Online:Separation by Skill

[SKM_NeoN]

Ranking systems run into all kinds of problems. In Starcraft 2, people had ladder anxiety and cheesing was more prominent (suck to play for 5-10 minutes and then see a cannon proxy). In Awesomenauts, good players team up (called pre-mades) which gave them a distinct advantage over the less organized team. This ruined solo-queuing in the game.

Random is better that ranking matches.

I play Awesomenauts all the time, and while its ranking system is downright terrible I can't imagine the game being good without it. Every time a new season starts and everyone's rank gets reset, I completely trash the entire team single-handedly until I get to about league 3 or 2. It's not fun for me, and I know it can't be fun for them. The point you made about pre-mades is a different issue entirely.

 

[SmashChu]

Oh, yeah. When you play in a ranking system, you run into all kinds of problems. Like better players.

I like how you call it cheesing when it is really just natural evolution in competitive play. People shed strategies that simply don't work as they get better. I bet it will surprise you that sometimes the same strategies that don't work at a lower level work better at a higher level.

Back in the day, the most telling part is that everyone I had ever heard complain about the ranks or balances or cheeses in the game besides Idra were silver and gold tier scrubs who continued to play in spite of never getting better and constantly complaining about matches they nevertheless continued to participate in. As for better players who have ladder anxiety, get a grip on life. We're all gonna make it, brah. You're not obligated to play in ranked matches anyway.

I have never met a people who said "Oh yeah, I love gettting 2Rax All-in-ed, 6 pooled and cannon proxied. I love it when someone uses those strats." What I usually hear is a general frustration for them and players just don't like them.

Fact is most players don't care for competitive gaming. If you make the systems for them, you already alienate the majority of the players. Starcraft 2 and Awesomenauts are good examples of why not to do it because both games had shrinking player bases. The former also sold less in countries where the first one was released. It was a big enough issue that Blizzard added an unranked ladder.

Ranked matches don't work.

I play Awesomenauts all the time, and while its ranking system is downright terrible I can't imagine the game being good without it. Every time a new season starts and everyone's rank gets reset, I completely trash the entire team single-handedly until I get to about league 3 or 2. It's not fun for me, and I know it can't be fun for them. The point you made about pre-mades is a different issue entirely.

I'm not sure how long you played Awesomenauts, but the game didn't always have a ranking system (think it started with the Skolldir update). Before that, there was no issue of pre-mades. It didn't matter. You could hop in a game, and get an amazing team and crush. You could get a balanced one. You could have a trash team. The battles were generally more dynamic.

The issue now is everyone is ranked together. Because you are ranked based on a league, players naturally want a high rank. But if your all in the same rank, it hard to win. That is, unless, you organize your team. You'll have a huge advantage because your team is organized where theirs is likely not. So you win. This has been growing and growing and most players now feel you can't solo-queue. Before the leagues, this wasn't the case. I also NEVER saw players quitting, and rejoining with a new character. The PS3/360 are also WAY more laid back as a result.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

IWhat I usually hear is whining

Fixed.

Fact is most players don't care for competitive gaming. If you make the systems for them, you already alienate the majority of the players.

That's great. If they don't care for competitive gaming, don't play competitive games, and especially don't play in a ladder. The fact that you and many other players continue to ignore this is astonishing. It's almost as if you're just obstinately refusing to use lobbies.

 

[SmashChu]

Fixed.. HUUR DUUR I'M SO CLEVER. I SHOWED HIM.

Doesn't matter. Fact is they aren't having fun with the game. The system isn't working.

That's great. If they don't care for competitive gaming, don't play competitive games, and especially don't play in a ladder. The fact that you and many other players continue to ignore this is astonishing. It's almost as if you're just obstinately refusing to use lobbies.

First, Starcraft 2 gives you little alternative. If you want to hop into a game, it's going to be a ranked on. There is a reason they added an unranked ladder.

The second issue is competitive games are fundamentally flawed. What is hurting Starcraft is eSports.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Doesn't matter. Fact is they aren't having fun with the game. The second issue is competitive games are fundamentally flawed. What is hurting Starcraft is eSports.

