Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: SeraphZ on May 16, 2014, 08:10:01 pm
-
Hypothetical situation:
I'm an Engi on Dunes in the middle of a battle, and our hull armor is just about to go down. I hit Q and see 'Rebuild 30 Hull Armor on Dunes 29/30'. Rebuild Hull Armor... not repair... repairing this will do me no good. But if I let it get destroyed first... then I could level up.
While ideally a player would say "I'm sure this will be destroyed soon enough" and repair instead of rebuild but it's an issue of motivation. As a game designer you never want to motivate your players to not do the right thing.
I do appreciate that the game doesn't have a boring simple XP system. I really like the idea of leveling being for what you do in game instead of just playing. But it only supports achievement hunting, instead of playing the game because it's fun, which is a shame. Take care, I really do like the game a lot.
-
You haven't seen nothing yet till you get past level 10. Heck level 15 achievements literally cannot be done without tons of hours spent for just the right moment to happen, or arranged farming. All the 15 pilots you see in game pretty much had to do that to hit 15. Heck I had to arrange farming on Firnfeld and I think one other.
-
They become crazy. And for new players arent a good thing at all. They give you rewards though.
-
xp level system would be brilliant imo and not at all boring. Instead of getting rewarded for some inane tasks that are detrimental to you and your team's enjoyment of the game you are instead getting rewarded for playing to win - which has the indirect effect of encouraging teamwork, because that is by far the surest way of achieving victory. Levelling systems, like it or not, are important to many players and play a role in motivating them to continue to play a game and are influential in how they play that game as many people try to level as fast as possible.
Currently the levelling system encourages players to play selfishly, to complete their own set of tasks which often means playing in a way that is detrimental to their team's enjoyment of the game. It forces you to shape the environment of a match to suit the needs of your own personal set of achievements - coming into conflict with other players who want to change the environment to suit their own achievement requirements or who want to have fun.
Whereas an XP system would reward players for two simple things - playing the game, and winning matches. It's a well known fact that, at least as far as pub matches go, the deciding factor is pretty much always teamwork; both on ship and ship to ship. Which means to win matches to maximise XP gain, players need to work together as a team. So they are playing the game as I can only imagine it was envisaged, co-operating to achieve mutual success rather than manipulating the situation to maximise personal gain.
I think most issues with regards to the applicability of an XP system to GOIO have pretty simple solutions. Yes, it'd be pretty rough as there's no good way to track a player's individual contribution. But that's fine - you reward players as a team, because they achieved as a team. Sometimes there will be dead weight who get XP for other players' work.. and sometimes there will be great players who are dragged down by a bad team. But on the whole it should even out.
Measuring the difficulty, and XP value of a match, would also be kind of tricky. But once matchmaking is implemented, it could be assumed that every match is basically equally matched and that therefore the XP value of each match is the same. Although this wouldn't be universally true, if the matchmaking system is any good it will even out; since a good matchmaking system will on average produce balanced matches. Averages are pretty important here; XP rewards would always be on occasion more or less than deserved - but afaik that's pretty normal in any game and it always holds that in a good system, things even out in the bigger picture.
-
Velvet I think you're absolutely right - a normal XP system is the only thing that motivates players appropriately.
-
As much as I agree that achievement system and leveling up could be fixed A LITTLE BIT (like removing or remaking some achievements, but only that), even I, despite cheeving like crazy, do not click Q every time to decide whether or not I should let the hull armor die to rebuild it.
Rebuilding hull armor is one of those things that will happen to you very soon no matter if you agree to it. Forcing a situation like this seems pointless to me. Also, you should always remember that an engineer should have higher priorities with repairs than doing achievements (maybe you don't deserve this level after all if you don't see it :P).
-
xp level system would be brilliant imo and not at all boring. Instead of getting rewarded for some inane tasks that are detrimental to you and your team's enjoyment of the game you are instead getting rewarded for playing to win - which has the indirect effect of encouraging teamwork, because that is by far the surest way of achieving victory. Levelling systems, like it or not, are important to many players and play a role in motivating them to continue to play a game and are influential in how they play that game as many people try to level as fast as possible.
Currently the levelling system encourages players to play selfishly, to complete their own set of tasks which often means playing in a way that is detrimental to their team's enjoyment of the game. It forces you to shape the environment of a match to suit the needs of your own personal set of achievements - coming into conflict with other players who want to change the environment to suit their own achievement requirements or who want to have fun.
Whereas an XP system would reward players for two simple things - playing the game, and winning matches. It's a well known fact that, at least as far as pub matches go, the deciding factor is pretty much always teamwork; both on ship and ship to ship. Which means to win matches to maximise XP gain, players need to work together as a team. So they are playing the game as I can only imagine it was envisaged, co-operating to achieve mutual success rather than manipulating the situation to maximise personal gain.
I think most issues with regards to the applicability of an XP system to GOIO have pretty simple solutions. Yes, it'd be pretty rough as there's no good way to track a player's individual contribution. But that's fine - you reward players as a team, because they achieved as a team. Sometimes there will be dead weight who get XP for other players' work.. and sometimes there will be great players who are dragged down by a bad team. But on the whole it should even out.
Measuring the difficulty, and XP value of a match, would also be kind of tricky. But once matchmaking is implemented, it could be assumed that every match is basically equally matched and that therefore the XP value of each match is the same. Although this wouldn't be universally true, if the matchmaking system is any good it will even out; since a good matchmaking system will on average produce balanced matches. Averages are pretty important here; XP rewards would always be on occasion more or less than deserved - but afaik that's pretty normal in any game and it always holds that in a good system, things even out in the bigger picture.
If this were the system you may as well display the number of matches a player has played rather than a level. Without the current achievement system I think we will see a decrease in the number of mobulas, squids, spires; and as the xp system is purely derived from wins, more frequent lobby stacking.
-
As much as I agree that achievement system and leveling up could be fixed A LITTLE BIT (like removing or remaking some achievements, but only that), even I, despite cheeving like crazy, do not click Q every time to decide whether or not I should let the hull armor die to rebuild it.
Rebuilding hull armor is one of those things that will happen to you very soon no matter if you agree to it. Forcing a situation like this seems pointless to me. Also, you should always remember that an engineer should have higher priorities with repairs than doing achievements (maybe you don't deserve this level after all if you don't see it :P).
If you force it, no one will want to play with you, then you can't level up!
