PDA

View Full Version : MISC. Here's how you give this game longevity



Vucar_Dumat
16th Mar 2014, 09:04
Competitive rank systems.

Let me explain; some people remember an fps called halo 3, a game with a uniquely long lifespan online for how non-innovative it was. A lot of this longevity came from its competitive rank systems and the attainment of the last rank, level 50.

For those who didn't play; in H3 you could play in unranked battles where you got 'promotions' (Captain 1 to Captain 2, Colonel grade 2 to Colonel grade 3) via experience -- simply playing, win or lose, would give you a higher tier of your military rank. Your 'level', however, determined what military rank you would be promoted through. You got an overarching 'level' from playing ranked matches where enough victories would increase your level, but a certain number of defeats would decrease your level.

For example; you play and win 7 games of Doubles (2v2s), your level increases from 1 to 5. At level 5, you've reached the military rank of "Sergeant". You lose 5 games in a row, and your level decreases to 3; you are still a sergeant -- no one can take away the highest level you etched into your character's history -- but if you want to advance to "Captain" at level 10, you have more ground to cover now.

At the highest levels of competition in the game, upper 40s, you might have to win 12 games in a row without losing once to move from 48 to 49. If you lose even one game, you might drop from 48 to 47, or from 48 to 46. This drop depended on the levels and history of the people you played -- if you lost to people lower level than you, with poor win/loss histories, your punishment for failure was harsher; if you lose to people higher in level than you, your loss was more lenient, and so on.

It was a risk to play ranked games for people at 49 trying to get to 50, because if you went in with randoms and lost matches, it would be much harder to get to 50. At 50, you attain the rank of General -- the highest rank in the game. All ranks in H3 came with an emblem by your name, so people could see the emblems of the people they were about to play before matches started, and would have an idea of what they were in for.

Suffice to say -- Nosgoth's crowd is not for gamers that want to get their max level so they can get purples and do dungeons. Nosgoth is for competitive players. This game already has 'levels', but they mean nothing more than how long someone has played.

Make an optional ranked system of levels so we can see how we measure up to each other and add in titles for certain attained levels. A true competitive ranking system where people have to consistently be better to stay on top will sharpen the competition and drive to be good at this game.

IKathaarI
16th Mar 2014, 19:53
I could go with this as currently, player level does nothing.

just to be clear; class levels (for using a specific character) would be uneffected, right?

XJadeDragoonX
16th Mar 2014, 23:38
I like it but at the same time I don't because at the end of the day, people will just boost for the level and people who really are legitimate level 50 will end up playing crappy people who boosted. So level really won't mean anything if that's how they do it and that's probably why no game after halo 3 has implemented this really. And halo 3 didn't have the longevity for that reason tbh. I played it for a long time simply because it was fun. It was the first huge multiplayer console game that gave gamers the game play they wanted (obviously halo 2 was the first but xbox 360 had significantly more units sold at the release of halo 3 so there was an overall larger fanbase). But at the same time, once call of duty came out, nobody really still played except for the die hard halo fans. And halo isn't as popular anymore because it failed to evolve with time. Hense why people still buy call of duty every year. The game needs to be so fun and accessible that people simply want to play it and that goes for the hard core as well as the ccasual hour a day gamers

Vucar_Dumat
19th Mar 2014, 05:52
I like it but at the same time I don't because at the end of the day, people will just boost for the level and people who really are legitimate level 50 will end up playing crappy people who boosted. So level really won't mean anything if that's how they do it and that's probably why no game after halo 3 has implemented this really. And halo 3 didn't have the longevity for that reason tbh. I played it for a long time simply because it was fun. It was the first huge multiplayer console game that gave gamers the game play they wanted (obviously halo 2 was the first but xbox 360 had significantly more units sold at the release of halo 3 so there was an overall larger fanbase). But at the same time, once call of duty came out, nobody really still played except for the die hard halo fans. And halo isn't as popular anymore because it failed to evolve with time. Hense why people still buy call of duty every year. The game needs to be so fun and accessible that people simply want to play it and that goes for the hard core as well as the ccasual hour a day gamers

You're right. There was a fair amount of boosting in halo3 unfortunately. I don't feel like that ruined the gameplay for me personally but it might for others.

I definitely think this is an improvement on the 'level system' currently implemented and its the best ranking system set up i've come across. Obviously it has flaws, but it was an enjoyable design, it accommodated both the competitive and casual players ( i played with some very unskilled friends in a lot of the unranked games and we still had fun), and i haven't seen better rank system yet for an fps / tps that really added anything to the game. Don't get me started on 'prestige mode' lol

edit; and yes katharl this would be like an overarching rank for the player as a whole. I heard the devs had their own plans for individual class levels.

Calverp
5th Apr 2014, 11:09
It's fairly simple, and I'm sure I've seen it in other games that currently slip my mind, but you just have two separate numbers. Level which consists purely of XP gained, and is mostly an indicator of how long you've been playing. And Rank which is determined by your stats and is a measure of how skilled you are. Focus the matchmaking on rank rather than level and things should sort themselves out.

MasterFurbz
5th Apr 2014, 19:08
There's going to be MMR in nosgoth. Possibly ELO based; however, I don't think corey has discussed the specifics. Once thats set up and working on the backend its possible that a ranked mode might come into existence. The devs are aware that nosgoth is a very competitive game ;)

(On my phone, sorry for the short response)

PencileyePirate
5th Apr 2014, 22:49
Unfortunately, ELO becomes much trickier to do correctly in games that aren't 1v1 ... here's hoping they choose something more reasonable if they decide to implement individual player ratings.

Strike5150
7th Apr 2014, 07:27
Competitive rank systems.

Let me explain; some people remember an fps called halo 3, a game with a uniquely long lifespan online for how non-innovative it was. A lot of this longevity came from its competitive rank systems and the attainment of the last rank, level 50. ...

Really nice idea. Ofcourse its difficult to try and rank players in 5v5 but you can certainly do better than straight up experience #of matches. Psyonix is working on a ranking system, so we will have a ranking hopefully soon that will help balance matches in general. So with the help of that ranking system maybe something like this can be implemented :).