I hope you are kidding me. Please be a bad troll. For your sake, being a bad troll is better than the only other possibility. There is nothing that exists that could substantiate your claims.

First, Starcraft 2 gives you little alternative. If you want to hop into a game, it's going to be a ranked one.

I have never had trouble joining a lobby or playing friendlies. If these people perceive the game as providing little alternative, then why don't they make their own lobbies? Whining instead is just immature.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

The second issue is competitive games are fundamentally flawed.

Exactly what does this mean?
...

Anyhow, we already know we aren't getting a ranking ladder/pyramid, which pretty much leaves two main options; vague skill level scores, a la Mario Kart Wii, or lobbies. I'd be happy with either, but given the level of customization in Smash, lobbies is just the obvious choice.

 

[azzucips]

Recent Halo games have 2 playlists:
Competitive
Social

Is this really too much to bother with?

 

[Shiki~]

MMR isn't too complicated.

League of legends system is very solid *it isnt very good in a team based game like 5v5 LoL*

The ladder system would allow people to rank up, without being numerically ranked for the most part. This will allow us to accomplish, S class players playing with A, and S tier players. Allow for growth. Continually playing
against more experienced players based on on your performance, win loss ratio. In a 1v1 game, no one will hold you back. this isnt 2006.

Internet isnt what it used to be. To combat lag, make sure the games are hosted on a server and not client side. have good network optimization.

This is 2013! Internet is fantastic, a majority of north america has fast enough internet to make this work as long as it stays away from P2P.
However if nintendo makes the game international there will be some problems, they should have seperated networks, universal server works for MK7 3ds. But not a game where every MS counts.

 

[Priap0s]

Can some people please just stop to try and make this into a debate concernign AT's? It's alright for someone to say they don't like AT's and make assumptions. Or for someone to say they love all AT's. This thread isn't about that. So just don't go into depth with it and don't try to argue with someoen just because they mention "AT" in their post. We already have a huge thread where people are battling each other to win and be right instead of listening to each others arguments.

Now, as far as matchmaking i concerned. I don't care how, they don't have to do it with the ordinary matchmaking or ranking system. But they do need to implement some system that seperates players, atleast when players want to be seperated from people of other skill. If this takes into account how much youve player, you win % online or whatever, I don't know but to me its atleast obvious that something is needed. I assume there will be an option to play 1v1 no items online and while I cant speak for everyone I feel fairly certain that no one want's to face someone ALOT better than them or ALOT worse than them. If you want to do that there should be a "quick battle mode" wich just instantly hooks you up with someone in your region, not taking any regard to your stats or anything. I do know that you don't always wont to super tryhard and care about winning that much all the time either. Even in 1v1's. So I would like a quick match mode to.

 

[Deleted member 212841]

gcyftftdtfyxycyvj

 

[SmashChu]

Exactly what does this mean?
...

Anyhow, we already know we aren't getting a ranking ladder/pyramid, which pretty much leaves two main options; vague skill level scores, a la Mario Kart Wii, or lobbies. I'd be happy with either, but given the level of customization in Smash, lobbies is just the obvious choice.

Most players don't want to sit at a game for hours trying to master it. Gaming is a hobby people do. When a game targets itself at a competitive community, it alienates the people who want to play it as a hobby. The game demands more from the player and most players leave because they don't want to dedicate the amount of time the game wants. Only a small group of people want to make a game their second job. Of course, this group goes to tournaments and fights and dreams of one day getting sponsorship so they can quit their dull 9-5 job. For everyone else, the game is a hobby and that's what people expect most from a game.

The most successful games are targeted as a social activity which means making a game fun, addicting and accessible (the latter is something very important for a multiplayer game). The game should draw a crowd. Competitive games don't work for this because they require more dedication than playing it at a friends house.

Since I talked about accessibility, I expect a minimum of 4 replies. Take it away boy.

 

[smashmachine]

Most players don't want to sit at a game for hours trying to master it. Gaming is a hobby people do. When a game targets itself at a competitive community, it alienates the people who want to play it as a hobby. The game demands more from the player and most players leave because they don't want to dedicate the amount of time the game wants. Only a small group of people want to make a game their second job. Of course, this group goes to tournaments and fights and dreams of one day getting sponsorship so they can quit their dull 9-5 job. For everyone else, the game is a hobby and that's what people expect most from a game.