-
At last the nightmare is over...finally got those stupid 1300m kills done. Semi farmed. Just experienced crew against a ton of noobs who tried to snipe back instead of charge my face.
-
No matter how weird or impossible or how incredibly stupid the achievements seem, they are all still great.
Yes, >1000m kills take quite long and MUSE could decrease the number for those achievements, but it enables you to learn how to hit from a really long range or you learn how to play as a long range ship. Even if it might be a bit simple to play long range, you can always mess up.
As well as winning King of the Flayed Hills as a Junker is not actually the worst achievement. By playing a slow ship on such a large map in a gamemode where you have to run around the entire map, you will be forced to make use of communication. Without it, you will not get your achievement. (Playing against noobs doesn't count.)
Pilot achievements let you experiences all ships in different playstyles. Gunner achievements let you play around with every gun and ammunition on every gun. Engineer achievements all seem to be the same though, but on the opposite, engineers always DO the same, so basically engineers get rewarded for doing what they are supposed to do and are always doing.
And then they are achievements that make no sense. Extinguish fires with chem spray! Kill harpooned ships! Destroy parts with heatsink! ???
What bothers me most about this level system are not the achievements that make you question MUSE's sanity, but those repetitive ones. Kill X ships, capture X points, kill X ships again, WHY NOT CAPTURE SOME MORE POINTS AND KILL SOME SHIPS AFTER THAT.
You just have to deal with those, if you want to level up.
The greatest thing about this level system, however, is that you don't NEED to lvl up. You can be the best player in a specific category and only be lvl 5. Like be the best squid pilot all around, the best lumberjack gunner at >1500m and engineers, I dunno about engineers.
The level system is great, is what I say, even though some achievements could need a bit of reworking. Like the long range kills, you have to do too many for it to be actually fun. Or use hydrogen for 3 hours (not the correct number) even though using it for 1 second destroys your balloon halfway, since it stays activated for 3 seconds after you deactivated it...
-
If this were the system you may as well display the number of matches a player has played rather than a level. Without the current achievement system I think we will see a decrease in the number of mobulas, squids, spires; and as the xp system is purely derived from wins, more frequent lobby stacking.
Honestly I don't think achievements deserve much credit for ship variety - at least in its positive form. Pretty much every enjoyable mobula, squid or spire I see is flown by someone who likes that ship and is good at it. The ships where it's flown because the pilot is doing it for an achievement and/or doesn't know what they're getting into detract from my game experience, I don't know about yours.
GOIO has a joy in its variety but that is something in itself. It doesn't need people to be incentivised to discover it, it IS the incentive. It's pointless, it even deprecates from that variety, to push players towards specific loadouts. It's awesome that there's a huge choice, you can fly one of many different ships and then from there discover an endless depth of potential strategy and hilarity through guns, tactics, crew loadouts, your ally's ship and composition, playing on different maps... pushing players to sample the variety in little pieces, to give up their freedom to choose in order to maximise their progression is, in my opinion, not a positive effect.
I did actually address your concern about lobby stacking. Matchmaking is coming. Lobby stacking won't be a thing - or if it is, players will have no choice or ability to control it so it's irrelevant whether or not the XP encourages stacked lobbies. Because it's impossible to intentionally create a stacked lobby. Even if we ignore matchmaking, I'm sure it's not beyond Muse to build a system to gauge the "difficulty" of a lobby/team to decide XP rewards. simply averaging the levels of players on each team and multiplying winner's XP by the ratio of Loser:Winner, while rough, would be effective enough to make stacking generally unrewarding.
As for Dementio's argument... achievements don't enable you to do anything. They encourage you to do things. Don't suggest that players wouldn't try unusual builds or tactics without achievements because that's simply not true. I think imagination and seeing other peoples' strategies are far more important in creating new and interesting situations.
However the unfortunate case with achievements is that the rigid, linear structure of the achievements paths means that players are encouraged to play in specific ways, before they are ready to try such a strategy, or when such a strategy is plain BS (eg. gunner with a Mallet or gunner light flak achieves).
You don't NEED to level up, no. However you don't NEED to play the game, or NEED to do any of the many things that you choose to do in your life. It's all a matter of encouragement. Hunger encourages rather than forces eating, however it's widely acknowledged that people aren't just going to ignore hunger. The desire to level up, to find some way of progression within the game, to acquire a nice number by your name that stands as an instant and clear testament to your experience... yes, it's a much lesser force than hunger. However it's evidently pretty important to a great number of people so I think it stands that it shouldn't be just dismissed. It's not at all a case of "Yes the system has some weird consequences but you don't NEED to level up so it's fine". We can't ignore the significance of the levelling system, its importance and power has to be acknowledged and I think it would be a great benefit to the game and its community if that force was harnessed for good rather than left in its current sorry state.
I think the core, greatest problem of the achievement based levelling is its inherent selfishness. In an XP based system, a victory would result in a benefit for the whole team - your teamwork has achieved mutual gain. I've already explained how I feel this would also encourage players to discover the importance of teamwork sooner as it is by far the strongest way of playing to win. In the current achievement based system, at best, a player quietly and privately finds a ship that suits the requirements of their achievement and gets to work. At worst, the player will demand changes to the ship or make choices for their own loadout that reduce their team's efficiency, refusing to co-operate with other players because they won't progress if they do. This is a really bad thing in such a teamwork based game. I feel everything should be done to encourage teamwork and intuitively get across to new players the most fun and effective way to play the game whereas right now the level system, such a key motivator for some people, is optimised to be entirely divisive in nature.
The fact of most achievements being no fun, while in my opinion entirely true and yet another reason to scrap the whole system, is nothing like as important as the role of the levelling system in influencing how people play the game.
-
are we doing this again?
i think you guys are looking at the levels from the wrong angle. they are not your rank, they are not an indicator of skill, they are infact an indicator of renown within the world. as you preform more and more amazing feats of skill, word of your name spreads in the world, and you "level up"
this is reflected in how the unlocks are handled and even in how the community treats levels.
you only unlock cosmetic items, those cosmetic items are things you have collected in your travels, perhaps given by greatfull people you have helped or looted from towns you have raided. a "higher level" person, i.e. someone who has performed more amazing feats has clearly spent more time traveling and therefor has more cosmetic items.
as far as how people treat levels in game. they are taken as a mark of experience and skill; high levels are assumed to be good, while low levels are assumed to not know what they are doing untill they prove themselves. Is this not how a famous person, regardless of actual skill, would be treated in the game world? their actions have spread around the world and their reputation precedes them. someone not as famous, lower level, would not have that same reputation and thusly assumed to be just an average joe untill they show their skill.
with no unlocks that affect gameplay being a part of leveling up, an achievement based system is the only way a level system makes sense at all. you just gotta get your heads out of cod land.
furthermore, i think you are overestimating the segment of the population for whom leveling up is a main motivator. secondary or tertiary sure, or they want a certain unlock so they have to level up to obtain it. but to have leveling up be THE reason they are playing the game, i just find it hard to believe that is a very large segment of any game.
