Okay I'm back again hi :D.
But that's besides the point, or is it? I went on CT today to try and get back into it, to find I was overwhelmed by how experienced some players have become. So like some other games have used I was thinking, you could
optionally match someone to a player of their skill sets, I wouldn't make it compulsary, or have something that actually marks that persons skill, like Halo 3, just something they could optionally select to find a match with someone they can easily work with.
But as I said this could be optional, so say they want to play with some more experienced guys and learn community tactics, or just get in straight off the bat, they could search matches as normal, ways this could be implented is Quick Match > Matchmaking. Custom Match > Your choice. What do you think, personally I think it could work but ofcourse, im not the one making the game :P.
Quote from: Overstatement on November 16, 2007, 03:34:38 AM
I think the best solution would be to have the host select what kind of skill his server is. People do it in server names, might as well officially support it with an additional descriptor of the server and free up the name for something meaningful.
The above is a brilliant idea too!
sure, it could work for some casual players if ps gets a bigger player base than ct. but it's a team game, so you'd need an option for teams.
funny thing is, it would be sufficient if people read the server name before joining ("good only", "no noobs", "teams only","looking for a mate","just for fun",...).
Yeah but it's also easier through matchmaking, I agree that's an easy way too though. I think it would be a very good idea to assume your going to get a fairly big player base from the start, and support the game that way, because if you don't have support for people from the start then your going to have less people playing your game.
I didn't say you couldn't have an option for teams though :P. It would be a good thing to have within the option, along with other elements you could add to the matchmaking :P.
Matchmaking sounds good. The only way to do this is to implement a ranking system. Otherwise, you wouldn't find an equal match.
I think the best solution would be to have the host select what kind of skill his server is. People do it in server names, might as well officially support it with an additional descriptor of the server and free up the name for something meaningful.
Excellent Suggestion.
I kinda disagree with this because it all goes back to you go into a server and then someone asks you you NOoob Med Pro ? OVER AND OVER AGAIN , when you know in your heart say ie. me B1nary, Daybreak, have been playing since the dawn of Pandora
I hate to be racist here but its always you Polish and german people that do this and I want to rip my hair out every time that question is asked.
Are you pro?
Quote from: AgentX_003 on November 16, 2007, 04:39:16 AM
I hate to be racist here but its always you Polish and german people that do this and I want to rip my hair out every time that question is asked.
You'd rather see flares in your mate's inventory ?
the real question is how to implement a rank system. one idea that comes to my mind is:
time played < x hours = "newbi"
time played > x hours (0.5x time as a merc/spy)= "middle skilled" or "good" or "expert" selectable by the player.
what i don't want to see implemented in ps is a ranking system similar to what we have in ct. it's a team game, so solo stats are kinda stupid anyways. rank mode is also bad for the attitude: you should try hard to win a game, but it's not about winning or loosing at all costs, it's about having a good time (and maybe self-improvement). imo there would be way less cheats for ct if there was no ranking system.
Quote from: Overstatement on November 16, 2007, 03:34:38 AM
I think the best solution would be to have the host select what kind of skill his server is. People do it in server names, might as well officially support it with an additional descriptor of the server and free up the name for something meaningful.
Awesome idea! And it sounds easy to implement too.
Quote from: Gawain on November 16, 2007, 02:04:12 PM
the real question is how to implement a rank system. one idea that comes to my mind is:
time played < x hours = "newbi"
time played > x hours (0.5x time as a merc/spy)= "middle skilled" or "good" or "expert" selectable by the player.
what i don't want to see implemented in ps is a ranking system similar to what we have in ct. it's a team game, so solo stats are kinda stupid anyways. rank mode is also bad for the attitude: you should try hard to win a game, but it's not about winning or loosing at all costs, it's about having a good time (and maybe self-improvement). imo there would be way less cheats for ct if there was no ranking system.
What about people who are good and play rarely because of lack of time ? And what about people who dont have mates ?
I agree, having an option on the server side that specifies what the skill set of the server is seems to be the easiest/best option.
Have a var called skill and then for each objective hacked a spy gets a point and for each kill the spy gets 0.5 of a point, each death loses 0.5 of a point. For the mercs a kill gains a point whereas a death loses 0.5 of a point, multiply that by hours played and you get a good system for the system to search with.
It wouldn't be that hard, you look if the party was open to join through Matchmaking, then if so you see inside and check which players the player could pair with to "balance" when they have paired the two have another temporary boolean for in lobby called balanced which sets to true until one of them quits.
At first the max difference between the two "ranks" (and i use the term loosely) could be like 50 then 150 if it can't find anyone and so on.
That sounds much to easy tho,,, :)
The reason you X by the time played is because that means the longer you've played the quicker you go up ranks. You'd obviously put a cap on like over 10 hours.
The average could then be taken from a lobby and be represented in star form on the server list so you can see how good overall the players inside are, however you can never look specifically at their ranks.
Quote from: neth on November 16, 2007, 04:04:12 PM
Quote from: Gawain on November 16, 2007, 02:04:12 PM
the real question is how to implement a rank system. one idea that comes to my mind is:
time played < x hours = "newbi"
time played > x hours (0.5x time as a merc/spy)= "middle skilled" or "good" or "expert" selectable by the player.
what i don't want to see implemented in ps is a ranking system similar to what we have in ct. it's a team game, so solo stats are kinda stupid anyways. rank mode is also bad for the attitude: you should try hard to win a game, but it's not about winning or loosing at all costs, it's about having a good time (and maybe self-improvement). imo there would be way less cheats for ct if there was no ranking system.
simply adjust the "x" above. i think 50h would be a good value. we could also start with 20h and rise x slowly to 50. and there's no relation to solo/team players whatsoever.
NO to the system of tidenburg. you're more likely too loose points against better opponents but better opponents are exactly what you should train with. 10h is simply ridiculous. and there are people who improve faster than others, so the time should only be used to detect new players (and maybe stop smurfing).
overstatement's idea for the server browser is really good.
What about people who are good and play rarely because of lack of time ? And what about people who dont have mates ?