The most successful games are targeted as a social activity which means making a game fun, addicting and accessible (the latter is something very important for a multiplayer game). The game should draw a crowd. Competitive games don't work for this because they require more dedication than playing it at a friends house.

Since I talked about accessibility, I expect a minimum of 4 replies. Take it away boy.

your definition of "competitive" is extremely vague
for one, I could argue Call of Duty could be played "competitively", which would immediately eviscerate your argument

 

[SmashChu]

your definition of "competitive" is extremely vague
for one, I could argue Call of Duty could be played "competitively", which would immediately eviscerate your argument

Competitive means tourney folks. That's what they call themselves anyway.

 

[smashmachine]

Competitive means tourney folks. That's what they call themselves anyway.

Call of Duty has tournaments too, guess it's competitive

 

[Big-Cat]

I'm gonna reiterate something I've mentioned in other threads.

Tekken's ranking system. This is done by using titles to indicate your skill level with a particular character. In this case, your characters are assigned to skill classes. This way, it's more like you're climbing up for new titles instead of numbers. The way matchmaking works is that you can search based on connection strength and for fighters within some amount of titles your characters have meaning you can search within a certain skill level range.

Depending on how much you're winning or losing and against who, you may be promoted or demoted in title.

Alternatively, there are player matches which don't effect your titles so you be more experimental.

 

[peeup]

I don't get why we need two different sections for competitive and social. As long as a "With Friends" category exists (which it will... it's Nintendo) then competitives will be able to find a match on Smashboards, just like now. I think it's more important that the community establishes a better online scene, which in turn is based on how not ****ty the online play is, what with lag.

Honestly, guys. How hard is it to use the Faux Finder OR use the Arena thread OR use any of the other websites to find a match against a competitive player. Think about it this way. Smash was originally catered to be a casual game. Then the people who wanted to play it competitively found a way to do so. So if online is originally catered to be a casual feature, then the people who want to play it competitively will find a way to do so. It ain't ****in rocket science.

 

[mimgrim]

Call of Duty has tournaments too, guess it's competitive

Just what are you trying to imply here? That CoD isn't competitive? Any game that has multiplayer of you against other people can be competitive. The question is whether or not they have a competitive scene. Which CoD has, along with many other games that have multiplayer. Just because you don't think CoD is competitve doesn't mean it isn't, it has tournaments and it has players who play competitivly making it have a competitive scene making it a competitive scene.

Sorry if I misinterepeted what you meant but it seemed like you were implying that CoD can't be done competitivly, which is pretty much false as it has a competitive scene (and this is all coming from someone who doesn't care for CoD).

 

[smashmachine]

Just what are you trying to imply here? That CoD isn't competitive? Any game that has multiplayer of you against other people can be competitive. The question is whether or not they have a competitive scene. Which CoD has, along with many other games that have multiplayer. Just because you don't think CoD is competitve doesn't mean it isn't, it has tournaments and it has players who play competitivly making it have a competitive scene making it a competitive scene.

Sorry if I misinterepeted what you meant but it seemed like you were implying that CoD can't be done competitivly, which is pretty much false as it has a competitive scene (and this is all coming from someone who doesn't care for CoD).

well let's see....

The most successful games are targeted as a social activity which means making a game fun, addicting and accessible (the latter is something very important for a multiplayer game). The game should draw a crowd. Competitive games don't work for this because they require more dedication than playing it at a friends house.

key part: "competitive games don't work for this"
CoD being competitive completely destroys this fool's argument, which is what I was really going for

 

[mimgrim]

well let's see....



key part: "competitive games don't work for this"
CoD being competitive completely destroys this fool's argument, which is what I was really going for

Ohhhh alright, sorry for misinterpeting what you meant. lol

 

[:downs:]

Competitive means tourney folks. That's what they call themselves anyway.

Haha, what? Every game that has a clearly defined winner and loser is competitive. Almost every, athletic, card, board, video game in existence is competitive, you are either competing against the game, the odds, the AI, or the other players. The point is to overcome that and get better. That's basically the definition of a game. Smash is competitive. You are competing for first place. That's the goal. It's high level merits are debatable, but it's competitive no matter what skill level the players are.

 

[peeup]

Haha, what? Every game that has a clearly defined winner and loser is competitive. Almost every, athletic, card, board, video game in existence is competitive, you are either competing against the game, the odds, the AI, or the other players. The point is to overcome that and get better. That's literally the definition of a game. Smash is competitive. You are competing for first place. That's the goal. It's high level merits are debatable, but it's competitive no matter what skill level the players are.

While this is all true, none of this applies to what everyone else in this thread is referring to as "competitive." When people say "competitive" in this thread, they mean "people who play at a professional or semi-professional level, usually noted by going to tournaments that have a cash entry fee and a cash prize."

Stop being a little ***** and splitting hairs when literally everybody is on the same page here.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I don't get why we need two different sections for competitive and social. As long as a "With Friends" category exists....

It's a matter of great convenience, peeup, on top of a way to meet players already out there. You can't guarantee your friends will be able to play when you want to.

The rest of you should stop responding to SmashChu. He is not interested in anything except going off on tangents and trying to illustrate points that have nothing to do with whether or not separation by skill is beneficial, like when he brings up people wanting to make a game their second job. It's a waste of energy and time to consider what he has to say.

 

[SmashChu]

While this is all true, none of this applies to what everyone else in this thread is referring to as "competitive." When people say "competitive" in this thread, they mean "people who play at a professional or semi-professional level, usually noted by going to tournaments that have a cash entry fee and a cash prize."

Stop being a little ***** and splitting hairs when literally everybody is on the same page here.

Thank you. Let's stop splinting hairs.

 

[Chiroz]

Most players don't want to sit at a game for hours trying to master it. Gaming is a hobby people do. When a game targets itself at a competitive community, it alienates the people who want to play it as a hobby. The game demands more from the player and most players leave because they don't want to dedicate the amount of time the game wants. Only a small group of people want to make a game their second job. Of course, this group goes to tournaments and fights and dreams of one day getting sponsorship so they can quit their dull 9-5 job. For everyone else, the game is a hobby and that's what people expect most from a game.

The most successful games are targeted as a social activity which means making a game fun, addicting and accessible (the latter is something very important for a multiplayer game). The game should draw a crowd. Competitive games don't work for this because they require more dedication than playing it at a friends house.

Since I talked about accessibility, I expect a minimum of 4 replies. Take it away boy.

CoD, Starcraft, WoW (Both PvE and PvP scene), League of Legends.

Wait what?

In reality the most successful games are actually played at high professional levels, if anything games like LoL (which is the game with the highest number of players online concurrently) owe everything to their successful campaign to make the game be professionally competitive.

Your argument makes no sense as every single example proves you wrong.

 

[peeup]

It's a matter of great convenience, peeup, on top of a way to meet players already out there. You can't guarantee your friends will be able to play when you want to.

Then do what I said and make new friends. We have internet, it ain't hard. If you want to play a competitive match online, you will 100% of the time be able to do so. I say this from experience. It takes 30 seconds and half a brain cell to figure out how and where.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Then do what I said and make new friends. We have internet, it ain't hard. If you want to play a competitive match online, you will 100% of the time be able to do so. I say this from experience. It takes 30 seconds and half a brain cell to figure out how and where.

And what of the people who are great at the game, but aren't aware of the community? What are they to do? Flounder around in the casual rooms beating up scrubs?

 

[peeup]

And what of the people who are great at the game, but aren't aware of the community? What are they to do? Flounder around in the casual rooms beating up scrubs?

If they have 30 seconds and half a brain cell, they'll look it up on the internet. Clearly everybody on this thread was competent enough to do so, so I think we can infer that pretty much everybody can.

 

[smashmachine]

CoD, Starcraft, WoW (Both PvE and PvP scene), League of Legends.

Wait what?

In reality the most successful games are actually played at high professional levels, if anything games like LoL (which is the game with the highest number of players online concurrently) owe everything to their successful campaign to make the game be professionally competitive.

Your argument makes no sense as every single example proves you wrong.

lol completely owned
add Halo back in the MLG days and relatively "mainstream" fighters (either in the FGC or in the general population) like Street Fighter, MvC, and Smash to the list too

 

[Big-Cat]

And what of the people who are great at the game, but aren't aware of the community? What are they to do? Flounder around in the casual rooms beating up scrubs?

Miiverse.

Is everyone forgetting this?

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

If they have 30 seconds and half a brain cell, they'll look it up on the internet. Clearly everybody on this thread was competent enough to do so, so I think we can infer that pretty much everybody can.

Everybody on this thread already knows about the greater Smash community. We are able to organise competitive online matches through already being part of it.

Miiverse.

Is everyone forgetting this?

Actually, yes. I had forgotten about Miiverse. This pretty much resolves all the problems being addressed on this thread.

 

[Big-Cat]

Actually, yes. I had forgotten about Miiverse. This pretty much resolves all the problems being addressed on this thread.

It also addresses such thought provoking questions like why cant Metroid crawl.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

It also addresses such thought provoking questions like why cant Metroid crawl.

Or why Zelda carries her sword in her left hand in the new Smash Bros.

 

[Ulevo]

How do advanced techniques screw casual players over?

They're casual players.

This is a most unfortunate premis that has been adopted by a vocal portion of the Brawl advocates ever since Brawls release to justify their attachment and enjoyment (thus its legitimacy in the series) to the game itself. Smash never had a problem with casual players because the demographic Smash appeals to is so wide spread that you're naturally going to fit right to your crowd regardless of skill as long as you actually enjoy the game enough to play it.

The only players advanced techniques 'screw over' are bad competitive players. Players that want to win and succeed against better players, but either do not want to put forward the effort to do so (95%) or players who have severe dexterity problems (other 5%.) And even that is debatable. It comes down to what extent you can or cannot perform these techniques, as most of them are easy enough that you'll grasp some of them, and the rest can be compensated for with simple mental control and experience. If a quadriplegic can play this game competitively (as in tournament attendance competitive) then that should more than set a precedent for the capability and accessibility to "casual players."

 

[peeup]

Everybody on this thread already knows about the greater Smash community. We are able to organise competitive online matches through already being part of it.

True. Also true is to say that none of us knew about this site when we first started playing Smash. Then we found out about it because we wanted to play at a higher level.

 

[RODO]

Offline play is always the ideal environment if you are judging for skill. This is a fact.
Another fact is that Miyamoto considers Smash a Psuedo Party Game, and that isnt something that usually deserves an advanced online ranking system.
I am not against Online play, But based on Nintendo's current/past Internet and such, they wont specifically try to go for it.

I am not saying some people dont enjoy something like that, but if it takes away anything from the offline gameplay experience, I will dislike it greatly.

I for one refuse to play basically any fighting game online that uses input delay, as its like playing a completely different game and I learn bad habits and stupid things. But thats just me.

I'd be inclined to agree with you if Mario Kart didn't have a ranking system.

 

[kikaru]

It also addresses such thought provoking questions like why cant Metroid crawl.

 

[Chauzu]

As long as online is good I'm happy. There's no precise formula for that. I hope Sm4sh surprises me... Positively.

 

[[Corn]]

I'd be inclined to agree with you if Mario Kart didn't have a ranking system.

You realize I specifically said fighting game correct?

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

God damn it. I knew it.

This was a terrible idea for a thread simply on the basis of this exact argument. Wasn't there already a thread (or two thousand) that was addressing the whole "Casual Vs Competitive/AT. Vs Non-AT?"

 

[Ulevo]

You realize I specifically said fighting game correct?

I think his point was that a party game that is made and supported by Nintendo is perfectly capable of being given a competitive online ranking system. While Smash is a fighting game, it also falls under the party game category as well. Mario Kart is a party game too, even though players play it competitively. There is precedent either way.

I don't think Nintendo is the issue though. I think Sakurai is. I don't believe he wants to foster an environment online where people are able to compete with one another and have that dominate the experience. To some degree I agree with his concern, and it would have to be done right.