Modern multiplayer games force progression and leveling model

[Victoriaautmors]

I have been a gamer for a long time and as far as single player games go i always tried out new games. In multiplayer however i prefered to stick to warcraft/dota/counter strike with rl friends and wow when it came out for the last 10 years, with ocasional PES or whatever on ps2-3.

While i did try out other mp games during that period it was only a brief taste never really got into it. Recently i decided to "modernise" my multiplayer expirience with LoL and Battlefield 3 and i am really disappointed.

It seems to me that now all MP games force this leveling and progression system like in WoW(or any other RPG for that matter).

I can understand how can anyone in their right mind put such a thing as gear progression in a shooter? Basically when you start battlefield 3 your aircraft have no countermeasure flares, your tanks dont have smoke screen, your AT and AA weapons are useless and your main weapons are very subpar... So if you want to have fun you have to spend countless hours farming exp and gear just like in a MMO.

I do not want to farm pvp gear in a FPS, i want to jump in and have some fun, not get annoyed how my gear sucks... When did this stupid shift happen in fps games anyway? The counter strike model of in party cash is way superior to this rpg-fps mutant that is BF3...

Same goes for League of Legends, instead of a fun DOTA like expirience i get a horribly gimped summoner and the end result is the same, it just isnt fun.

What is your opinion on this? Do we really need non-rpg games to require a 100 hour investement farming period in order to have fun? Some may say playing with a handicap is a challenge but i want a fair MP game determined by skill , not how much points or gold or credits or whatever my account has.

[Zeons]

I only play those games because of the RPG component. Playing provides a much higher benefit.

[Victoriaautmors]

Isnt the point of MP competition, why not just level the playing field at start instead of forcing people to play in order to really play?

[Ynna]

I only play those games because of the RPG component. Playing provides a much higher benefit.

But this benefits people playing longer for no actual reason. At the point where people who've been playing for 100+ hours are given way better equipment and weapons, the game stops being about skill and more about playtime. Of course, you're supposed to have more skill after playing 100+ hours, but why would you need the better weapons?

It also discourages anyone new to the online scene of the game, because they need to invest quite a lot of time in order to be actually on level ground. Sure, they'll be playing, but they'll probably feel like they're losing unfairly, because they're being defeated by players with better guns. (For this, it doesn't actually matter whether they did lose unfairly or not.)

A way to have an unlock system, without disadvantaging other players is to have sidegrades. Things that aren't actually better than the starting gear, but just do things differently.

[Edge-]

People like progressing and being rewarded, that's why it's put in. That's why you have achievements like, "You turned the game on!" "You beat an enemy!" "You watched a cutscene!" that are completely meaningless.

I hate FPS games ect. that force you into this, especially since it rewards time spent and not actual skill, but sadly I don't see this going away any time soon. It's too damn popular and dudebros like to feel good about themselves even when they're getting their asses handed to them.

[Zzeke]

TF2 avoids most of these issues, I believe. The gear in the game is either purely cosmetic, or simply provides an alternative playstyle.

[Ynna]

TF2 avoids most of these issues, I believe. The gear in the game is either purely cosmetic, or simply provides an alternative playstyle.

Indeed. But Team Fortress 2 is the standard to which all other online shooters should try to live up.

[Zeta333]

Its mainly becuase back in the day when it wasnt like that the game was alot more skill based and the people that sucked never got anywhere becuase they sucked. So they bitched and moaned, Now someone who is godawfull at the game feels a sense of accomplishment when he ranks up even though he/she went 2/30.

[Creatinebrah]

No. MP games like BF3, TF2, etc should NOT have unlocks. While it's a good idea for casuals, as a competitive FPS gamer, I find it to be lame. I stopped playing TF2 and BF3 simply because I didn't want to put in hours and hours just to get a weapon that I would possibly be good at. The fact that I got killed by some scrub all because he was 'x level higher than me with better equipment' made the experience worse for me. Game becomes 'time not skill.'

But then again, with games such as BF3, TF2 that will never be big on a competitive scene, I guess it's O.K. to have such a system. If this was to be implemented in say, CS:GO, I'd prolly lose faith in competitive FPS games altogether.

[Ynna]

No. MP games like BF3, TF2, etc should NOT have unlocks. While it's a good idea for casuals, as a competitive FPS gamer, I find it to be lame. I stopped playing TF2 and BF3 simply because I didn't want to put in hours and hours just to get a weapon that I would possibly be good at. The fact that I got killed by some scrub all because he was 'x level higher than me with better equipment' made the experience worse for me. Game becomes 'time not skill.'

If you're saying you got beaten on TF2 because someone had better equipment, you're doing it wrong. Not a single unlockable weapon is strictly better than any other. At best they complement your playstyle more, and you shouldn't have much trouble unlocking or trading them.

I can't speak for BF3, but in Team Fortress, your efficiency isn't decided by your weapon loadout.

[Creatinebrah]

If you're saying you got beaten on TF2 because someone had better equipment, you're doing it wrong. Not a single unlockable weapon is strictly better than any other. At best they complement your playstyle more, and you shouldn't have much trouble unlocking or trading them.

I can't speak for BF3, but in Team Fortress, your efficiency isn't decided by your weapon loadout.

Hm interesting. I was always under the thought that the weapons you got via unlocking or wte were quite better than standard ones.