I think the basing of rank should be individually, if anything, first of all. Secondly, Overstatements idea of an optional "ranking the room" is better than anything else I've seen. Just give it another slot when creating a server.
Name of room:
PW: (if applicable)
Rank of Room: [scroll down: easy, med, hard, pro]
Team Play or Individual Players: [scroll down: Team or Individual]
Style: [Story, DM, Disk Hunt, (Any New Ones?)]
Map: [scroll side to side with picture: maps]
Of course the order in which this appears could change, but it makes sense.
Anything else that could be added?
Stick "Rank of the room" in the lobby filter and you can feel free to join any kind of server you want. Some other things I've been wondering about are will there be accounts or will the naming system be changeable anytime you want? Like Counter Strike, where you can change it while you play? Will they support colours? Will there be a special field reserved for clan tags?
come on, colours are childish,
Spekkio i guess you named all important things. I hope letters will be big and tables well placed so you can easily check server's options. I would also change 'rank of room' to 'skill level' and add 'beginner' 'intermediate' 'advanced' 'elite'. Its usually hard to find a team playing so it would probably be that some teams would choose: individual only to play sooner and have a bigger chance of winning.
I really hope there will be no disk hunt, it was disaster - extraction and modems ftw.
I love Overstatements idea, that's much better than mine :P. I'll add it to the first post so more people can see your idea and we can have a little debate, I think that'd work extremely well.
Also dunno about this one so much, but maybe a gadgets filter, so say there are people who want smokes only, flash only, frag only and such then you could limit your matches to people who feel the same way.
Quote from: neth on November 16, 2007, 07:03:05 PM
come on, colours are childish,
Spekkio i guess you named all important things. I hope letters will be big and tables well placed so you can easily check server's options. I would also change 'rank of room' to 'skill level' and add 'beginner' 'intermediate' 'advanced' 'elite'. Its usually hard to find a team playing so it would probably be that some teams would choose: individual only to play sooner and have a bigger chance of winning.
I really hope there will be no disk hunt, it was disaster - extraction and modems ftw.
Spekkio hasn't posted on this thread yet.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 16, 2007, 06:02:09 PM
I think the basing of rank should be individually, if anything, first of all. Secondly, Overstatements idea of an optional "ranking the room" is better than anything else I've seen. Just give it another slot when creating a server.
Name of room:
PW: (if applicable)
Rank of Room: [scroll down: easy, med, hard, pro]
Team Play or Individual Players: [scroll down: Team or Individual]
Style: [Story, DM, Disk Hunt, (Any New Ones?)]
Map: [scroll side to side with picture: maps]
Of course the order in which this appears could change, but it makes sense.
Anything else that could be added?
The problem with this system is that it's subjective. How many times have you entered a "pros only" server, only to be kicked when you beat them mercilessly? Of course, they probably assume you are hacking because they are uber 1337 and cannot possibly be beaten straight up.
It could work overall if people are realistic and honest about their skill levels, but the biggest problem is actually in the "medium" skill level. While "newbies" and "skilled/pro/whatever" is quite clear cut, "medium" encompasses a wide range of players. Also, when I play, I don't really care about the skill of my opponent so long as he has a basic grasp of the game and knows the maps. Putting "skilled" on my server might give the wrong impression that I'm going to boot you unless you're uber 1337.
The only way rank truly works is putting in an "automatch" type feature where you cannot select your opponents. This also requires server/host syncronization (impossible in SvM's gametype). Finally, it requires the game to not be a mod, since you can really only use UT3's tools in this regard.
What I would like to see added, if it's possible, is a lobby chat/in-game IM system (in-game meaning while you're in the lobby, not literally in the middle of a round).
well spekk that has already been in order and glanced at if you payed any attention to Seefoo's GUI :-\
QuoteThe only way rank truly works is putting in an "automatch" type feature where you cannot select your opponents. This also requires server/host syncronization (impossible in SvM's gametype). Finally, it requires the game to not be a mod, since you can really only use UT3's tools in this regard.
What I would like to see added, if it's possible, is a lobby chat/in-game IM system (in-game meaning while you're in the lobby, not literally in the middle of a round).
Can be done in some way... If not an ingame way, we can always write an outgame menu (ie. A launcher, but it won't really make a fit in my opinion).
And yes, it's possible to have chat in a lobby.
We will see how much extendable everything is in UT, but I expect it to be the following:
You get the regular serverlist (how UT3 will give it us), but once you click a server that's still in the lobby, you will actually load a blank level (which takes like 1/2 sec). Because of the blank level, you have all features you would have when actually playing a round (ie. the GUI, the chat etc.)
would be sufficient if xfire works ingame.
Quote from: AgentX_003 on November 16, 2007, 11:06:23 PM
well spekk that has already been in order and glanced at if you payed any attention to Seefoo's GUI :-\
1 of them showed chat in a room. I think I've seen one for the lobby, but don't know if it was scrapped or not.
@ Spekkio- true story.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 16, 2007, 10:37:56 PM
Spekkio hasn't posted on this thread yet.
Right, I meant you.
Quote from: AgentX_003 on November 16, 2007, 11:06:23 PM
well spekk that has already been in order and glanced at if you payed any attention to Seefoo's GUI :-\
That's a photoshopped image and will probably look way different in the beta... Wedon't even know a chat will be possible in the serverlist (though, I suppose we could do the same kind of thing as with the lobby, but it would require a 24/7 server, which I think it isn't the solution we want.)
About the matchmaking stuff, we are not going to implent any kind of stats for now, so, it would be limited to servers with icons (or tags) that show wheter the server wants noobs or pro's etc.
I think I would support the idea of just adding a tag on a roll-out or something next to the name. Something simple, even the old Easy, Medium, Hard flags.
I think the greater percentage of people who play this mod will use it as a tool to find good games based on their skill level. This will also make it easy for a player to find their niche and just have fun.
When they feel they are ready to step it up a notch they can join a harder server. The players on the harder servers will know that chances are, if someone joins they are either good or are moving forward in the learning process.
