokamak) #170

It’s just that you haven’t suggested anything yet. What you’ve suggested are ways of thinking, philosophies and attitudes towards alternatives, you haven’t actually forwarded any substantial alternatives for a measure of skill.

Now, what you DID come up with, some scavenger type of elements in the game, CAN work. I like the idea in DayZ and perhaps an ET game can benefit from having those elements. What I like about it is that, because there’s a scarcity of stuff to be found across a map, what you find improves your chances at survival yet at the same time increases the cost of dying (especially when the opponents gets their paws on your loot).

It’s lovely stuff but it’s not an substitute for skill-measurement.

I don’t see why it can’t be both. If the team’s performance turns into a rather huge modifier for your personal xp/min that game then no one will feel compelled to free-ride, statpad or loaf around. Doing your part matters as much as winning for the entire team.

(tokamak) #171

And I’m not denying that. There’s one very strong and very simple restriction applied to these xp-boosts: It needs to be relevant and contribute towards the objective. If it doesn’t contribute then you’re not getting the bonuses. Simple as.

See above, whip crack away. You’re having to derive a method of combating perversion that has spawned from the very system you created. Create a broken system, encourage abuse, further complicate system to deal with abusers and affect the experience in the process. We’re back to a terrible idea.

My argument was that even with perverse incentives existent in the gameplay (like supplycrate circlejerking) the modifiers gained from completing rounds and matches will be enough to discourage that.

Statpadding is a result of flat rewards. Even just applying time to xp goes a long way of discouraging xp whoring because the most effective means of gaining xp is to go out there and be useful. However! EVEN in the case that a player has found a means of gathering xp that is more efficient than being useful, the xp modifier will make it completely uneffective. If you found a way to generate xp/min that doesn’t contribute to the team, then you’re being a burden and you will suffer the modifer at the end for losing along with your team. In the end, the best ways boosting your xp/min is winning.

It’s as cheap as the life span of the game. Brink has been ditched and left with a broken system. You say Brink was on it’s way there yet was the worst received SD game (by the PC community any way) by far. The only way it won’t require constant tweaking is if you turn it into a boring game then everyone stops playing, you leave it open and the XP system gets abused… inherent flaw.

I already explained this. Brink went forward in the fidelity of the xp system but completely misplaced the weights for individual actions because they wanted to encourage certain behaviour. They succeeded at that goal but it stopped xp from being a useful indicator of skill and constantly seeing that medic spammer lauded for the best player at the end of the match was frustrating.
Brink also didn’t have any major statpad flaws. The xp-system got abused by doing things that are still useful to the team, but not as useful as a player really could have been.

Still there were improvements towards the fidelty and I think that can be expanded on even further.

Really, hours? Are you playing the drama queen card now?

Days, weeks. I don’t know what the total time spent on this forum is. For each of us that is.

Brink got boring fast, really really fast. Measures put in place by SD that said “this is how we think you should play!” was its undoing.

Agreed. It was part of the problem. What I propose however, is far more flexible than what Brink did.

(Humate) #172

Yes I was just being an asshat :slight_smile:

But what I also wanted to point out is theres asshatery on both sides of the equation.
And in my experience, its stronger on the side of players that arent concerned with the xp-minigame.
If you think of XP as a bone for a dog to chew on, its better they are chewing the bone than something else in your house.If players dont care about XP and they dont care about winning, how do you get them to play within the construct of a proper match?

What other bone can be offered that isnt predicated on the golden answer of unlocks? The idealistic answer has always been, the gameplay should be enough right? But back to my original point, there are plenty of asshats that JUST enjoy the gameplay that ruin the game for those that do want to win.

How about we give them medals? Avatars like in SC2? Barbie and Ken customisation?

In all seriousness its not an issue I have, I’m quite happy for players to play the game the way they want to. :slight_smile:

(Traxxy) #173

Even tho I don’t really think any of the poll options can be used to tell a persons skill level…as there was no “None” option, I chose battlesense as my experience with this from ET was that the better players tended to score high in this area irrespective of weither they could shoot well or not.