-
furthermore, i think you are overestimating the segment of the population for whom leveling up is a main motivator. secondary or tertiary sure, or they want a certain unlock so they have to level up to obtain it. but to have leveling up be THE reason they are playing the game, i just find it hard to believe that is a very large segment of any game.
I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the levelling system is an influence, not necessarily the main motivator - and that currently the way it is designed the influence is neative.
CoD is not by any means the only game to utilise an XP based levelling system. Same way 3D graphics are used in CoD - it doesn't mean 3D graphics should only be used in shallow CoD clones.
I don't think supposed "realism" is particularly important in game design and I strongly disagree with your contention that a player's level is considered to have anything to do with their fictional standing within the game world - particularly since it's been stated Adventure Mode will have a different levelling system. But to continue the idea, I think people would be more impressed if a pilot has won 1000 evenly matched battles than if said pilot has fought a few impractical battles at extreme range and got some fancy but inefficient kills against novice pilots with a minelauncher. If you care about lore plausibility, an XP system is a huge step up from completing a miscellaneous set of arbitrary tasks.
the heart of my point is that the achievements don't add a lot to the game and possibly take something away. Do people disagree that encouraging people to win would encourage them to discover that teamwork is the best way to play the game? cause I seriously can't believe that people could think that more teamplay for new players is bad thing, or less valuable than the purported increase in ship/loadout variety caused by achievements.
-
Adding extrisnic motivations for playing the game is just bad design. The way to make people try new tools is to make them fun to play, instead of showing them a carrot on a stick. We didn't have this problem before- blame the idiotic in-game popup window, one of the worst UI decisions muse has made in recent history. The worst part is that they mostly reward you for individual actions instead of teamwork.
The achievements were bad even before they started getting shoved in people's faces, but now people who otherwise wouldn't care about leveling do stupid un-fun things for stupid un-fun reasons. I actively resist leveling and achievement farming, and even I get distracted by the popups. Achievements used to be a small, semi-hidden part of the game that only a few people cared about and actively worked towards. They were still bad and un-fun, but until the in-game achievement window was added the effect was small. Now everybody has a direct on-screen incentive to act selfishly.
personally I would scrap the current leveling system, and replace with one based solely on wins against teams of equal or higher level. Specifically, everyone has a number of xp-points. If your individual number of xp-points is less than or equal to the enemy's team average xp-points, you gain an xp-point when you win a match against them. You never lose xp-points.
This system is dead-simple, easy to understand, promotes teamwork, prevents team stacking/farming n00bs. Sure, the rate of leveling slows down as you run out of high-level people to play against, but that just encourages you to participate in tournaments.
-
CoD is not by any means the only game to utilise an XP based levelling system. Same way 3D graphics are used in CoD - it doesn't mean 3D graphics should only be used in shallow CoD clones.
do you have to scare some crows away from your crops? why did you build this straw man?
no where did imply that cod is the only game with an xp based leveling system.
look, whether you agree with the renown approach or not, the fact remains that an xp based system is inappropriate for this game as there is no possibility for progression everything that matters in the game is already available to everyone. you will just have arbitrary numbers increasing until they reset to zero and start increasing again. it will be a measure of playtime more than anything else. If an xp system is inappropriate then you have to use something else or not have a leveling system at all.
With the achievement system already built into the game and people already investing their time into it, there is no way to get rid of it without pissing people off. its here to stay in skirmish, thats just how it is. i personally dont care about the achievements either, but i dont think its as big of a problem as you guys are presenting it as, i very rarely run into anyone that is not willing to work together in favor of doing their achievement.
-
CoD is not by any means the only game to utilise an XP based levelling system. Same way 3D graphics are used in CoD - it doesn't mean 3D graphics should only be used in shallow CoD clones.
do you have to scare some crows away from your crops? why did you build this straw man?
no where did imply that cod is the only game with an xp based leveling system.
look, whether you agree with the renown approach or not, the fact remains that an xp based system is inappropriate for this game as there is no possibility for progression everything that matters in the game is already available to everyone. you will just have arbitrary numbers increasing until they reset to zero and start increasing again. it will be a measure of playtime more than anything else. If an xp system is inappropriate then you have to use something else or not have a leveling system at all.
yes, XP would be a measure of playtime and basically have no value except as a bragging right and for aesthetic unlocks. That doesn't matter! What do you think the current system is? A genuine skill indicator? I would much rather that level indicated someone's experience level - often a good rough indicator of their skill - than the number of arbitrary tasks they have completed to increase their level.
Further I really don't feel level matters as a measurement. The important role is as a motivator. People want to level up... it doesn't matter if there is a good reason or they get something tangible for it, they just do. It would be better to utilise that force to motivate people to play the game as a team and co-operate to win than to motivate them to selfishly manipulate the situation to complete this massive list of silly tasks.
With the achievement system already built into the game and people already investing their time into it, there is no way to get rid of it without pissing people off. its here to stay in skirmish, thats just how it is. i personally dont care about the achievements either, but i dont think its as big of a problem as you guys are presenting it as, i very rarely run into anyone that is not willing to work together in favor of doing their achievement.
would be trivially easy to convert current achievements, or some other tracked statistic such as number of wins, into XP.
I don't view this as a problem, so much as a missed opportunity. A better level system would encourage new players to play the game in a different way and potentially increase their enjoyment, ultimately making the game more fun for everyone as well as possibly improving player retention and sales. Therefore the fact that the situation seems to be OK right now really isn't too relevant.