This is not to say everyone would use it to their advantage but I certainly think the vast majority would be wise enough to use a system like this to their advantage.
Wouldn't you guys?
Thats nice idea but noobs will still join hard servers as usual :)
That's the way it is in video games. No reason to leave out a good tool for the players in my opinion.
Quote from: B1nArY_001 on November 20, 2007, 11:02:14 PM
That's the way it is in video games. No reason to leave out a good tool for the players in my opinion.
true story.
Quote from: LennardF1989 on November 17, 2007, 02:29:35 PMWedon't even know a chat will be possible in the serverlist (though, I suppose we could do the same kind of thing as with the lobby, but it would require a 24/7 server, which I think it isn't the solution we want.)
How about, instead of having a server, the players in the lobby would take turns on hosting the chat? It shouldn't take a lot of resources or broadband, and the only real downside I can see is that it might be unreliable.. But how about having two hosts? Each chat message is sent to both, but the client won't show two identical messages arriving in between, say, the ping difference of the servers plus a set amount of time? That way it would also work as a spam filter :P
Quote from: neth on November 20, 2007, 10:34:27 PM
Thats nice idea but noobs will still join hard servers as usual :)
That's not definite, It would be a good idea to test it before making that comment :P. I find that games that use this system tend to find noobs don't join hard servers. Plus if they do you can just kick em, they'll learn.
Im thinking about a possibility of finding out whats your mate's eq in lobby before the game starts. It should be somehow restricted tho, cause probably ppl from opposite team would switch just to look whats their enemy's gadgets.
i suggested this months ago in the ui threads, and i really hope it get's implemented.
there should be an easy way make it quite "safe": partner can only see your eq when 2 people are at your side (not 3) and you pressed ready (/same 2 players on the same side for >5s).
The only problem is that when you press ready, the game tends to start =P Also, you can't change your equipment to compliment your partners if necessary.
You could choose what person(s) to let view your eq?
How about a pop up with a qustion:' "name" wants to view into your eq' Allow Decline. That should be available only by your team mate (not by a spy). It should be ok.
would be getting on my nerves in no time.
edit: what if you select your gadgets after the game has started? each team can choose their eq in real time (partner sees other one's eq) and maybe even draw something on a mini map. wouldn't get on my nerves if it was only for 15s (and could be disabled).
You mean like gadget pickups at spy/ merc spawn so you can drop/pickup gadgets and see what gadgets your teammate is going for?
I think he means that you get the eq screen after the game starts.
Quote from: Kok4f4n on November 23, 2007, 08:37:01 PM
I think he means that you get the eq screen after the game starts.
Kind of like Counter Strike where you go into the buy screen. Except here, you just pick your gadgets within, lets say 15 sec. After the 15 sec. time limit, the game picks a "random" eq. (this should be an option for enabling ordisabling the use of this feature). When the Eq. is picked, there is no going back. That is what you have the remainder of the round.
Me likes.
Yeah! No more lobbying because my partner had the wrong equipment.
That would work fine aslong as there's preset loadout slots to save to. Picking my equipment every round even when they don't change can get a bit tedious though.
Yes, presets per map i want.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 23, 2007, 09:19:19 PM
Quote from: Kok4f4n on November 23, 2007, 08:37:01 PM
I think he means that you get the eq screen after the game starts.
Kind of like Counter Strike where you go into the buy screen. Except here, you just pick your gadgets within, lets say 15 sec. After the 15 sec. time limit, the game picks a "random" eq. (this should be an option for enabling ordisabling the use of this feature). When the Eq. is picked, there is no going back. That is what you have the remainder of the round.
This is
very stupid idea. Whats the purpose of choosing eq at the beginning of every round ? Its only a waste of time and you as a vet should know how important first minute is...
What is more. The PURPOSE is to see your mate's eq in lobby because then you can kick him if you see that he entered your server named "good only" and chose flares. When you see IN LOBBY that your nooby mate took nooby eq you can kick him without going back after the game starts - so you dont waste time. Its only a question how to do it, so nasty smartasses from opposite team dont switch to scan your eq and then switch back.
Or you could always ask him "hey what equipments are you gonna be using?" and you don't press the ready button until he answers.
I think 2-3 presets would be enough.
1 for aggro, 1 for stealth. 1 for special teams. And of course, you can pick others too.
Quote from: Gui Brazil on November 23, 2007, 11:11:16 PM
Or you could always ask him "hey what equipments are you gonna be using?" and you don't press the ready button until he answers.
1. Some ppl dont speak english, you know
2. Some ppl are to pro to talk with mortals.
1. WAT EQUIP U, K?
2. Oh master of CT enlighten me with your awesome powers of equipment choosing!
Quote from: neth on November 23, 2007, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 23, 2007, 09:19:19 PM
Quote from: Kok4f4n on November 23, 2007, 08:37:01 PM
I think he means that you get the eq screen after the game starts.
Kind of like Counter Strike where you go into the buy screen. Except here, you just pick your gadgets within, lets say 15 sec. After the 15 sec. time limit, the game picks a "random" eq. (this should be an option for enabling ordisabling the use of this feature). When the Eq. is picked, there is no going back. That is what you have the remainder of the round.
This is very stupid idea. Whats the purpose of choosing eq at the beginning of every round ? Its only a waste of time and you as a vet should know how important first minute is...
What is more. The PURPOSE is to see your mate's eq in lobby because then you can kick him if you see that he entered your server named "good only" and chose flares. When you see IN LOBBY that your nooby mate took nooby eq you can kick him without going back after the game starts - so you dont waste time. Its only a question how to do it, so nasty smartasses from opposite team dont switch to scan your eq and then switch back.
Except that PS intends to have balanced EQ :P
Whoops, I didn't read westfall's idea and supported the wrong idea.
I was thinking after everyone ready's the host locks the teams and everyone enters the equipment selection screen that includes their partner's loadout and the chatbox. After everyone ready's on that, the game begins.
Quote from: Overstatement on November 24, 2007, 01:45:49 AM
Whoops, I didn't read westfall's idea and supported the wrong idea.
