This will be controversial.

(Herandar) #41

Play Battlefield Bad Company 2 much?

(V1cK_dB) #42

[QUOTE=H0RSE;271657]You’re kind of missing the point…

The absence of K/D isn’t because killing isn’t important - it’s because players tend to obsess over it, or make a bigger deal out of than what it is when it is present. Having a K/D listing, especially a globally ranked one, would change the playstyle and behavior of many players in-game. They left it out to try and avoid this, and attempt to have players perform more team oriented behavior - awarding more xp for team actions just strengthens this.

Players always have a situation where they play a game and then after it is over, without even checking stats, say to themselves, “I did crappy that game.” Players do not need a K/D listing to justify or determine how well they did. Players know how well did regardless - they know if they contributed or not.

If you need numbers and charts to assess if you did well or not, then you have bigger problems.

Killing by itself really isn’t that important - it’s who you kill and when. You can have 50 kills and have them all be low value targets - players that if you hadn’t killed them, really wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the game anyway. Or you could kill them prematurely, alerting the enemy team - instead of setting up a situation where your team could have gotten 5 kills, instead they only get 1, and 4 of your teammates die.[/QUOTE]

Most of what you say makes perfect sense. I totally agree who and when you kill is very important. Maybe track that? All I’m saying is k/d ratio or spread after a round. That’s all. I’m fine with no leaderboard. It’s like killing is discouraged lol. Low xp…no k/d tracking AT ALL…not even after 1 round. Whatever. Seems a little extreme to me and I’m someone who has played SD games before. I COMPLETELY understand the team aspect of this. All I’m saying is that this will turn off many and limit this game’s potential. I WANT THIS GAME TO BE EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL!

(A.i) #43

Does it show your kills and deaths separately? If so, its as simple as kills/deaths, I don’t understand why ppl need their total k/d for all game time

(Seyu) #44

I think so does Splash Damage and Bethesda.

(V1cK_dB) #45

I’m sure they wanted Quake Wars to be extremely successful too. When I say successful I mean COD/Halo/Gears successful.

(Seyu) #46

It would have been had it not been abandoned by Activision.

(aaarrm) #47

No. And I seriously hope they add a bunch of these things, as that would make this game so much better and these things are pretty important and can make the game sooo much better. SD has the PC thing down, but they need to listen to us console-players to make changes to the console version (like PC has mods, we need private matches with options, we don’t get to customize our games!).

I mean really, SD thought about all tiny things (that are still important, just nobody thought of them), even on a psychological level (the whole K/D thing), but they forget to do the big obvious things to make the game better.:rolleyes: come on guys

(Herandar) #48

“These things” being lobbies and… …?visible ranks??

My point in my previous post was that BFBC2 doesn’t have lobbies, so you really shouldn’t say that “all shooters” have them.

I don’t see how lobbies and visible ranks are even minorly important in the overall scheme of things.

(V1cK_dB) #49

[QUOTE=Herandar;272181]“These things” being lobbies and… …?visible ranks??

My point in my previous post was that BFBC2 doesn’t have lobbies, so you really shouldn’t say that “all shooters” have them.

I don’t see how lobbies and visible ranks are even minorly important in the overall scheme of things.[/QUOTE]

Do you play PC or console? Here are some reasons why on CONSOLE it makes perfect sense.

Lobbies are good for organizing a game. Say a clan match.

As far as visible ranks go I kind of half agree. I don’t care of the rank is visible or not however since on console a server list will most likely not make it into the game then the ranking system is very important for ranked matchmaking games.

Halo is a perfect example of a good way to do it on console. In that game if you played a ranked match you played with people of similar skill level. This was because the ranking system was totally based on wins and losses as a team. You actually could level down in that game if you lost games. A terrible system is the COD system. That system just rewarded time played not actual skill since you couldn’t level down if you lost a game. This is the primary reason people play the way they do in COD (lone wolf, kill hogs, no team play, etc) IMO. Not a k/d leaderboard.

As you can see on console the ranking system matters very much for the player experience. Without a good ranking system noobs will play really good players from the beginning and most likely get owned and quit the game. At least with a good ranking system like the Halo system noobs play against noobs and level according to how good they are so generally the experience is much better. This is also better for good players because ranked is actually fun because you play other good teams not just a bunch of noobs all day. Make sense?

(A.i) #50

What if you want to play with your friend, who is new to the game (not noob in fps), for example?

(Herandar) #51

Consoles almost exclusively. (Play Civ IV on PC, but haven’t played in months.)

There are no lobbies in BFBC2. I have never had any problems playing with my friends whether we were in a Live Party or not. The only snag I encountered was joining a friend when both teams were full on a server. That mean I had to wait a few minutes until a spot opened up. I think I’ve only had to wait more than two minutes a couple of times.