-
I personally find the Achievement-based system nicer as it allows for any achievement to count equally to any level, and it is a more unique aspect to GoIO and Velvet, it would not be terribly easy to convert achievements, as you could literally go the same way with the achievements if you wanted to convert them into said hypothetical experience points. however, the achievement system, to an extent allows one to level up even if they were on a loosing streak. Basing levels off of wins would just motivate the culture to shift more so in the Call of Duty direction, motivating people to go for the quick kill, removing the tactics from it all, and above all, motivation to steal the kills of others, which is no bueno.
-
I personally find the Achievement-based system nicer as it allows for any achievement to count equally to any level, and it is a more unique aspect to GoIO and Velvet, it would not be terribly easy to convert achievements, as you could literally go the same way with the achievements if you wanted to convert them into said hypothetical experience points. however, the achievement system, to an extent allows one to level up even if they were on a loosing streak. Basing levels off of wins would just motivate the culture to shift more so in the Call of Duty direction, motivating people to go for the quick kill, removing the tactics from it all, and above all, motivation to steal the kills of others, which is no bueno.
basing levels off WINS, not KILLS. That is a very important distinction you seem to have missed. Selfish killstealing and mindless charging will not give you levels if the leveling system is based off wins. Teamwork, planning, tactics, and general skillful play, however, will.
It all depends on whether we want levels to be indicators of skill and prestige, or indicators of how willing you are to grind/farm some inane task.
-
The level system, after being in it for over a year now, is really just a recognition of dedication. The number of hours you've put into the game and the effort. It isn't so much about skill. However, those hours do amount to something. New players will not win 1v1s against veterans. There is just no way. The playing field is leveled and the game is the same for both, but the experience gap is too large to cross yet.
Games like CoD reward reaction time and memorization. Put the same players in other games like GOIO and they flop simply because the ship becomes the player and the crew becomes the hands, feet, head/etc. If any factor is not in sync, the ship will be ineffective. They can't function under those conditions. GOIO rewards more the people who can orchestrate all that well or adapt well. I'd like to think of the Coddies as more the, fresh meat for the grinder, frontline grunts, and the GOIO players as more the commanders or the special forces unit who see the bigger picture or have to be a cohesive unit.
Hence why GOIO doesn't skyrocket and become ultra popular but is never without dedicated players. Put a Coddie vs a GOIO in an airship fight...that Coddie is grinder bait. Put a GOIO in a twitch FPS vs a Coddie...I'd still bet money on the GOIO player because they'll be the ones thinking ahead and not just relying on reaction times. Coddies can't cross over unless they stop relying on speed and rely more on their head. Unfortunately, we've got a generation now stuck in speed mode.
-
What does leveling in this game even do for you? It gives you cosmetic items, some dyes, and a few badges. That is what I meant when I said you don't need to level up. You don't actually gain anything from it.
In other games you would have to level up in order to gain more weapons/utility items or you play as many games as you can to gain xp which is also the very currency in said game that you use to buy some characters with it.
In GoIO you already have everything unlocked from the very beginning and this makes leveling up kinda pointless, unless you want a nice badge and a nice number. By winning tournaments or winning against the Devs you gain the rest of the cosmetic items.
This would work with an xp-based level system too, yes, but it seems rather flat, to me, in comparision.
If you want an indicator of skills you look at how many matches this person has played, that's as much as you can do in GoIO. Xp would, in one way, just stand as a synonym for the number of matches you have played.
May your actual level number be as high as it is, at a certain level it makes no difference to most players, no matter what leveling system would be used. What's the difference between level 9 and 15? Level 15 has (maybe) played more and thus maybe knows one or two tricks more out of experience. How significant that knowledge really is depends on stuff.
As a side note, in a xp-based level system you would gain xp based on how good you performed even if you lose, the score board at the end of the match is supposed to tell you that. The score board is just as pointless as the entire level system.
Also, might I ask why, in the name of something important, somebody would choose to level up instead of actually playing the game and have fun if leveling up in this game is pointless from the very beginning? And what do you think people do when they reach lvl 15 on every class? Stop playing the game just because?
Leveling is not the main focus of this game and it certainly is not the reason why certain people keep coming back to play it.
-
If you want an indicator of skills you look at how many matches this person has played, that's as much as you can do in GoIO. Xp would, in one way, just stand as a synonym for the number of matches you have played.
no, it would stand as a combined indicator of the number of matches you have played and the number of matches you have won - and thanks to matchmaking, this would be only victories against roughly equally matched opponents.
I seriously can't see how you continue to believe that nobody cares about levels... especially since you're a level 14 pilot - you've clearly gone to significant effort and gone out of your way to farm achievements that have the only effect of increasing your level. Yet you're suggesting that levels are meaningless to people? The fact that the rewards for levelling up are purely aesthetic items and a nontangible increase in self-perceived importance does not mean there is no reward at all or that they don't motivate anyone to do anything. A fact that you, like so many others, stand as living proof of.
I don't understand your purpose in continuing to attack the importance of the levelling system.. this is not a debate on how important it is, it's a discussion of the current problems and whether it should be redesigned to make the game more enjoyable. While it's true that if the levelling system really was irrelevant to many players it wouldn't be such a high priority for Muse to fix it, that A) doesn't change the fact that it should be eventually fixed and B) is a moot point because your assertions are wrong.
-
Rebuilding hull armor is one of those things that will happen to you very soon no matter if you agree to it. Forcing a situation like this seems pointless to me. Also, you should always remember that an engineer should have higher priorities with repairs than doing achievements (maybe you don't deserve this level after all if you don't see it :P).
Certainly - it was an oversimplified example just to show importance of motivation. I'm much lower level than everyone else in this thread but I can see these small issues at my level becoming major later in the game - which is consistent with the response to this thread.
no, it would stand as a combined indicator of the number of matches you have played and the number of matches you have won - and thanks to matchmaking, this would be only victories against roughly equally matched opponents.
I completely agree, matches won over matches total is indicator of skill, though volume of XP might be due to just straight persistence. I think this is overall good - to level you either work hard or you work well.
I'm very pleased this topic has taken off and I hope Muse takes some time to consider the subject!
-
Rebuilding hull armor is one of those things that will happen to you very soon no matter if you agree to it. Forcing a situation like this seems pointless to me. Also, you should always remember that an engineer should have higher priorities with repairs than doing achievements (maybe you don't deserve this level after all if you don't see it :P).
Certainly - it was an oversimplified example just to show importance of motivation. I'm much lower level than everyone else in this thread but I can see these small issues at my level becoming major later in the game - which is consistent with the response to this thread.
no, it would stand as a combined indicator of the number of matches you have played and the number of matches you have won - and thanks to matchmaking, this would be only victories against roughly equally matched opponents.