It basically meant they could survive in combat pretty well, and the longer you can stay alive the more hurt you can put down even if you dont get kills.

That said, I liked all the end of match “awards” but took them all with a grain of salt as they only tell so much about that persons performance in that 1 match.

I would be fine with no xp no nothing, or just end of match stats and awards as imo people get to know who is good and who is not by playing so you really don’t need it.

(tokamak) #174

Careful with that. It’s the portraits that cause the all kind of weird shenanigans of people farming matches at the bottom of the ladder.

It’s the flat rewards that ruin everything. People can’t fool around with the ladder because it’s a dynamic rating system. The portraits are based on flat wins and that’s where the exploiting happens.

(Humate) #175

Careful with that. It’s the portraits that cause the all kind of weird shenanigans of people farming matches at the bottom of the ladder.

And there would be nothing wrong with that, if they didnt segment their playerbase into skill groups.
Its not the pub/ladder bashing thats the issue in sc2, its that the system is a little bit pregnant. :wink:

(tokamak) #176

A bunch of bottomfeeders were not the issue, it was the inflation of the portrait value that was the issue. They were supposed to be indicators for milestones reached through a lot of effort rather than just vacuous farming.

(Humate) #177

If the intention of the portraits was to illustrate player skill vs players of the same skill then yes its a failed system.
But thats not what I was suggesting with this upcoming game SD has planned :wink:
More along the lines of how ranks worked in etqw, a meaningless bone for players to chew on thats aligned with the greater cause of the team.

edit:
although the barbie and ken thing was sarcasm /cough

double edit:

stats2.jpg705×463 52.3 KB


So instead of attaching XP to each medal, attach wins or completed objectives.

(DarkangelUK) #178

[QUOTE=Humate;403127]Yes I was just being an asshat :slight_smile:

But what I also wanted to point out is theres asshatery on both sides of the equation.
And in my experience, its stronger on the side of players that arent concerned with the xp-minigame.
If you think of XP as a bone for a dog to chew on, its better they are chewing the bone than something else in your house.If players dont care about XP and they dont care about winning, how do you get them to play within the construct of a proper match?

What other bone can be offered that isnt predicated on the golden answer of unlocks? The idealistic answer has always been, the gameplay should be enough right? But back to my original point, there are plenty of asshats that JUST enjoy the gameplay that ruin the game for those that do want to win.

How about we give them medals? Avatars like in SC2? Barbie and Ken customisation?

In all seriousness its not an issue I have, I’m quite happy for players to play the game the way they want to. :)[/QUOTE]

Do you get that often? In what games? I play a few games that have no XP and don’t see near as much nonsense as I did with those concerned with getting as much XP as they can or stopping others from getting any. I always saw more asshattery play in the XP driven games for selfish reasons or for the sake of ruining it for others. Yes you get the them anywhere, but as I said, if they’re gonna be an ass then they’ll be an ass… XP or not.

(Humate) #179

Happened all the time in etqw, and happens a fair bit in BF3 - although they have more pub heroes in BF3 and more players per team to compensate.

With me personally, I used the beta to learn the game, once retail came out I played pubs seriously until there was a competitive ladder and a proper ruleset was formed. After that, I used pub games to play my own mini-games, and used the competitive ladder to play seriously.
Except the mini-games I chose to play in, were in alignment with the team winning. For example I would try and beat personal best kill counts per weapon. And quite often that meant whichever team I played against couldnt move out of spawn.

But there were many many other players that tried wack stuff that had absolutely nothing in common with the main objective. Conversely the XP whores that existed in the games I was apart of, were playing the objective. The only players i remember using xp exploits, were 400 pingers from russia.

(DarkangelUK) #180

Ah right sorry I thought you meant games that had no XP at all.