I was thinking after everyone ready's the host locks the teams and everyone enters the equipment selection screen that includes their partner's loadout and the chatbox. After everyone ready's on that, the game begins.
I like that idea. Then you can choose wyour loadout depending on the level.
Yea, thanks. =)
QuoteThis is very stupid idea. Whats the purpose of choosing eq at the beginning of every round ? Its only a waste of time and you as a vet should know how important first minute is...
What is more. The PURPOSE is to see your mate's eq in lobby because then you can kick him if you see that he entered your server named "good only" and chose flares. When you see IN LOBBY that your nooby mate took nooby eq you can kick him without going back after the game starts - so you dont waste time. Its only a question how to do it, so nasty smartasses from opposite team dont switch to scan your eq and then switch back.
Its not a waste at all. Everyone either selects their eq. and "readies" so to say...and the match begins (when all are ready), or during the loading screen you select your equipment. These two things are actually equal. The match would still start at the same time.
Actually, in CT...host starts a little earlier than everyone else. How many times have you started a match and heard your mate mid sentence because he was host (pending no use of TS). It will be better to have everyone select their equipment so all start at the same time.
I say no to time limit of eq screens during actual game play. Server gives you 10 secs to ready up, time can be adjusted, from the time you are loaded as in character view (fps/3rd person). A menu should come up when you've loaded to the map, your surroundings grey-out. 10 seconds to speak with your mate and choose eq. (given the team connects at the same time: can this be adjusted?). Maybe when the team readies the game begins (only 10 sec)?
Play with that.
P.S. I like the presets idea.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 24, 2007, 08:15:17 AM
I say no to time limit of eq screens during actual game play. Server gives you 10 secs to ready up, time can be adjusted, from the time you are loaded as in character view (fps/3rd person). A menu should come up when you've loaded to the map, your surroundings grey-out. 10 seconds to speak with your mate and choose eq. (given the team connects at the same time: can this be adjusted?). Maybe when the team readies the game begins (only 10 sec)?
Play with that.
P.S. I like the presets idea.
This is an interesting idea. I think there will actually be a post loaded load screen if that makes any sense. There will probably need to be some shader caching and level dependent loading that will need to happen to minimize lag in actually game play. That might be an interesting time to chat with your teamates.
I think 10 seconds is pretty unfriendly to new players. I'd prefer the ready button because unless I can explain to them what to take in about 5 seconds they probably wont get it finished in time.
Quote from: SITHDUKE on November 24, 2007, 09:44:09 AM
I think 10 seconds is pretty unfriendly to new players. I'd prefer the ready button because unless I can explain to them what to take in about 5 seconds they probably wont get it finished in time.
True that but will it matter what equip they have anywase lol. I don't think a count down timer is a good idea. But thats just my opinion also.
Westfall its a pity you dont answer the arguments
Overstatement, its a very good idea. That could be double ready system. 1 for locking teams, then choosing eq (you choose yours on left, your mate's is on right e.g.) and then everyone presses ready again for match to begin.
Quote from: neth on November 24, 2007, 11:25:44 AM
Westfall its a pity you dont answer the arguments
Overstatement, its a very good idea. That could be double ready system. 1 for locking teams, then choosing eq (you choose yours on left, your mate's is on right e.g.) and then everyone presses ready again for match to begin.
What arguments? The only person who really has a problem with it is you, in which I told you basics behind it. Its just an idea that the devs can toy with.
If there isn't a timer, then that is fine. And whatever you said, is basically the exact same thing I said in my previous post. Its a shame you call something stupid that makes more sense than you.
"its a very good idea."....."This is a very stupid idea." Make up your mind eh?
What arguments? Maybe its a pity that all you see are arguments, as opposed to just civilized conversation.
I thought the big difference between the ideas is kokafan said the equipment screen comes "after the game starts" while mine comes before the game starts and before the map loads.
Quote from: Overstatement on November 24, 2007, 06:21:48 PM
I thought the big difference between the ideas is kokafan said the equipment screen comes "after the game starts" while mine comes before the game starts and before the map loads.
And thats exactly the point.
Quote from: neth on November 24, 2007, 06:25:51 PM
Quote from: Overstatement on November 24, 2007, 06:21:48 PM
I thought the big difference between the ideas is kokafan said the equipment screen comes "after the game starts" while mine comes before the game starts and before the map loads.
And thats exactly the point.
I think the map should be loaded. Everything should be ready to go. Equipment should be selected right before the match is going to begin. You can really do it either way if you wanted.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 24, 2007, 08:15:17 AM
Its not a waste at all. Everyone either selects their eq. and "readies" so to say...and the match begins (when all are ready), or during the loading screen you select your equipment. These two things are actually equal. The match would still start at the same time.
Actually, in CT...host starts a little earlier than everyone else. How many times have you started a match and heard your mate mid sentence because he was host (pending no use of TS). It will be better to have everyone select their equipment so all start at the same time.
I say no to time limit of eq screens during actual game play. Server gives you 10 secs to ready up, time can be adjusted, from the time you are loaded as in character view (fps/3rd person). A menu should come up when you've loaded to the map, your surroundings grey-out. 10 seconds to speak with your mate and choose eq. (given the team connects at the same time: can this be adjusted?). Maybe when the team readies the game begins (only 10 sec)?
Play with that.
P.S. I like the presets idea.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 24, 2007, 07:26:25 PM
I think the map should be loaded. Everything should be ready to go. Equipment should be selected right before the match is going to begin. You can really do it either way if you wanted.
No, because You are to see your mate's eq, so you can kick him before the game starts, so people dont waste time for oging back to lobby when you realise that your mate took rubbish eq
hopefully there will be no rubbish eq like ct flares in ps...
If they can bring back phosphors gnades that would be amazing, they were actually extremely useful(could scare spies or track them in the ceiling, don't know why they got rid of them).
Because phospherous grenades were a wasted gadget slot next to frags, mines, spy traps and tazer. Motion tracking, laser, EMF and torch were all you'd need.
True but they were still fun to use but aren't needed in PS because well, they aren't a necessity.