I completely agree, matches won over matches total is indicator of skill, though volume of XP might be due to just straight persistence. I think this is overall good - to level you either work hard or you work well.
I'm very pleased this topic has taken off and I hope Muse takes some time to consider the subject!
I disagree, currently in this game matches won is no indication of skill, merely an inclination to play with other good players against worse players. This game is far too team-based for win/loss ratio to mean anything.
-
I disagree, currently in this game matches won is no indication of skill, merely an inclination to play with other good players against worse players. This game is far too team-based for win/loss ratio to mean anything.
I agree that for an XP system to work it would either have to have a skill rating to limit XP gain in unbalanced matches - or to be introduced in tandem with the already planned matchmaking feature which should largely eliminate the factor of players intentionally organising unbalanced matches.
-
no, it would stand as a combined indicator of the number of matches you have played and the number of matches you have won - and thanks to matchmaking, this would be only victories against roughly equally matched opponents.
You are suggestion something that has nothing to do with an xp-based level system.
With my argument I had simple logic in mind: The more matches he played, the more experienced he gathered. The more experience he has, the better he is in the game.
It's only an assumption and even some high level players are considered to be bad at everything they do, but it's the best we currently have in this game. Or do you want to be able to see every single stat MUSE database has about this player, similar to your own progess tab?
No matter what kind of indicator this game has, in the end you will have to play with the person in question to know how good/bad said person really is.
Yes, I am a level 14 pilot, you got sharp eyes there, but that shows that I just know how pointless it is to level up. Just think logical, what's waiting for you there, at level 15? A BADGE AND A NICE NUMBER! I honestly don't care about either of those.
If you want to know why I am level 14 read on, if not then skip to second to last paragraph. If you wanna argument against me at why I lvl up, you might wanna take a look.
I did the achievements, because I had the opportunity, time and it sounded fun. Kills ships with flamethrowers? Double flamethrower pyramidion! Kill harpooned ships? Harpoon on the side of the junker! Destroy balloons as a spire? 4 carronades!
Yes there were some not fun achievements (use hydrogen for X seconds, kill X ships at a distance of over 1300m), but from time to time I though "Why not?". What's gonna stop me from going long range, what's gonna stop me from making my engineer hate me because I use this tool too often? Nothing! So why not?
However, most achievements I got at random, Kill X ships, win X matches, capture X points, destroy this ship X times, win X matches against level 7+ with 100% hull armor and some more.
They were not hard, most were not boring, but some gave me more "weird" ideas (double mine junker) or encoureged me to think (what's best for long range? how to use this gun most effiecently and on how many ships can I do it?).
Currently I am stuck at some mobula kills. I will get those in time.
I am a level 14 pilot without actually grinding for it. I don't feel satisfied, proud, sad or anything. I just like playing this game and that leveled me up. An xp-based level system would have done the same, but with less "effort" and "creativity".
I am not trying to argument the current level system's importance, but show you just how unimportant the xp-based level system is in comparision. It wouldn't make anything better and most likely not worse either. The current level system is good and changing it to a basic xp-based one would be, in my opinion, completely stupid and time wasting.
I have a question: How is an xp-based level system better again? It does not show skill since you lvl up even if you lose every match doing nothing at some point in time, that's for sure. And it would be just as rewarding as the current level system. So, how is it better?
-
I disagree, currently in this game matches won is no indication of skill, merely an inclination to play with other good players against worse players. This game is far too team-based for win/loss ratio to mean anything.
That's true, which is why XP would be based not on the ratio but number of matches.
-
I disagree, currently in this game matches won is no indication of skill, merely an inclination to play with other good players against worse players. This game is far too team-based for win/loss ratio to mean anything.
That's true, which is why XP would be based not on the ratio but number of matches.
you have taken my comment out of context, I was replying to a post that suggested xp be taken from the ratio.
-
I disagree, currently in this game matches won is no indication of skill, merely an inclination to play with other good players against worse players. This game is far too team-based for win/loss ratio to mean anything.
That's true, which is why XP would be based not on the ratio but number of matches.
you have taken my comment out of context, I was replying to a post that suggested xp be taken from the ratio.
That was my post, but no one was suggesting that. Just that with wins giving more XP a higher Win/Loss ratio will mean you level faster. It would still be mostly a stat used for pissing contests.
-
i find that the main problem is, that instead of encouraging new tactics and experimentation, the result is annoying grinding. in the beginning i played a lot as pilot with the Pyramidion, without gaining any points for using this ship. thats because, while the current challenge is "Goldfish mastery" i don't earn anything from using other ships! so you have to use the goldfish and win 10 matches. fair enough, but after 5 wins, it's beginning to get tedious. but you can't change ships if you want to level up. the system that tries to make us experiment is making us grind.
the fact that other achievements ruin co-op is even worse. a pilot that runs around fixing guns for the "Helping hand"? that ruins your day.
kill stealing is becoming a thing.
rushing in to set things on fire puts the crew, and the team in risk.
suggestion: implement a xp system for LvL, cosmetics and medals, but keep the achievements as something that yields a lot of xp.
or seperate them completely.
but a Xp system that gives points for every ship the team takes down, end of the round bonuses for engie, and stuff. focus om rewarding teamplay and organic strategy, not grinding with the carronade.
-
Killing an enemy could still be kill stealing...
The order of the achievement are quite annyoing and if that is so troublesome to most, why not suggest that you can do such achievements at the same time? Flying goldfish first or spire first won't matter. However, the many achievements that are very similar to each other (Repair X times, rebuild X times, win deathmatch X times) should stay in the order they are right now, but not interfere with the order that other achievements (like flying ship A or B). Those this sound confusing?
This would resolve the issue of doing this before that and yet you still have to play the game a lot in order to achieve other achievements. A pilot could then fix any gun at anytime without actually having to worry about the achievement.
-
yes, more achivements open at one time would solve a lot of frustration. having to concentrate on using burst rounds while other similar ach. are locked off doesn't feel organic. if i have already destroyed with a flametrhower, why don't that count?
-
yes, more achivements open at one time would solve a lot of frustration. having to concentrate on using burst rounds while other similar ach. are locked off doesn't feel organic. if i have already destroyed with a flametrhower, why don't that count?