[Larynx]

I have to agree. This stupid statistical progression thing in games just needs to go away. It's not fun. There's a reason I hated WoW, I don't want that same experience for every single game I play.

I play for fun, stop dangling stuff in front of me in an effort to keep me playing. That is not fun.

[Leeroyjgibbs]

The reason games like Call of Duty and Battlefield have these leveling centric models is because their core gameplay has been "casualized" so that more people will buy their games. As a result the games are much easier to pick up and play but they don't have the skill curve that old school FPS like Quake and Unreal have. Without the skill curve it takes much, much less time for someone to get "good" and without the "gear progression" the need to play would expire much quicker.

This is why I'm crossing my fingers and hoping beyond hope that ID not only has MP in Doom 4, but that they'll also release Quake 5 and they'll stick to their roots with fast, brutal game play that rewards actual skill over time played.

[Deleted]

games need something to work towards or there is no motivation to play, to be honest if you got killed by someone then either they are better than you, or they got lucky. A better gun will rarerly give you an extra kill. Skill >>>>>>>> equipement in bf3, with a slight exception to aircraft until you get flares.

[Creatinebrah]

games need something to work towards or there is no motivation to play, to be honest if you got killed by someone then either they are better than you, or they got lucky. A better gun will rarerly give you an extra kill. Skill >>>>>>>> equipement in bf3, with a slight exception to aircraft until you get flares.

I strongly disagree with you on BF3 being skill. BF3 has too many variable to be considered a true skill-based FPS. Random snipers sitting in bushes, random land mines, random mortars being fired, etc. Half the time, I don't even know who killed me until death cam.

And I disagree with you again, more levels in BF3 will give you more and more of an edge in getting kills. The better guns, the better equipment (consider the tactical flashlight).

I'm not saying that an exceptionally seasoned FPS gamer would do awful as a first-timer against a bunch of higher levels. All I'm saying is that seasoned gamer would be at a disadvantage simply because he hasn't played 'x' amount of hours.

Bold - What's making people play FPS games that are more than 10+ years old that have no reward system whatsoever (besides the reward of winning)?

The reason games like Call of Duty and Battlefield have these leveling centric models is because their core gameplay has been "casualized" so that more people will buy their games. As a result the games are much easier to pick up and play but they don't have the skill curve that old school FPS like Quake and Unreal have. Without the skill curve it takes much, much less time for someone to get "good" and without the "gear progression" the need to play would expire much quicker.

This is why I'm crossing my fingers and hoping beyond hope that ID not only has MP in Doom 4, but that they'll also release Quake 5 and they'll stick to their roots with fast, brutal game play that rewards actual skill over time played.

Bold, is very true. I mean, let's look at how many COD games have come out in the recent years and how much are they different from it's predecessor? Not much at all, yet people still buy it. But then again, games like Quake, Unreal, CS1.6 are still alive today after more than 10years. Why? Because they have a competitive edge to them that games today just do not offer.

I share your hopes in that ID (along with Valve) will create a game that will reward skill. It's about time these games re-claim their thrones on the competitive scene.

[Edge-]

games need something to work towards or there is no motivation to play

Patently false. It helps to have an ulterior motivation beyond "getting better" or "fun", but that secondary motivation has been moving into the foreground over the years.

[Larynx]

games need something to work towards or there is no motivation to play,

No, they don't.

Unless you count enjoying the game as motivation.

[Ynna]

Hm interesting. I was always under the thought that the weapons you got via unlocking or wte were quite better than standard ones.

Nope. They're very much sidegrades. Apart from a couple of melee weapons that have strictly better versions (and this doesn't mean much on the grand scale of things), there are no "better" version of the standard ones. They all play quite differently. I'll use the Flamethrower as an example.
The standard flamethrower does decent damage and has a moderately powerful burn and is devastating when it crits Plus it gets an enormously useful knockback that can break Ubercharges and reflect mines and rockets. The Backburner (an unlockable Flamethrower) does a bit more damage (I think 20%) and always crits when hitting enemies from the back. I does lose the ability to randomly crit and can't knockback anymore. Another flamethrower, the Degreaser, does less damage and hes a weaker DoT, but the burning effect last longer and you can weaponswap a lot a faster with it equipped, which make it great for comboing with other weapons (something the Pyro does extremely well). None of these weapons is better than the other, only enabling different playstyles and tactics.

Unless you count enjoying the game as motivation.

The prime motivation of any game should be that the game is compelling. Everything else is extra.

(I'm agreeing with you, in case that wasn't clear.)

And I used compelling, because demanding games to be fun would cause the medium to lose a lot of potential.

[WoOmbat]

As people are horribad and tend to be happy with, gearing up is way to motvate them without the "pressure" of getting better...
To me this cripples all those game to death. I cant play it right until i leveld it all up to the max and even then there are people who just lose to me because of inferior gear. It just makes me cry and i cant see no point in investing time to make a game playable if i could start with it right away :<

[Ynna]

To me this cripples all those game to death. I can't play it right until I leveled it all up to the max and even then there are people who just lose to me because of inferior gear. It just makes me cry and I can't see no point in investing time to make a game playable if i could start with it right away :<

Well, ultimately, if a developer wants to use a time-based progression, they should balance it so that A) A beginning player (of every skill level) still has a fair chance and B) A skilled player should progress faster.
I'd also add that the upgrades shouldn't be that meaningful. Small upgrades. Also, make the player choose which s/he wants to unlock first.