Quote from: T2C LeBron on November 25, 2007, 02:26:54 AM
If they can bring back phosphors gnades that would be amazing, they were actually extremely useful(could scare spies or track them in the ceiling, don't know why they got rid of them).
K
Quote from: neth on November 24, 2007, 08:05:25 PM
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 24, 2007, 07:26:25 PM
I think the map should be loaded. Everything should be ready to go. Equipment should be selected right before the match is going to begin. You can really do it either way if you wanted.
No, because You are to see your mate's eq, so you can kick him before the game starts, so people dont waste time for oging back to lobby when you realise that your mate took rubbish eq
Well....know who you're playing with.
If you are going solo into servers, I think You, as teammate, should have access to view your teammates presets. You should be able to view them in lobby.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 25, 2007, 09:34:53 AM
Well....know who you're playing with.
Cheap, Noobs enter every server, so its a problem for all of us.
You don't need to see your opponents equip just do the noob quiz... Here is a couple of mine
Hey bro you got the flares?
Hey bro you got the shotty?(factory)
Also they automaticly fail if they don't talk/have a mic.
I'm going to buy chaos for PC(got 2 copies 4 xbox) and show you pc players some of my nasty TWS's.
not every good players likes to use mic everytime...
heck, there are even good teams who don't use voip at all.
it's always a new guessing game. a counter of played story mode time could help though.
yeah i want ph nades to return, but this topic has already been discussed in another thread a while ago.
Well, leave the server if you're with a noob yea?
You're making the biggest deal out of not knowing if you're with a noob. You can't really tell that if you're in lobby in CT right now. People just enter your room regardless. I don't see how seeing someone's eq will be any different, ESPECIALLY because all of the eq will have new possibilities. Also, if its true what they say, then all of the eq is balanced anyways.
Its not cheap to know who you're playing with. If you're hopping around by yourself, then thats your own fault if you get stuck with a noob. Find another room. Its really not that complicated.
if you want to know who you are playing with, you better play with a friend. usually you recognize a n00b within the first minute ingame so you don't waste that much time. with a ban list working via cd key and not via nick and considering the small player base you should have most n00bs on your blacklist after some weeks anyways. besides, it's kinda interesting to team up with new people; the benefit of learning new tactics etc outweighs the n00b detection time.
Not everyone has got a mate, there are casual players, you know..
friend = someone who you know
mate = someone who has teamed up with <3 with you
any kind of automated matchmaking will NOT be in PS.
This was the bane of DA.
Having some kind of visual cue or filter in the lobby for servers at certain skill levels is going to be taken as a solution. The host will decide how his server will appear (eg: choice of 3 skill levels).
Having some kind of IM native to PS will be a serious challenge if the engine does not support it natively.
Other then that, we want to avoid complicating things with features.
If you SERIOUSLY want a feature I suggest learning the tools of the trade. By then you may understand why some things are not possible to integrate.
So no to the whole idea of choosing eq. while every1 is loaded, and having access to view ur mate's eq?
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 26, 2007, 12:20:16 AM
So no to the whole idea of choosing eq. while every1 is loaded, and having access to view ur mate's eq?
Note that this will make change-your-eq-ingame hacks possible.
hacks because of this? bullshit.
punkbuster?
punkbuster is 3rd party software.
so is xfire....
we cannot work with 3rd party software (this is a mod!!)
I cannot say what will or will not be a feature right now (seeing equipment of mate)
I think everyone wants to see their partner's equipment. The only argument is whether the equipment screen should be pre-load or post-load. I see some reasons stated for pre-load but what reasons were for post-load?
I don't think it would really matter either way. I figured for post-load because everyone would start at the same time after both teams are "ready."
the only argument for post-load that comes to my mind is the additionally time for considering which eq you want to take.
which can be 10-15sec upon load-up.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 26, 2007, 05:19:14 AM
I don't think it would really matter either way. I figured for post-load because everyone would start at the same time after both teams are "ready."
They don't already start at the same time? After you load, you wait for everyone else to load so the game starts at the same time. Anyway, it is a new engine so you can't assume such things will carry over.
Quote from: Overstatement on November 26, 2007, 09:06:59 PM
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 26, 2007, 05:19:14 AM
I don't think it would really matter either way. I figured for post-load because everyone would start at the same time after both teams are "ready."
They don't already start at the same time? After you load, you wait for everyone else to load so the game starts at the same time. Anyway, it is a new engine so you can't assume such things will carry over.
Everyone doesn't start at the same time. Host starts a little bit before the rest of the group.
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 27, 2007, 05:40:54 AM
Quote from: Overstatement on November 26, 2007, 09:06:59 PM
Quote from: Westfall-US on November 26, 2007, 05:19:14 AM
I don't think it would really matter either way. I figured for post-load because everyone would start at the same time after both teams are "ready."
They don't already start at the same time? After you load, you wait for everyone else to load so the game starts at the same time. Anyway, it is a new engine so you can't assume such things will carry over.
Everyone doesn't start at the same time. Host starts a little bit before the rest of the group.
Most I've ever noted was about 1 second or less? It was Gui Brazil and he is quite a distance from me.
There are times when I start and Noise, who lives a few blocks from me, will start and I'm mid-sentence to him. He screams at me and tells me to say it again.
Wait wait wait what?! Goodkebab, that's a mistake putting 3 difficulty choices for match description. It really is! Why? Because everyone will just say they are noobs just to get noobs to come in, then the people who join will get the shit knocked out of them. We need some sort of ranking system. Not numbers maybe ( seemed like no one really wanted a scoring system ) but something like Rainbow 6 Vegas or COD 4. Like the better you do the higher medal you achieve. Like your medal starts out as a recruit, then as you gain more and more experience for games, your medal and rank increases. Maybe you set a maximum medal of General or Elite and a minimum of Recruit or Private. I know this aint the army but people will get a more realistic rank of the host.
Example: People who are just starting will look at the game description and see that there is a colonel and a general in the game, so obviously he won't join it. Letting people choose what their rank of server is would be bad. Noobs would join pro games who say they are noob and get destroyed.