I totally agree - as you said in your first comment the result is a grind. Why would you ever do that to your player base? I just want to have fun & shoot stuff.
-
Yup, planning on ways to move towards non achievement based leveling.. more XP related... things you shoot... things you repair... etc.
When? Dunno! Definitely for co-op though.
-
Yup, planning on ways to move towards non achievement based leveling.. more XP related... things you shoot... things you repair... etc.
When? Dunno! Definitely for co-op though.
I already mentioned this but I'll say it again https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,4044.msg69901.html#msg69901
Please make it based on wins instead of specific stuff you do in-game. The best way to evaluate performance is to look at WINNING matches against equal or higher-skilled opponents, while disregarding what actually goes on in the match, because the definition of playing well varies immensely from ship to ship and player to player, and it's wrong to measure them all by the same stick.
This system would allow for the widest variety of playstyles and encourages better play for XP. If you run out of higher-skilled opponents to gain XP from, join a tournament, which incidentally also also helps the community and promotes good play. It would basically work like an ELO system, except nobody would ever lose points.
tl;dr the only objective measure of how good a player did is if they won or not. Everything else needs a human to evaluate.
-
Yup, planning on ways to move towards non achievement based leveling.. more XP related... things you shoot... things you repair... etc.
When? Dunno! Definitely for co-op though.
Please make it based on wins instead of specific stuff you do in-game. Basically if you reward specific actions in-game people are going to gravitate towards playing based on XP gain instead of playing to win, just like they are now. NOBODY wants a pilot running around repairing guns 'for xp' or 'for an achievement'. IMO the best way is to simply reward WINNING matches against equal or higher-skilled opponents, while disregarding what actually goes on in the match, because the definition of playing well varies immensely from ship to ship and player to player, and it's wrong to measure them all by the same stick.
This system would allow for the widest variety of playstyles and encourages better play for XP. If you run out of higher-skilled opponents to gain XP from, join a tournament, which incidentally also also helps the community and promotes good play. It would basically work like an ELO system, except nobody would ever lose points.
except for that directly hinders the player who does not have time or interest in tournaments and the "competitive" scene in general.
again, when you say people are playing in such a way that they intentionally sabotage their ship now for achievements, or that they will do so in the future with xp, what sort of games are you playing that you are running into that problem in such a significant quantity and/or severity? Are people really playing for the achievements or are you not communicating with your shipmates leading to their ideas of what is the right course of action differing from yours? (or perhaps you are mistaking ignorance of mechanics as malice) I have a sneaking suspicion that your memories are playing tricks on you with regard to how widespread that problem is. I too run into people who are not playing the most efficient game of guns of icarus ever, but usually it is due to inexperience with the game or a misunderstanding of mechanics; not achievement hunting.
-
I agree with Omniraptor. The system Awkm is hinting at is everything wrong with achievements distilled from the limited benefits then amped up to 11.
I just don't understand why anyone thinks "nobody takes levelling up that seriously" is a good reason to settle for a badly designed levelling system. Even if we ignore how wrong the assertion is, the conclusion drawn is bad enough in itself.
Jaeger, I agree that people who make stupid decisions for the sake of achievements are generally in the minority. However there are more flaws to the current system than that; namely the missed opportunity to create a compelling levelling system that adds to rather than detracts from player's satisfaction at playing the game. I think a steadily increasing progress bar, while obviously not the core of the game's appeal, takes up the slack in times when the game's inherent enjoyability isn't holding up - for example as you're still learning to play or after a string of bad pub matches. honestly I think I personally would play pub games more often if I knew I'd get something out of it regardless of the unreliability of pub teams, even if it is just more progress towards some aesthetic items. As it is, the achievements system doesn't serve this role because the progress isn't so intuitive and highly trackable as an XP bar, and particularly later down the line the achievements grind to a stall completely; they're not an encouraging accompanying feature to enjoying the game, they become an end into themselves because you will stop getting them if you don't seek them out specifically.
-
I just don't understand why anyone thinks "nobody takes levelling up that seriously" is a good reason to settle for a badly designed levelling system.
But it's not badly designed, it just needs a little tuning.
Personally, I feel much more accomplished when I win 250 death matches instead of getting 100xp each win...
If I had an xp-bar I would just glance at it every once in a while and go "meh", while I can actually look at achievements and see what I can do.
If I had an xp-bar I would start to count levels as less important as they are. There is only 1 bar that fills up wether you win or lose and thus everybody levels up rather "easily". I would not see any indicator of "skill" if I look at somebodies level, the same is right now.
An xp-based level system would make leveling so flat that people might ignore it's very existence. Why wouldn't they? You just have to play some random matches and you get your cosmetic item. Might as well base that of the number of matches you played...
-
So i have been lurking in this thread and notice what people are saying how about this is just an idea mind you to strike a nice balance how about xp for achievements? then everyone gets the best of both worlds?
But change achievments to more wins then matches played slightly tweek the numbers and objectives add more perfect victories or win by at least 3 kills.
Then have some for buff so many of x, then you have grind achievements which you will get over time but are still driven by winning games and gaining xp that way,
Also instead of level 5 you unlock a cosmetic it is for completing a tree of skills 5 objectives in tree 1 or 15 objectives overall?
I hope this makes sense.
Because if the desired changes are just number based and you keep the core foundation in place to work on, it is alot more realistic to achieve rather than a complete overhaul?
So what are the thoughts?
-
In the interest of full disclosure about this, I am annoyingly OCD about my levels. I don't play to level, but I have an illogical need to keep all my levels the same. So when I level up accidentally, I have to start grinding right away to equal them out.
i think you guys are looking at the levels from the wrong angle. they are not your rank, they are not an indicator of skill, they are infact an indicator of renown within the world. as you preform more and more amazing feats of skill, word of your name spreads in the world, and you "level up"
this is reflected in how the unlocks are handled and even in how the community treats levels.
you only unlock cosmetic items, those cosmetic items are things you have collected in your travels, perhaps given by greatfull people you have helped or looted from towns you have raided. a "higher level" person, i.e. someone who has performed more amazing feats has clearly spent more time traveling and therefor has more cosmetic items.
as far as how people treat levels in game. they are taken as a mark of experience and skill; high levels are assumed to be good, while low levels are assumed to not know what they are doing untill they prove themselves. Is this not how a famous person, regardless of actual skill, would be treated in the game world? their actions have spread around the world and their reputation precedes them. someone not as famous, lower level, would not have that same reputation and thusly assumed to be just an average joe untill they show their skill.
with no unlocks that affect gameplay being a part of leveling up, an achievement based system is the only way a level system makes sense at all. you just gotta get your heads out of cod land.
furthermore, i think you are overestimating the segment of the population for whom leveling up is a main motivator. secondary or tertiary sure, or they want a certain unlock so they have to level up to obtain it. but to have leveling up be THE reason they are playing the game, i just find it hard to believe that is a very large segment of any game.
