[QUOTE=SockDog;238401] Now tell me where a game’s longevity is defined more by it’s scoreboard than the actual enjoyment of playing the game?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think anyone expects the XP system to be the main point of the game. People will play it for fun, close matches and awesome variety, and hopefully keep playing it so long as those elements are present. Sure the XP is being used to reward team based play, that just helps make the games funner and matches closer.
That it also helps new players get to the action and participate as a team may even be the main point. Once you know what to do to help your team win, most players will do that, and they will feel more engaged and less likely to give up after a few hours of not being able to figure things out.
So the XP system helps lower the learning curve which in turn helps with player retainage (so long as the game is ultimately fun to play for it’s own sake).
The developer sets the goals within the game. An experience system rewards players for working together to achieve those goals. It doesn’t penalize people for failing to do so and there’s also a level cap.
It seems to me you are also guilty of defining what is right and wrong in defining eating the icecream for the cocaine as wrong and eating the icecream for the sugar as right. Both motivations are “right” to different people and ideally both lead people to eat the icecream. Nobody is thrown in jail for eating the icecream for the wrong reason and at some point people also stop feeling the effects of the cocaine. If, at this point, they stop eating the icecream that’s fine because they enjoyed it while the effects of the cocaine lasted and maybe they’ll also enjoy the effects of the sugar.
I don’t like upgrades in pvp mp games but that’s what SD does.
Really? I entered this thread at the point where the concern was XP losing it’s appeal once the max level had been reached. Which to me would be the time when the hand holding benefits of XP were really finished. Yet players would seem to still want value in XP in order to keep playing. To me, sadly, that sounds like very much their main point of the game.
Ideally yes but you and I know this isn’t the case. Deviate from the developers model and you are penalised (as in not earning XP), stick to the developers model and you are rewarded even if it means you do not benefit the team. I guess, drawing on ETQW, would be where you blow an alternate route on the map and get XP rather than shooting down a flyer on the way to defend the objective.
I’m just saying, at the simplest level (1kill = 1point) XP fails, killing isn’t everything in such games. But for every level of detail you add, there is further opportunity for the XP system to fail too.
It seems to me you are also guilty of defining what is right and wrong in defining eating the icecream for the cocaine as wrong and eating the icecream for the sugar as right. Both motivations are “right” to different people and ideally both lead people to eat the icecream. Nobody is thrown in jail for eating the icecream for the wrong reason and at some point people also stop feeling the effects of the cocaine. If, at this point, they stop eating the icecream that’s fine because they enjoyed it while the effects of the cocaine lasted and maybe they’ll also enjoy the effects of the sugar.
But this is a game, why do we need to add this cocaine frosting? Why do I have to live with the side effects? I’m saying the cocaine is a distraction (sure, an enjoyable one) but it’s not necessary for the game to succeed.
I don’t like upgrades in pvp mp games but that’s what SD does.
I think they could/should look at an original way to do it beyond XP in their next game. But I sympathise that given the market being what it is duplicating the likes of CoD is more a requirement than an option.
I liked thos thread… It was clear and everyone listed their worries, now its another philosophical discussion about the fact that cocaine is awesome and should be given freely to everyone out there!
Anyway, back on topic guyz please creat e your own thread to discuss (again…) this XP stuff.
One last thing on XP. It won’t matter. Originally I thought XP could be a killer for the game - something that will determine its lifespan. But after playing BC2 now for a bit… I’ve unlocked all weapons AGES ago for every class and I still enjoy playing it because: my GF and friends like to play it.
XP defines the lifespan of a single player game - once you reach your cap the novelty wears off and you’re done. On a MP game, you are playing for the interaction which far outweighs the excitement of unlocking a new bell for your handlebars. Being able to unlock that bell just gives you something else to do when you’re not in game.
I don’t care about cocaine but marijuana should be legalized in the US or tobacco should be banned. And XP and upgrades/unlocks are a concern which we are expressing opinions on so it isn’t really off topic.
The cocaine is as much a part of the icecream’s flavor as the teamplay tangerine. It all ‘distracts’ from what a FPS is which is shooting stuff up but it’s part of Brink’s recipe. You might fear a cocaine habit or the tangy taste of a tangerine or if you’re me you might dislike upgrades/unlocks however they’re handed out (I equally dislike tf2 and etqw unlocks/upgrades) but that’s what you get in a Splash Damage flavor.
Ideally yes but you and I know this isn’t the case. Deviate from the developers model and you are penalised (as in not earning XP), stick to the developers model and you are rewarded even if it means you do not benefit the team.