Maybe I should start a topic about this.
dont know with who you play but i do everything to avoid noobs so im not gonna do anyting like this and i bet 95% of this forum neither is.
95% of this forum isn't going to be 95% of the community, there are PLENTY of people who will get this game and play it like CT. Where they fix their own rules so they can win, n00bs, yes. They will say they are newbs so they can get sucky people to join so they can rape them. By n00bs I mean people who set games so they can win. By newbs I mean people who are actually new to the game. I'm going by Gawain's definition lol
Quote from: Papa Skull on November 28, 2007, 07:32:46 AM
Wait wait wait what?! Goodkebab, that's a mistake putting 3 difficulty choices for match description. It really is! Why? Because everyone will just say they are noobs just to get noobs to come in, then the people who join will get the shit knocked out of them. We need some sort of ranking system. Not numbers maybe ( seemed like no one really wanted a scoring system ) but something like Rainbow 6 Vegas or COD 4. Like the better you do the higher medal you achieve. Like your medal starts out as a recruit, then as you gain more and more experience for games, your medal and rank increases. Maybe you set a maximum medal of General or Elite and a minimum of Recruit or Private. I know this aint the army but people will get a more realistic rank of the host.
Example: People who are just starting will look at the game description and see that there is a colonel and a general in the game, so obviously he won't join it. Letting people choose what their rank of server is would be bad. Noobs would join pro games who say they are noob and get destroyed.
Maybe I should start a topic about this.
Having game tags will not encourage this, people can already do this within the name and would more than likely do so regardless of a flag. It never stopped people in SCCT.
With flags
Server name "Come Play We R Noobz" flag "Easy"
Or...
Without flags
Server name "Come Play We R Noobz"
The end result is the same, if someone wants to try and lure inexperienced players into a their game they will do it just as easily either way.
When you weigh these types of things against a suggested implementation don't forget to consider the percentage of players we can expect this from. The number of players who do this is pretty small compared to the overall community and as such it shouldn't even be considered in most cases. There is always the person who tried to work the system to their advantage but fortunately, again - they are a small percentage of the community. Hardly worth complicating the system beyond a simple flag imo.
Well if you get the end result then what is the point? If someone already says they are noobs then they don't need a flag.
Quote from: Papa Skull on November 28, 2007, 06:04:09 PM
Well if you get the end result then what is the point? If someone already says they are noobs then they don't need a flag.
This would provide an additional and useful method for sorting the list of available games.
I for example would sort by by difficulty and then by ping within the difficulty flag if possible.
it makes sense for sorting and leaves more space for more significant server names.
btw, will it be possible to see every server's ping (? is quite annoying)?
With the medal system you can see the medal of the players in that game, then there will be NO way to fake that you are a noob to get noobs to join. What the flag would do is provide n00bs an extra way to fake that they are newbs.
I think it would be nice to have a medal system. That way you could really see who is good or not and how good they SAY they are.
A medal system would require some sort of stat tracking and that information would need to be stored locally with heavy encryption to avoid tampering or on a remote secure server. This also requires a way of determining these stats and in this type of game that is nearly impossible to do accurately.
Look at the rank system for CT. They ranked using pretty much the optimal method and it was still less than accurate.
Here are a few things
How do you measure the level of teamwork?
(You can't)
How do you measure the level of successful teamwork?
(You can't)
How do you measure the skill with which a player maintains stealth?
(You can't)
How do you measure the effectiveness of a players patrol patterns?
(You can't)
How do you measure the effectiveness of a players mine/trap placement?
(You can't, you can only measure how many are tripped which could be on purpose)
How do you measure the effective use of Spy gadgets?
(You can't)
How can you measure the effectiveness of a distraction or lure?
(You can't)
How can you measure pursuit or evasion skills?
(You can't)
Now try and factor in each player or team's unique style of play and how well and in what manner they make use of the environment. This type of game isn't just about stealth it's about adapting to the situation and perhaps doing something that would normally be considered dumb.
Obviously we can't just track games won, or hacks, or necks/kills; those factors are to subject to fluctuation based on who you play with. We saw this with SCCT.
A human observer of a sufficient skill level could rank this through observation but you are talking about a data analysis program that approaches the complexity of a reasoning AI that also reads other variables such as response time.
If someone out there knows that this falls within the scope of a mod and knows how to create the brain of this system, by all means, make it. It should make you some good money ;)
Edit: I'm not saying it's completely impossible but it is a rather monumental task and any system created to rank this kind of game is going to be somewhat inaccurate and still a massive amount of work and time. Wouldn't you guys rather see that time spent on improving the game play and performance?
So, you'd rather have a player able to lie about his skill? What if you have some little punk who thinks he is the shit? So he puts his little "flag" on hard. Then you join his game and you blow him away, no challenge, he goes back and boots you. No thanks.
Why don't you make a system based on the number of games you have played? Like an experience medal. The more games you play the higher your medal goes up. If you have a low medal it means you have little experience and you are a newb. Newcomers would join games in which the players have less experience like themselves. You don't have to track everything, just how much you've played.
Making people judge their own experience and making them able to say what they are is a mistake.
You want us to assume players are idiots? How many sequels have been ruined because they were dumbed down? I say we make them learn for themselves. Players will quickly learn which servers to join. No one wants to be beaten badly or always win. And there is always the option of kicking people.
Quote from: Papa Skull on November 28, 2007, 07:32:46 AM
Wait wait wait what?! Goodkebab, that's a mistake putting 3 difficulty choices for match description. It really is! Why? Because everyone will just say they are noobs just to get noobs to come in, then the people who join will get the shit knocked out of them. We need some sort of ranking system. Not numbers maybe ( seemed like no one really wanted a scoring system ) but something like Rainbow 6 Vegas or COD 4. Like the better you do the higher medal you achieve. Like your medal starts out as a recruit, then as you gain more and more experience for games, your medal and rank increases. Maybe you set a maximum medal of General or Elite and a minimum of Recruit or Private. I know this aint the army but people will get a more realistic rank of the host.