^Listen to this person, they are quite wise. As I have played ever increasing games with the 'old guard' of this game, one universal factor is that the "better" the player, the less they pay attention to the class rank of someone as some form of measure of talent.
With my argument I had simple logic in mind: The more matches he played, the more experienced he gathered. The more experience he has, the better he is in the game.
It's only an assumption and even some high level players are considered to be bad at everything they do, but it's the best we currently have in this game. Or do you want to be able to see every single stat MUSE database has about this player, similar to your own progess tab?
No matter what kind of indicator this game has, in the end you will have to play with the person in question to know how good/bad said person really is.
The Game Proper in other words, treats it as a level of dedication/time spent, nothing more. Which is pointed out by this comment later in this thread by Dementio and is as JaegerDelta was stating.
I personally find the Achievement-based system nicer as it allows for any achievement to count equally to any level, and it is a more unique aspect to GoIO and Velvet, it would not be terribly easy to convert achievements, as you could literally go the same way with the achievements if you wanted to convert them into said hypothetical experience points. however, the achievement system, to an extent allows one to level up even if they were on a loosing streak. Basing levels off of wins would just motivate the culture to shift more so in the Call of Duty direction, motivating people to go for the quick kill, removing the tactics from it all, and above all, motivation to steal the kills of others, which is no bueno.
I also must say I wholly agree with macmacnick in this regard. The current system gives someone a purpose or goal to work on at all times, even when victory is impossible. Nearly everyone here will have known the pure ecstatic joy that comes from a bitter defeat, only to find out by surprise that you finished some long forgotten incomplete achievement that you had abandoned trying to work on.
While true that to get to the highest levels one must really do all of the challenging achievements, at the lower and mid levels you can really have an unbalanced completion list which is pretty neat. Looking over mine I certainly notice what my play styles have favored over others. For example I believe I was a level 7 or 8 pilot before I completed the win with goldfish achievement, quite simply because I hate flying those, so never did, and when I on rare occasion did, usually failed miserably. That did not prevent me from leveling. It may have slowed my progress slightly, however how can one claim to deserve the highest levels of pilot if one is a novice beginner at one of the core ships. Recall again that these levels are a measure of experience as much as anything.
Yup, planning on ways to move towards non achievement based leveling.. more XP related... things you shoot... things you repair... etc.
When? Dunno! Definitely for co-op though.
So i have been lurking in this thread and notice what people are saying how about this is just an idea mind you to strike a nice balance how about xp for achievements? then everyone gets the best of both worlds?
But change achievments to more wins then matches played slightly tweek the numbers and objectives add more perfect victories or win by at least 3 kills.
Then have some for buff so many of x, then you have grind achievements which you will get over time but are still driven by winning games and gaining xp that way,
Also instead of level 5 you unlock a cosmetic it is for completing a tree of skills 5 objectives in tree 1 or 15 objectives overall?
I hope this makes sense.
Because if the desired changes are just number based and you keep the core foundation in place to work on, it is alot more realistic to achieve rather than a complete overhaul?
So what are the thoughts?
You already have you answer given in the existing system, with one minor tweak. Stop having the achievements work as strictly linear as they currently do. The reason being the example posted here by VictorSturm:
i find that the main problem is, that instead of encouraging new tactics and experimentation, the result is annoying grinding. in the beginning i played a lot as pilot with the Pyramidion, without gaining any points for using this ship. thats because, while the current challenge is "Goldfish mastery" i don't earn anything from using other ships! so you have to use the goldfish and win 10 matches. fair enough, but after 5 wins, it's beginning to get tedious. but you can't change ships if you want to level up. the system that tries to make us experiment is making us grind.
the fact that other achievements ruin co-op is even worse. a pilot that runs around fixing guns for the "Helping hand"? that ruins your day.
kill stealing is becoming a thing.
rushing in to set things on fire puts the crew, and the team in risk.
Also again echoed by SeraphZ
yes, more achivements open at one time would solve a lot of frustration. having to concentrate on using burst rounds while other similar ach. are locked off doesn't feel organic. if i have already destroyed with a flametrhower, why don't that count?
I totally agree - as you said in your first comment the result is a grind. Why would you ever do that to your player base? I just want to have fun & shoot stuff.
In short, if I pilot a ship at helm which scores a kill at >1300 meters, it currently does not count until I have completed all the achievements in the levels below it of THAT specific category. Thus the result becomes either grinding or extremely long delays in leveling. People are clearly annoyed with both such options. However if any achievement action can be achieved at any time, then players can focus on just playing, and level up far quicker than they do now, without any need for grinding unless someone is playing solely to level-up. Final result being less complaining about the need to wait or grind, except by those ocd folks such as myself who want to keep all classes the same level, but I think I can safely say that we are the minority. :-p
-
Yup, planning on ways to move towards non achievement based leveling.. more XP related... things you shoot... things you repair... etc.
When? Dunno! Definitely for co-op though.
Please make it based on wins instead of specific stuff you do in-game. Basically if you reward specific actions in-game people are going to gravitate towards playing based on XP gain instead of playing to win, just like they are now. NOBODY wants a pilot running around repairing guns 'for xp' or 'for an achievement'. IMO the best way is to simply reward WINNING matches against equal or higher-skilled opponents, while disregarding what actually goes on in the match, because the definition of playing well varies immensely from ship to ship and player to player, and it's wrong to measure them all by the same stick.
This system would allow for the widest variety of playstyles and encourages better play for XP. If you run out of higher-skilled opponents to gain XP from, join a tournament, which incidentally also also helps the community and promotes good play. It would basically work like an ELO system, except nobody would ever lose points.
except for that directly hinders the player who does not have time or interest in tournaments and the "competitive" scene in general.
again, when you say people are playing in such a way that they intentionally sabotage their ship now for achievements, or that they will do so in the future with xp, what sort of games are you playing that you are running into that problem in such a significant quantity and/or severity? Are people really playing for the achievements or are you not communicating with your shipmates leading to their ideas of what is the right course of action differing from yours? (or perhaps you are mistaking ignorance of mechanics as malice) I have a sneaking suspicion that your memories are playing tricks on you with regard to how widespread that problem is. I too run into people who are not playing the most efficient game of guns of icarus ever, but usually it is due to inexperience with the game or a misunderstanding of mechanics; not achievement hunting.
how does it hinder them? not letting them farm xp by stomping less-experienced players over and over? That's actually a good thing, grinding in any form shouldn't be rewarded. If a player is good enough that they have reached the highest level, by definition they can't get any better.
Once again, I want the level syystem to be a mark of both skill and dedication, not just dedication. Buffing 500 engines requires dedication, but is not very renown-worthy, while winning 500 games against higher-level players requires skill and dedication, and thus should be incentivised/rewarded.
p.s. If I ever just want to see how dedicated and famous a player is, I can look at number of matches played. it's a better measurement than the current level system, while the level can be turned into something else, as awkm wants to do.
-
...Did someone utter the forbidden phrase ELO System? Usually, with an ELO system, there needs to be matchmaking, and we all know what that means... Arguments! But enough of that, Making certain annoying achievement branches (Coughmapscough) progress simultaneously, not linearly, along with more streamlined and rational achievements, would probably stifle the arguments. Ultimately, the problem with an ELO-style thing, based upon wins is that the winner progresses, and those unfortunate enough to be on the loosing side gain nothing. Especially in an XP-based system. One of the benefits of an achievement-based system is that you can still work on the achievements if you are on the losing team. The current flaws in the system are not due at all to the achievement-based leveling system, but are due to the achievement requirements, and the absurd demands some make.
The Achievements need an overhaul. The system itself does not. All that muse needs to do is work with the community on finding reasonable ways to make the achievement system work more effectively.
-
I believe the Main purpose when implementing changes is to benefit the whole community, Problem being peoples perceptions and ideas do not always match so there is always this disagreement of who's way is best.
The main goal is majority are happy, and the trend on all forum topics with suggestions are Person 1 offers suggestion person 2 rips it apart and suggests their idea, person 1 then feels offended and then a cycle of disproving begins when both people make very valid points why can both ideas not be merged then changed? A lot of time very good ideas are brushed over because of one point in some case 7 paragraphs of explaining is missed.
No matter what change is made some people will always feel it was not needed or don't like it, others will feel it is needed and do like, then it gets tweaked so both are satisfied.
I tend to go on near enough every thread and look over the ideas and try and find a solution for both party's. or a general idea or theory that might suit the majority.
As mentioned Before one of the best ways to suggest something is to email feedback, Make it brief and understandable no need for great amount of detail, just general idea, then 9/10 someone will get back to you with why it can/can not be achieved.
Or perhaps a new format, of in suggestions you just put your suggest explain it breifly then add a poll to the thread? i relies you may get a situation were most people will vote for there own idea, but this may be a streamlined version then majority idea becomes the topic and then we can tweak it to suit everyone, perhaps add ideas from other suggestions.
Thoughts?
-
I feel some way of surveying players to get a decent idea of how much people support a suggestion would be a really good idea. Polls as a standard on suggestion threads would be a decent way to start.
-
I believe the Main purpose when implementing changes is to benefit the whole community, Problem being peoples perceptions and ideas do not always match so there is always this disagreement of who's way is best.
The main goal is majority are happy, and the trend on all forum topics with suggestions are Person 1 offers suggestion person 2 rips it apart and suggests their idea, person 1 then feels offended and then a cycle of disproving begins when both people make very valid points why can both ideas not be merged then changed? A lot of time very good ideas are brushed over because of one point in some case 7 paragraphs of explaining is missed.
No matter what change is made some people will always feel it was not needed or don't like it, others will feel it is needed and do like, then it gets tweaked so both are satisfied.
I tend to go on near enough every thread and look over the ideas and try and find a solution for both party's. or a general idea or theory that might suit the majority.
As mentioned Before one of the best ways to suggest something is to email feedback, Make it brief and understandable no need for great amount of detail, just general idea, then 9/10 someone will get back to you with why it can/can not be achieved.
Or perhaps a new format, of in suggestions you just put your suggest explain it breifly then add a poll to the thread? i relies you may get a situation were most people will vote for there own idea, but this may be a streamlined version then majority idea becomes the topic and then we can tweak it to suit everyone, perhaps add ideas from other suggestions.
Thoughts?
I appreciate your sincerity here, however honestly you Muse as a team are better coming to a consensus as a team rather than leaving this exact change to public opinion. While the majority might be OK as is, we can all appreciate the contradiction of motives that is inherent in the current level system. Whether XP is awarded for basic actions or for objectives is up to the team, however I think that achievements being tied to rewards could still be a great asset to the game.
The honest truth is no one knows the game better than you guys - as you prove in game on a weekly basis. I only made this thread to bring up an issue - we need your help to resolve it.
-
Just skim-read the thread (lol, rhymes) and all I really have to say is that the "thumbs up" and "commend" system needs updating too, it needs to be a reward more than something you spam on your allies and enemies when you win. Now where it fits with the thread, What if it is replaced or a new system is added for a "man of the match" or "team of the match" or some kind of system where the reward for receiving a commendation is a multiplier to the xp earned. Not really developed this idea but throwing the concept of a reward for being talkative and a team player out there.
-
I think an interesting idea to combine achievements and exp is have achievements increase a modifier to exp gained.
For example, a fresh player will get 1.0x exp per game.
A level 15 player will get 16x exp per game.
Alternatively, a player with 2 achievements will get 1.2x exp per game, etc etc. You could also make each acheivement rank in a given type give more (for example, first achievement gives +0.1x exp, second gives 0.11x exp, etc).
This way players can decide for themselves whether they want to play lots of games doing what they wish or spend some time getting an achievement to increase their xp efficiency.
Of course there will be min/maxers who go for achievement spam but that is how it is in every game.
I will echo the sentiment that I like the current achievement system works, but the achievements need to be tweaked. Examples that really stick out are the rebuild <5 second ones, the long range spot/kill ones, and anything that promotes "incorrect" player behavior (such as the one to extinguish fires w/ chem spray...instead of preapplying it). Many of the pilot ones are very convoluted too.