You might not be gettings as much xp as you think you deserve but I don’t see how you might be doing something productive and not be gaining any xp. Swatting the hormenter gives xp. Ideally it should be giving a proportional xp to the damage it is doing but saying people are penalized for swatting at it is just not true.
To me, sadly, that sounds like very much their main point of the game.
They’re having fun persuing their own goals which are generally agreement with winning the mission. Even completely oblivious objective lemmings complete objectives in Quake Wars. Other’s motivations shouldn’t be your concern, only their actions. If everyone seems to be following a cookie cutter approach to a mission, they’re still doing a mission.
I think they could/should look at an original way to do it beyond XP in their next game. But I sympathise that given the market being what it is duplicating the likes of CoD is more a requirement than an option.
They’ve always done xp upgrades and don’t hope they rethink xp; I hope they rethink upgrades. I don’t expect that will happen, however, now that every other shooter is doing it, too.
[QUOTE=SockDog;238439]
I think they could/should look at an original way to do it beyond XP in their next game. But I sympathise that given the market being what it is duplicating the likes of CoD is more a requirement than an option.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I think you may be confused about whose copying who when it comes to XP. W:ET was doing XP gains and unlocks loonnggg before CoD, and SD are expanding on their own concept of XP rather than copying someone elses. Guess you’ve got CoD in the mindset that its the trend-setter rather than knowing the original source. There were XP save servers as well… just in case you say CoD started consistent XP rather than per campaign
LOL. I’m actually going to be disappointed if Brink doesn’t turn out to be a hedonistic feast now!
Seriously though, thread asked for worries, someone stated they were worried about XP not being fun after they’d levelled up to the max and that kinda worried me. I’m going to have a drink now.
You might not be gettings as much xp as you think you deserve but I don’t see how you might be doing something productive and not be gaining any xp. Swatting the hormenter gives xp. Ideally it should be giving a proportional xp to the damage it is doing but saying people are penalized for swatting at it is just not true.
Well there are two scenarios.
You read the battlefield well that you pre-empt the mission system or the SD defined strategy for completing the mission. For example, instead of reaping a “defend objective XP” because you hug the objective, you push ahead and ambush incoming enemies before they can even engage.
You perform actions which are mostly inconsequential to the team’s success but grant you XP. For example repairing a turret in a secured area.
For scenario 1 you discourage such behaviour by awarding more XP for adopting a defined model of what defending the objective is. For scenario 2 you encourage behaviour which is damaging to the team.
Yes, complex rules upon complex rules can smooth this out but it’s not perfect and the end result is people can and will be influenced by the XP. In fact I’d go as far as saying that if you say XP is a good tool to reward and teach people how to play the game then you can’t deny it can also limit and distract people from deviating from the XP reward model.
They’re having fun persuing their own goals which are generally agreement with winning the mission. Even completely oblivious objective lemmings complete objectives in Quake Wars. Other’s motivations shouldn’t be your concern, only their actions. If everyone seems to be following a cookie cutter approach to a mission, they’re still doing a mission.
Let me repeat this point then. Why play with unpredictable humans if you lash them to a system that rewards predictable behaviour?
When I say original, I mean something beyond the “perform A get B xp” model. As for duplicating CoD, who came first is irrelevant, in the eyes of the consumer CoD is the de facto standard and SD (after trying lots of different stuff in ETQW) probably had little choice but to follow suit with a similar system.
I already stated that I don’t expect an xp system to be perfect. Instead of finding hypothetical flaws that I can’t assess accurately until the game is released lets look at some other scenarios. xp system (inflexible/exploitable) versus unscored (pub chaos) or worse, kills (team deathmatch) and win/loose (ragequit/stacking). Xp allows a bunch of random people to be marginally coordinated and objective focused. It’s better than the alternatives imo.
Yup. The reason I don’t play Quake Wars during reasonable hours is that then there are too many ‘unpredictable humans’ being predictably uncoordinated and unreliable.
Oh come on, those flaws are pulled right from ETQW. Sure Brink may address them with more rules but my point is far from hypothetical.
xp system (inflexible/exploitable) versus unscored (pub chaos) or worse, kills (team deathmatch) and win/loose (ragequit/stacking). Xp allows a bunch of random people to be marginally coordinated and objective focused. It’s better than the alternatives imo.
Funny, I learnt and played Q3CTF without any XP system to tickle my tackle along the way. And you play L4D so know full well it’s entirely possible for people to play, communicate and achieve goals without XP.
Yup. The reason I don’t play Quake Wars during reasonable hours is that then there are too many ‘unpredictable humans’ being predictably uncoordinated and unreliable.
You mean they’re XP farming or earning achievements/medals? Seems to me there should be a system to promote teamplay not individual play.
I’d more say that this was the next logical step in their XP phase going from campaign to full persistence. And no I disagree, it’s very relevant… especially coming from someone that knows where it originated, but still classes it as duplicating CoD… so in your eyes is CoD the de facto? I’d agree CoD made it mainstream, but to claim all out duplication is just naive.
Oh you can see it that way, I don’t deny it. I’m just saying they went one way with W:ET a similar way with ETQW, caught criticism for not conforming to a popular title’s method (CoD4) and then TADA! Brink follows suit. Logical step, inevitable requirement? I’ll lean on the latter thanks and give SD credit for not whoring their gameplay out 100% on perks and XP.
You need to calm down, lay off the Scottish pills for a minute. I said, “who came first is irrelevant, in the eyes of the consumer CoD is the de facto standard”. This means I can both acknowledge SD’s contribution and also the fact that the “mass consumer” doesn’t, so it is irrelevant. IMO SD include this ‘crap’ because it’s an expectation not because it’s what they think is a good evolution of the game mechanics they are known for.
Really, I see ETQW as being the gamers slapping SD in the face for doing original, innovative things with the genre. I don’t blame then in the least for turning their backs on being original in that sense, gamers these days are idiotic, braindead bores.
Your explanation of your point is greatly appreciated, and I can agree with what you say. Generally it’s those less in the know that blindly shout that SD are just copying CoD while completely ignoring, or ignorant towards what led to this is what annoys me… pills or not
Hehe, I think the XP system just has a negative effect on the gameplay for sure.
I think of it as a kind of learning tool, but if I think of the people it would then be aimed at, I don’t think it’s going to work.
The casual gamers I have met so far, or people that take a long time to figure things out, the xp system means nothing to them, if anything it would just be more confusing if they suddenly out of the blue got a XP boost. If anything they’d just find it plesant, but not try and figure out how it happened.
On the other hand you have the more experienced gamers who are going to start doing stupid stuff just to get these XP bonuses. I speak from experience
How many times have people been fighting in ET about who gets to make the allied CP in oasis
Or in BFBC2 I often find myself leaving the objective for what it is to get that goldstar for my bla bla bla weapon…
hmm to sum up my point I guess you could say that I fear XP wh0ring which prety much happens in all XP games.
So q3ctf didn’t have points for caps? Interesting. In any case, there’s a difference in complexity when you’ve got multiple objectives over multiple classes. L4D special infected are blatantly designed to tether the survivors together because they incapacitate the player they attack. It’s a gimmick for sure but it works. Most team based mp games I’ve played recently take similar measures although L4D takes it to an extreme.
Nope. I mean rambo medics running past downed allies, people bombing their own objectives and killing their team, mountain hiking. A currency system is a gimmick to take a bunch of random people who have no preexisting relationship or interest in each other and getting them to work together for self interested reasons. It’s just like L4D specials.
We reward players for making the game fun for others
Now with the first quote, you could possibly argue that the word competent, could be used for anything. Im competent at being a massive wanker! But for the sake of this thread we will use it in the context of how a player is competent in the game. I personally define that as actions that allow your team to win. And these actions change according to what is happening in the game.
You dont hand out buffs or try to repair your deployable while someone is 5 feet away planting a charge. These are actions that cause your team to lose.
As far as the second quote, Im responsible for playing the game in a way so its fun for me - no one else is.
To me it seems that the game was either designed for kids who never received the positive reinforcement they needed, or grown men who come home from a hard days work expecting some ‘play’ from their wives only to hear - ‘sorry not tonight love!’
Lets just say, there are a lot of competent wankers out there.
And I don’t see how you don’t get the issue with the VOIP off by default, lets just go ahead set it up to begin with so no one uses it, thus ensuring no one probably ever will. Might as well just leave it out completely.
Yes, no one is going to use it because it’s off by default…that’s a brilliant observation (not really)
“You mean my car is off?! I need to start it up before I can drive it?! I might as well not even have a car!”
For those who use voice chat, they’ll turn it on, hell, a lot of them will probably use TS anyway. ANd besides, it’s already been stated that if you join a game where VOIP is enabled, it’s enabled for EVERYBODY. You won’t be p[laying games where some people have it on and some don’t.
Auto chatter may be universal, and it may be good for basic info, but it’s not a replacement for VOIP.
You’re right - that’s why they included VOIP…
Why doom VOIP from the start, are there really that many asshats on console games?
lol, yes “doomed” = has to select “on” from the menu…overreacting much?
I’m worried the community will be filled with hostile losers that quit a game if they’re losing. Like L4D.
I’m also worried the console community is going to be too small.