Example: People who are just starting will look at the game description and see that there is a colonel and a general in the game, so obviously he won't join it. Letting people choose what their rank of server is would be bad. Noobs would join pro games who say they are noob and get destroyed.
Maybe I should start a topic about this.
You are wrong Papa, just look at lobby to see my point. You will see "no noob" servers, and "noob only" servers. Pros easily get bored playing against noobs so I dont expect it to be common for them to want to play against noobs. But any good player will spend time away from the game for weeks or months, and wish to come back. They wont be good anymore, but will still need the freedom to choose.
If you really dont care who joins your server, then you would of course not give yourself a rank. Ranking does not prevent you from joining any server that you wish. And true, it does not prevent pros pretending to be noobs.....but we cannot prevent that regardless.
No to medals, stats, ranks, achievements etc.
Not achievements. Wtf? Do you think I want like a 360 game or something? No. I want people to see how much others have been playing. Maybe a frequency medal. Like if someone played a lot then stops playing their medal would start to decrease.
You can prevent it. Frequency medal, experience gauge, whatever you want to call it. It's hardly a ranking or a stat.
But two players who have played the exact same amount of time at the same frequency need not be anywhere near each other in skill.
But traditionally if you both play the same amount of time you both are going to basically have the same amount of knowledge about the game. Someone who has a low experience level does not while someone who has a high experience medal does.
Don't think I am suggesting something where you unlock stuff as you rank up, no. I am suggesting something that shows how much you play.
Just so noobs out there don't get confused and join a random game and get blow away. There is a LONG learning curve to this game and it will be longer if newcomers join a game, get raped, and leave halfway. And since there will be a good tutorial for this game you won't really want newbs to join veterans for tips because they supposedly won't have to.
an indicator that shows the amount of (story mode) games makes perfect sense to me.
good players won't equate time spended ingame with skill so i can't see a problem.
I see nothing wrong with an added feature that will allow you to rate the skill level of your own server. As others have said, it is no different than people hosing "noobs only pls" servers.
I don't see a point to the flag system if someone can already say how good they are in the description. i say adding something that lets others know if they are ACTUALLY noobs or not. there will be no way to lie and say you are a noob because you will have a a medal that says if you play a lot or if you don't.
So that you can name your server something other than "good pls"
I think you should make the ranking system like in call of duty 4. When you kill someone, it gives you x amount of points and obviously the more points the higher your rank is. Maybe you could make something like the better your rank, the more you can chose from different tactical stuff and/or weapons. Just a suggestion.
By the way, I'm new here and I just want to say that I really think the game will be awesome.
Welcome, I thought your name was christ lol. I was like sweet! We got a messiah to help us with the project :D
There are a few problems with your suggestions. Noobs need to have the same equipment as everyone else so they aren't at a complete disadvantage. BUT, on the lighter side of your suggestion, unlocking unneeded stuff like extras would SWEET! Like you unlock suits, goggles, and accessories that don't do anything for you but give you some choice as to what you look like and wear. A little like DA but the suits don't do anything for you. Something you could unlock for mercenary would be cool gloves or something.
Also, something like the COD4 system would be perfect. But there aren't numbers that pop up on your screen for killing someone. Instead, you should get experience points based on number of games you play and the amount of actual time you spend in game. That way, you can't argue whether you are new to the game or not.
And spekkio, it is pointless. If you think you are good then just say it in the description. No need to say "I am good, no noobs" twice. That is like making spies able to throw two flash grenades at the same time but they don't do twice the flash effect.
Hahaha maybe god sent me who knows.
Ya you're right, noobs need to have the same stuff otherwise they wouldn't even get a kill lol. The accessory thing is a good idea. I'm tired so I'll think about other cool stuff in my dreams and I'll post them in the morning :D.
Quote from: Christf on December 02, 2007, 07:49:17 AM
Ya you're right, noobs need to have the same stuff otherwise they wouldn't even get a kill lol.
This game is not about killing from the Spy's perspective. ::)
Gawain first you said that a good player wouldn't equate games played with skill, then you say it gives people something to go by. It's a total contradiction. You are right however that number of story games played says nothing, so why use it?!
Even a simple easy medium and hard rating would be more informative but it really doesn't matter, it's already been stated we're not doing any sort of stat tracking systems.
Edit: I'm not saying don't discuss ideas but at this point no tracking will be used. ;)
Binary, if you could read you would see that I didn't say that. It was Gawain who said that. Get your facts. ;) It does equate games played with skill because generally someone who has played for years is going to have a lot more skill than someone who is just starting. The only way you can get better is by experience, so yes, it does mater.
-A with 400h, B with 600h: can't tell who's better
-A with 50h, B with 400h: B>A
Well, GENERALLY B is better then. If I make a new account, I'll still pwn B even though it says I have 0 hours.
That's exactly what I mean Gawain. Don't we have some way of preventing that frvge? Like use their IP so you still have the same experience on the same ip address. I'm not use to people constantly changing their gamertags, on xbox live it costs some money and people just keep their tags.
I think the best solution here is just have a server side option that says
n00b- very new to the game/you suck
Experienced- you know how the game works
Moderate- you decent
Vet- you dominate
and let people just see those choices next to the name of the servers.
Quote from: Bob_Bobber0 on December 02, 2007, 11:33:47 PM
I think the best solution here is just have a server side option that says
n00b- very new to the game/you suck
Experienced- you know how the game works
Moderate- you decent
Vet- you dominate
and let people just see those choices next to the name of the servers.
change noob to beginner and make more visible difference between experience and moderate...like Moderate, Skilled and thats all we need. All these things that show how many hours youve played are just useless.
Useless? BULLSHIT! What's useless is giving someone the ability to say what skill level they are twice! How about you implement something that doesn't let you lie about being new to the game or not!? Like an experience or frequency medal.
omg you still act like everyone would like to cheat you, as if they would like to say: "Hey im Teh noob" and then kick your ass as a pro...NO ONE DOES THAT. why ? Because if you played much you would know that playing with beginners is much more frustrating than enjoyable... No matter in which team they are.
Playing with noobs while being much better COULD be a problem if we implemented your medals idea.
Medals, achievements and other things are good for nothing also because fake nicks problem wont be solved.
No. A lot of little idiots play the game and WANT noobs to join. These are the people that don't want to get better but they want to only win. These are the dm people. The medal system doesn't let people lie about their experience. If I join a game because that person seems to think he is the shit and he puts his little hard flag on. So, when I get into the game, it turns out that he sucks and I am stuck with someone who sucks. With experience I will be pretty able to tell if the person is experienced or not.
You don't have to repeat your point. I think the general opinion is that there aren't too many people who purposely fake their skill for whatever reason. At least, not enough to not be dealt with la liste noire.
I did have to repeat my point because Neth didn't understand it. Wouldn't it be nice to know that your teammate has some experience before you join a game anyways? That's another main reason for my suggestion.
Quote from: Papa Skull on December 02, 2007, 10:27:47 PM
Binary, if you could read you would see that I didn't say that. It was Gawain who said that. Get your facts. ;)
Woops, that post was directed at Gawain not you, fixed.
but on the subject of time vs experience, it just doesn't work that way. I know a large number of players who have played for 2 years and are still no more than mediocre, they have plenty of hours logged too. I also know players who have reached a rather high skill level in a matter of 1-2 weeks of play. Most people just don't improve past a certain point. It can't be used as an accurate measure.
You would be trying to measure an inconsistent variable with 1 consistent measure.
Quote from: Papa Skull on December 03, 2007, 05:53:51 PM
I did have to repeat my point because Neth didn't understand it. Wouldn't it be nice to know that your teammate has some experience before you join a game anyways? That's another main reason for my suggestion.
Solution: Play with someone you know. If you are going to hop on without a partner, then picking a server is like picking your own poison. You can't expect much regardless of what a server says or is labeled as. The addition of a marker is a nice idea, but I still wouldn't expect it to work all the time.
That's kind of the problem with this kind of game I guess. MOST OF THE TIME the learning curve is pretty long, like say a week to nail down all the basics. There are some who just naturally understand the game and they are great at it early on. BUT most of the time, as someone plays, they get better, and it takes time/experience/hours whatever you want to call it. On console it isn't so easy to play with someone you know because right now the community is so small you could crush it with one finger. Hopefully this will have some good success to the point where I always have someone on who is decent at the game.
My problem is people faking their skill or overestimating it. Hopefully this won't happen as much as you guys all say that it won't.
it's quite easy to tell:
"good only": probably good players, sometimes medium
"pro only": host aggro lamers, medium skill
"n00bs only": probably n00bs, sometimes medium
+
aqua/warehouse/deftech/...: n00bs
club/missile strike/...: medium
orphanage/factory/steel squat/ump maps/...: pros
+
rank: very high probability to meet stupid people
if we only allow one account/cd key or stop faking another way, your friend list and black list should be filled pretty soon in a game with not more than some houndred players.
It would be very hard to prevent fake nicks. I dont even think its possible
Well IP's would work temporarily. Like one tag for each IP. But of course someone could change their IP, I don't think someone would go through all that trouble just to play with noobs though... I don't know a whole lot about PC community, but on console, there are a SHITLOAD of people who go back to the lobby and boot you if are beating them. Those are the guys that I am trying to prevent from doing that. What's it like on PC? Same way?
Gawain, I'm betting on more than 100 players. Everyone at the ubisoft forums hates to not talk about it, they want the game lol
Quote from: Gawain on December 03, 2007, 07:58:35 PM
"pro only": host aggro lamers, medium skill
Because aggro=lame now...
Quote from: Papa Skull on December 03, 2007, 08:20:34 PM
but on console, there are a SHITLOAD of people who go back to the lobby and boot you if are beating them.
I can say that I dont experience that problem at all. Rarely there are people who leave the game/disconnect as a host when they lose but usually its ok altough there are really many rude players who flame all the time. I think most important is to get to the skill level on which people know the game and they realise that sometimes you just lose/play lame.
Quote from: Papa Skull on December 03, 2007, 08:20:34 PM
Well IP's would work temporarily. Like one tag for each IP.
Most people have dynamic IPs these days. That means their IP changes by itself, without anything having to be done manually.
Most broadband connections here have static IPs. Or semi-static IPs (changing every 6 months or something).
I've heard otherwise... That static IPs are usually only used for servers because they are more expensive? Either way, it still proves that tracking stats based on IPs is not a good solution. We shouldn't give even a minority a disadvantage because of their connection.
Servers need static IPs because DNS would be screwed up or at least slower. Not going into details.
Quote from: Gui Brazil on December 03, 2007, 08:29:26 PM
Quote from: Gawain on December 03, 2007, 07:58:35 PM
"pro only": host aggro lamers, medium skill
Because aggro=lame now...
reading comprehension ftw
host aggro is lame, not normal aggro. hopefully there will be no host advantage in ps.
isn't it possible to allow only one nick/cd key at a time?
cd keys would have to be stored somewhere then...
just like accounts etc
we will need one central server anyways, won't we?
That would be worst thing to happen. Hopefully there is no central unit.
Gawain, im not really sure if everybody was happy about storing his cd key somewhere.
storing cd key wtf
can some1 technically skilled can jump in here, plz? ^^
It's a mod, none of this will happen. Period.
Quote from: Papa Skull on December 03, 2007, 05:53:51 PM
I did have to repeat my point because Neth didn't understand it. Wouldn't it be nice to know that your teammate has some experience before you join a game anyways? That's another main reason for my suggestion.
What about an 'average player rating' is displayed below the persons name based on what the level of the servers they play in? So if I join alot of noob servers my rating will be the average skill rating of the servers I've played in. The problem with this is if newbies don't read what the 'Server Skill Rating' is and keep playing in highly rated games he'll have a good player rating so good players will let him in but he will infact be a newbie until he starts learning to join lower rated servers.
Noobies would read it if it was suggested in the tutorial to do so or they would just figure out that joining pro servers is a bad idea if they are just startin.
it's a really good idea to mention it in the tutorial.