I don’t think there is ranking in BFBC2. Most games I have played lately have a wide variety of levels, from single digits to level 50s. But there also isn’t the disparity in perks that separate the ‘noobs’ from the ‘ranked’. All items are unlocked relatively quickly (405,000 experience points, Level 50 is 5,400,000) and none of the weapons are significantly better than the others.

Level 70 in COD has access to a number of weapons and perks that Level 5 players can not use.

Your response didn’t really clarify what the “things” are that Ace of Spartans mentioned.

(V1cK_dB) #52

[QUOTE=Herandar;272273]Consoles almost exclusively. (Play Civ IV on PC, but haven’t played in months.)

There are no lobbies in BFBC2. I have never had any problems playing with my friends whether we were in a Live Party or not. The only snag I encountered was joining a friend when both teams were full on a server. That mean I had to wait a few minutes until a spot opened up. I think I’ve only had to wait more than two minutes a couple of times.

I don’t think there is ranking in BFBC2. But there also isn’t the disparity in perks that separate the ‘noobs’ from the ‘ranked’. All items are unlocked relatively quickly (405,000 experience points, Level 50 is 5,400,000) and none of the weapons are significantly better than the others.

Level 70 in COD has access to a number of weapons and perks that Level 5 players can not use. Most games I have played lately have a wide variety of levels, from single digits to level 50s.

Your response didn’t really clarify what the “things” are that Ace of Spartans mentioned.[/QUOTE]

What do perks have anything to do with what I was talking about? I was specifically talking about how a ranking system similar to Halo’s would be good for this game. A system based on wins and losses. What do perks have to do with that? I couldn’t care less about perks. When I say noobs against good players I mean their knowledge of the game, how good they move, their shooting ability, working as a team, etc. What do perks have to do with that?

(Weeohhweeohh) #53

I believe he was pointing out that the perks and guns later on in cod were much more powerful the the noob lvl 5 has access to. Its a two fer, he is new and he has crap guns and perks. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. I think you just wanted to tell at someone on the internet. Manners dictate that you apologise.

Ps frack this old ass phone! Time to upgrade…

(Weeohhweeohh) #54

Yell at rather

(Nail) #55

there is a handy edit button for eliminating serial posting

(Bridger) #56

[QUOTE=ACE of SPARTANS;271848]
Levels: there needs to be a VISIBLE rank as well as your level, I think. Like the OP says, this worked wonderously in Halo, you play people that are similar rank. And the reason I say there should be a visible one is: they took out the visible rank in Halo Reach and that was a HUGE buzzkill. It was great to level up and TRY to reach high levels, once they took that out, playing ranked matches wasn’t fun at all. This would be a very cool addiiton (update/patched on later, maybe?)[/QUOTE]

RANK UP! SERGEANT SERGEANT MASTER SERGEANT SHOOTER PERSON!

I’ve never understood WHY people want leveling systems. Well, that’s not true. After reading Jane McGonigal’s excellent book “Reality is Broken: Why Games Make us Better and How They Can Change the World,”, I understand that the leveling system used in games appeals to our psyche on a deep level providing us with the illusion of meaningful, satisfying work.

But I’d prefer to have everything available to me in short order after I start playing a game. Leveling systems are OK as long as I can get access to everything within the first 5-8 hours of play. This lets you slowly experiment and learn the new pieces as you find them, and that’s actually quite useful to prevent the player from being overwhelmed. However, if it takes longer than that you’re really just asking me to grind, which I’m not really a fan of at all :\

(V1cK_dB) #57

[QUOTE=Weeohhweeohh;272287]I believe he was pointing out that the perks and guns later on in cod were much more powerful the the noob lvl 5 has access to. Its a two fer, he is new and he has crap guns and perks. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. I think you just wanted to tell at someone on the internet. Manners dictate that you apologise.

Ps frack this old ass phone! Time to upgrade…[/QUOTE]

Dude…what does it matter? A really skillful player could be a level 1 and totally destroy a level 70 regardless of the guns because levels in COD don’t mean squat in terms of determining skill it just rewards time played. Rewarding team wins/objectives would be rewarding skill so people would play not to lose therefore play as a team. Only good players would have high levels. This would create exciting games between teams of equal skill. That is my point.

(A.i) #58

I agree that ranks are meaningless and are there to satisfy a persons ego and make him feel good about himsefl lol
If you are skilled it will show during a game, actions speak for themselves :slight_smile:

(V1cK_dB) #59

[QUOTE=A.i;272320]I agree that ranks are meaningless and are there to satisfy a persons ego and make him feel good about himsefl lol
If you are skilled it will show during a game, actions speak for themselves :)[/QUOTE]

Unless you play on console and the rank ensures that you play people of similar skill. In order for this to work of course the ranking system would have to make sense.

The other option is to include a server list option for console. That would fix everything!

(Herandar) #60

Yes, I’m sure that will work great since there are no servers and Brink multiplayer is hosted by a peer. :rolleyes: