XP and the mission system

(DrFunkenstein) #1

I’m curious about the way these two are implemented and perhaps more importantly, tied together in Brink. That’s mainly because I think that could have been done better in ET:QW and I hope SD won’t implement it in the same way in their new game.

Here’s an example to show what I mean

If I construct all the guard towers and mg nests on Slipgate as an Engineer with something else selected as a mission, I’ll get 25 XP for doing all that. If I do the same useless things (sorry, can’t help myself here) with each of those selected as a mission before I complete them, I will get 35 XP instead.

I don’t get it. Why should selecting something as a mission give me more XP when I’m doing the exact same thing? Those two things shouldn’t be tied together in my opinion. People will milk it. I can see why you would want to have something like a mission system in a game, but I don’t understand why you should get extra XP for simply selecting something before you do it.

It doesn’t make any sense to me, I hope SD will do that different in Brink.

Dr. Funkenstein

(H0RSE) #2

I’m thinking that the missions you can select in Brink won’t involve so many “optional” things, like building guard towers. If there is a guard tower to build in a mission, it will be an integral part of the mission, not some “useless” XP milking objective.

As for just doing an objective vs selecting it first then doing it, I don’t know what it’s like in Brink. I think the bonus XP you got might have been to encourage people to use the mission menu.

(SockDog) #3

No fan of the XP system myself but I won’t get into that again.

I think SD have said that the select a mission style is still there to a lesser extent as it rewards letting your team mates know what you are intending to do and also trigger other missions like Escort Engineer. In that respect it makes total sense.

The problem though is you’re playing a fast paced FPS. In ETQW I think the mission selection process was just too long, you have to stop, select Revive Teammate, then perform the mission. All the while bullets are flying at you and the person who needs to be revived is tapping out. Same can be said for the dynamic nature of the game, you select Build Objective A but on the way you place a turret, kill an enemy covert ops in disguise and then ultimately defend another engineer build the objective. Should you have stopped every time to select these missions to increase your XP earn?

That’s why I think XP should be earned based on simple team performance, then shared amongst the team. Everyone then as a single common goal to work for not these hundreds of tiny ones. It would also mean you could encourage more even matches balancing the game and XP earns for just how the two teams are performing.

(brbrbr) #4

[QUOTE=SockDog;211408]
The problem though is you’re playing a fast paced FPS. In ETQW I think the mission selection process was just too long, you have to stop, select Revive Teammate, then perform the mission. All the while bullets are flying at you and the person who needs to be revived is tapping out[/QUOTE]
i dont think its big issue. at lest not bigger than lack of teamplay in some teams.
maybe SD add something like [tactical]“snippets”, whose help you automate/auto-priority some tasks depend you usual way of gaming. p.s. forget name of game, where its used, but its RTS.
so you can select "tree of life"snippet[pick up nearly wounded teammate revival mission and then another and another]or “rambo IV” for quick rush somewhere while you throw healthpacks right over own head, while under fire.
and etc and etc

(H0RSE) #5

I know they have it so you can just tap the mission wheel button, and the game will automatically assign a mission for you, based on things like your class, location, and progress of the mission. So technically, you never actually have to access the menu and scroll to what you want if you didn’t want to.

(brbrbr) #6

but you cAN in case if you need do something unusual, tricky ?

(Callum) #7

I think selecting side/optional objectives would probably only really be used when you play with 6 or more of your friends when you’re battling for xp. Who knows, there’s probably achievements/trophies on the console versions for doing so many optional objectives, there usually are in most games nowadays.

(tokamak) #8

Sure, but I hope the automatic mission selector is good enough that it knows you’re close to a revivable teammember that it automatically selects is as your default mission with one button press. Those extra xp rewarded for having the mission selected represents the value of constantly communicating with the rest of your team.

(DarkangelUK) #9

Do you think it should be selecting totally obvious missions, or even having them as an option such as revive downed team mate?

(SockDog) #10

Why would that necessarily be the best mission? How about shooting the person who shot your team mate? Or stopping a plant?

Again the more you implement rules for what contributes to a winning team the more you limit or penalise for straying from that pre-defined strategy.

Awarding XP based on the entire team’s performance side steps that problem as your choice of revive/kill/stop will impact your teams ability to win the map. Make enough bad choices, your team lose and you get less XP. Make the best choices for the team and you get more XP.

As for communicating, yes I see the reasoning but have to question how effective it’s going to be. In the middle of a firefight you might, just might, tap the mission button. What mission will you get? Engaging enemy, defending objective, escorting etc etc. All without a great deal of context. So then you fall back to selecting more specific missions from the wheel which of course is going to get you killed unless you take the time to go hide in a safe corner somewhere.

Just seems to be a solution to a problem that brings more problems with it. I wonder if just having a more intuitive HUD and feedback on what your players were doing would be better. Like in Q3 where the Team overlay showed location, health etc. Add to that vicinity to objectives (both offensive/defensive) enemies in FOV, last actions performed, weapon selected etc. A lot of information yes but design it properly and you could condense down a lot of that into a quick glance.

(Ryan) #11

I’d say that class related missions shouldn’t be in the mission system. Just give the usual amount of xp because it’s what that class does.

(Why would everyone need to know you are picking up a fallen teammate, I mean, duh you pick him up, its your duty!)

But the more overal mission like:

“Opening secret passway”, or “Clearing an area” etc are more teambased mission objectives which WOULD be usefull to know for the rest of the team.

You know what I mean?

Greetings,
Ryan

(Jamieson) #12

In my opinion the mission system in ETQW slowed the game down. thats why I never used it. Xp did not play a big part in Promod or Comp as well because of stopwatch so it did not bother me much.

its also the case for the classic throw someone HP packs or TK revive them. If you throw them the packs you will get XP yet if you use the much more efficient method of TK revivng them you get no XP because you Teamkilled them.

XP should reward the most efficient method and XP should be rewarded for natural events that occur in the game. You should not have to select a mission you should just have the option to do it and if you do you get XP.

The only reason I can see for implementing a mission system is to teach new people to the game that they exist and what to do but if the game was designed properly people would know that anyway.

(brbrbr) #13

but what next ?
you character complete you mission without you interference ?[allowing you to have you drinks, watching this show]
i think its little too much for “game”, nowdays.
simpler is just count XP/pips for all completed missions, not only selected.
so you can save world in process of rescuing little kitten on tree. and have XP from both.

btw from where name “pip” come ?
does have Brink minigame, called “pimp my pips” ?:slight_smile:

(3Suns) #14

Interesting thread. I haven’t played ET:QW so I can’t be fully certain that I understand what you (DrFunk) are talking about, but it sounds like basically an exploit. Redundancies are fine, but exploits are always undesirable.

I have to say though, I was really impressed with the system they show in the Container vids, and the fact that you can do as HORSE said, pick a mission with just the tap of the X button (or corresponding key) when you don’t want to bother with the whole wheel thing (which is a brilliant menu selection system in my opinion).

I kind of feel like Borderlands primed the pump for this whole missions/xp points popping-up stuff (at least in the console world). I am by no means claiming that Gearbox did something new, just that their timing is fortuitous for SD and Brink. My boys can’t take Borderlands out of the tray. When I showed them the the vids for Brink the other day, and they saw the flashing XP and the parkour gameplay, they were all over it.

(WhiteAden) #15

[QUOTE=3Suns;211491]Interesting thread. I haven’t played ET:QW so I can’t be fully certain that I understand what you (DrFunk) are talking about, but it sounds like basically an exploit. Redundancies are fine, but exploits are always undesirable.

I have to say though, I was really impressed with the system they show in the Container vids, and the fact that you can do as HORSE said, pick a mission with just the tap of the X button (or corresponding key) when you don’t want to bother with the whole wheel thing (which is a brilliant menu selection system in my opinion).[/QUOTE]

in my opinion it isn’t an exploit, it’s more of a way to make people aware of the mission system, the mission system shows you waypoints to where the objective is, thus helps new people, while the old dogs know where to go & how to get there, (& how useless they sometimes are) but still it’s not an exploit, the time it takes to select the missions from the game menu (which afaik the game does for you automatically when you spawn as an Engineer)
I think it was M by default in QuakeWars b.t.w. which isn’t conveniently located on one’s keyboard… =)
I hope that made any sense…

cheers, =D

(3Suns) #16

Thanks for the explanation. Again, I am very impressed with what they showed for Brink, so I am really eager to get my hands on the darn thing. lol :smiley:

(jazevec) #17

I think the fatal mistake of ET:QW was forcing a mission down a person’s throat by default. At first it sounds nice that every newbie gets a mission and is not lost. But in reality, lots of them doesn’t care and will not care. Why does it bother me ? Because each time I pressed Tab or looked into top right of the screen I saw a lot of teammates apparently on a mission. Yet few or no one of them cared. I was never able to determine which players actually cared about missions assigned to them, so I stopped caring. Perhaps missions worked as a way to help newbies, but they sucked at telling me what other teammates were trying to do.

I think it would be better for missions to be opt-in: that is, no one is assigned to a mission by default. That way, only people who cared about communication or xp would enable it.

A bit of thread hijacking. Let’s talk about evolution of XP system in Splash Damage’s games.

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory

Xp is introduced as an incentive to make players perform team-beneficial activities. Rewards are meant to be helpful, but skill should clearly trump them.

I think it worked well, with two exceptions.
First, balance of some rewards was bad. Infamous example was adrenaline, which halved all damage taken in addition to enabling unlimited running. Other rewards could be too weak. Some rewards were in theory nice to everyone, but helped medics much more than anyone else (+15 max health, extra ammo clip, extra grenade; medics were balanced by having low starting ammo).
Second, players could get xp rewards for taking care of minor objectives long after they stopped mattering (destroying footbridge after the door was blown up etc). It would just require more detailed scripting and more special cases to fix.

Anyway, never before W:ET I have seen so many players care about objective. I think it really worked, especially while the game was new. The rewards were mostly nice, but not overpowering. At the same time, you could get them without focusing too much on one particular role, you could even “graduate” in multiple classes in the same campaign. If you wanted to be “most highly decorated”, it encouraged switching.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Just like W:ET, but with important difference I don’t like. Rewards needed a lot more xp, even after a patch that lowered requirements. Suddenly getting level4 Light Weapons required a Plan and a lot of dedication. (hitting enemy deployables with grenade launcher) It started to feel like grind to me.

Brink

Persistent rewards.

One of design goals of W:ET rewards was to make them only temporary and not very strong, and I think they succeeded. Temporary rewards mean level playing field.

Brink throws W:ET wisdom out of the window. It’s not a secret to anyone familiar with MMORPGs that they’re so succesful because they reward mediocre players. Any mediocre player can get to max level with time. Today, MMORPGS reward mostly patience and dedication of time. Few or none of them reward skill. Most likely, a player with high level rewards in Brink will just mean a lot of patience, not a lot of skill.

I don’t like that. In theory, I could see ways to make xp growth strongly dependant on skill and performance, but I doubt that’s where Brink is going. I think the rewards are a nod to mediocre players. Unless, perhaps, all reward gadgets require high skill to use… and we know Brink is a console game with PC port.

(H0RSE) #18

Today, MMORPGS reward mostly patience and dedication of time. Few or none of them reward skill. Most likely, a player with high level rewards in Brink will just mean a lot of patience, not a lot of skill.

The problem with having a reward system based off of skill, is that it caters to a select group and not the overall gaming crowd. A true skill based reward system would dismiss all the casual, not so good gamers, and from an industry standpoint, that is bad for business. If a consumer pays for a ame, he shouldn’t be punished just because he isn’t “good” enough.

The game needs to cater to players of all skill levels, and in all fairness, this is how I think it should be.

and we know Brink is a console game with PC port.

Do you have evidence supporting this, because the vids so far was PC footage played with a controller.

(jazevec) #19

[QUOTE=H0RSE;211510]The problem with having a reward system based off of skill, is that it caters to a select group and not the overall gaming crowd. A true skill based reward system would dismiss all the casual, not so good gamers, and from an industry standpoint, that is bad for business. If a consumer pays for a ame, he shouldn’t be punished just because he isn’t “good” enough.

The game needs to cater to players of all skill levels, and in all fairness, this is how I think it should be.
[/quote]

You seem to assume players can’t - and don’t want to - get better. They should try to get better. There are many ways to measure skill, not all of which are aim. ET:QW interviews and previews emphasised how you could be very useful to your team without even firing a shot (repairing, healing, building etc). Brink previews do the same. They imply everyone should be able to find a role he’s good at.

In short, I don’t see it as a problem at all. What I see being a problem is players not getting better. If you’re bad at everything, you’ve picked a wrong game.

The last preview I’ve read (on gameradar) claimed it’s going to be nearly impossible to get all rewards over time.

“Although you could theoretically grind that much XP just by headshotting other players,” says Wedgwood, “it’d take an impossibly long time to achieve anything. But if you stand by a group as a Medic, doling out health to a key player and taking out enemies, your XP would grow exponentially.”

So, at least they’re trying to limit grind. But I disagree, I think persistent rewards and stats are fundamentally flawed. Remember when in ET:QW there were no persistent rewards at all, only persistent stats ? You would occasionally come upon a server where two teams of “enemies” are working together to farm xp. One team would damage MCP, the other would be repairing it. All the while one or two dudes would yell “No shooting !”. If you tried to interfere, they’d vote to kick you.

That was without persistent rewards. All the farmers got was a fancy icon, title and higher number on a website. Now that gameplay-affecting rewards are permanent, expect farmers to organize farming matches to unlock rewards. And because it’s permanent, farmers will be rewarded permanently and at first glance look like skilled (focused, helpful, whatever) players.

Do you have evidence supporting this, because the vids so far was PC footage played with a controller.

Isn’t that evidence enough ? Count all the mentions of how Brink is going to work well on consoles, how much effort is put into gravity wells, SMART system, Killzone2 level designer hired, lots of console people hired. At the very least, it’s bad PR as far as PC version goes.

(Apoc) #20

There is no time for selecting missions in fast paced fps. That gets you killed. A better solution would be the game switches your mission to whatever you are doing, i.e you run at a objective with the right class so your mission changes to doing the obj. Or you run at a dead team-mate with revival equipment so you mission changes to revive team-mate.
And as for letting the team know, just have a little message box somewhere that says stuff like “***** has constructed the mg nest” when someone does something.