Skill Rated servers?

[Piglet]

I noticed a comment in another thead about new players being a problem on-line.

Most servers have stats active and it forces all players to have a stats account in order to connect.

These two things could be combined for varying degrees of control:

1. There could be rated servers - where you could control access by how "good" the player was - some kind of skill banding (yes we know stats don't really measure "goodness" in non-DM games)

2. You could use that to put a polite warning about the differences between online and offline games for players who have not passed a certain threshold test in the single player game - for example, something to the extent of: expect to be significantly out of your depth to start off with, watch the other players, find useful tips at url:..., etc

Something along these lines could make a significant difference to people's enjoyment online - dependant on limited ability to change stats accounts - tying stats accounts to a key or some such:

Rated servers would mean the opportunity to play games without new players grabbing a key team resource without a clue what to do with it (think ONS with Player and Player in the raptor and manta making a tour of the map looking for bunnies).

Rated servers would also mean the opportunity for learners to play other learners without significantly better players ripping them to shreds and putting them off the game before they have a chance to learn.

Of course free-for all servers should still be there!


It looks to me like there were plans for rated servers in UT2004 - that almost made it to the final game. There are hints in the code and the server join screen.


Thoughts?

[Jake-SF]

(think ONS with Player and Player in the raptor and manta making a tour of the map looking for bunnies).

You think they do that because they don't know how things works? Wrong. Most people I know are stupid and mindless and go in servers to do absolutely anything just because they find it better than doing what they are supposed to do.


I don't know about rated servers and all, if you can still god anywhere you want and the rating is here only so you can find the place where you will get the most enjoyment, then I got nothing against it.

[Worlock]

If a reliable rating formula can be come up with, it's a good (if its optional) idea, but I have doubts it can be done properly.

What I REALLY want to add to this topic, that would help the new player side at least, concerns demo servers. Please, please do not make the full version able to join demo servers this time. Please. I run two demo DM servers now because it's nearly impossible to get traffic on a full version server. They are both full of retail players absolutely thrashing lesser skilled players.

I'd really like to see a response from Epic about this, as there was a rather lengthy thread on INA about taking this "feature" out of UT2004 with a patch or something. PLEASE tell us you aren't doing this again with UT2007

[Tuqui2.0]

That's just dumb... why would you wanna separate players even further by not allowing them to use assets that are in-game? If you want assets to be based on skill, then make it an unlock (a-la BF2) where after a certain of time/kills/performance you get a PERSONAL unlock.

Besides, the problem is NOT new players, but current players who decide to act like asses or go on their DM Killing Sprees in order to boost their stats or practice (while everyone else suffers)

[Piglet]

Yes - it's would need serious thought and I don't profess to have all the answers. I just feel that if it's done right it could make a big increase to all player levels of enjoyment.

It could be implemented from being a guide for players all the way to a mandatory skill requirement banding to play on specific server types.

My thoughts were that if there's one thing that's equally annoying to a noob taking the critical resource and cocking things up for the team it's the 'leet-near-aimbot-skill-level player beating you (the noob) up.

I'm still pretty nooby in TM gametypes and am pretty good in ONS so still see both sides of the fence on this one!

[edit] for asshats I recommend active admining [/edit]

[Slaughter]

What I REALLY want to add to this topic, that would help the new player side at least, concerns demo servers. Please, please do not make the full version able to join demo servers this time. Please. I run two demo DM servers now because it's nearly impossible to get traffic on a full version server. They are both full of retail players absolutely thrashing lesser skilled players.

I'd really like to see a response from Epic about this, as there was a rather lengthy thread on INA about taking this "feature" out of UT2004 with a patch or something. PLEASE tell us you aren't doing this again with UT2007

Yes. Please, please, please; do not allow retail clients to join demo servers. For the reason stated above this really hurts those who are or have plunked down good money to run retail servers that showcase the full game and mods made by the community. Perhaps this time the demo servers should be run only by Epic (or their chosen agent). I can see no reason why commercial GSPs should be able to make money leasing demo servers while Epic gets nothing.

And they should be limited to ONE good representative map per gametype and a small subset of mutators/skins. That should be more than enough for players to decide whether they want to buy the game or not. That is the ultimate goal, isn't it? Selling the game?

[fuegerstef]

I am all for it.

[Taleweaver]

Besides, the problem is NOT new players, but current players who decide to act like asses or go on their DM Killing Sprees in order to boost their stats or practice (while everyone else suffers)

Wait...are stats actually enabled on UT2004's demo servers? Meaning: can I join a demo server, "pwn" the crap out of everyone unfortunate to be new to the game, and walk off with extra rampages, killing sprees, double kills, etc. ?

If so, it's one of the first things that needs to be altered: playing at a demo server shouldn't influence your stats at all.

Any player with an ounce of intelligence knows that beating down new players isn't a way to improve. Rather the opposite. Then again, it could be brought out more. I vote for a loading screen tip with "Only by playing people with a better skill can you hope to improve your own skill".

EDIT: as for not allowing ppl with the full game to connect to demo servers...how will you stop people from having both versions installed on their computer?

[2th]

ranking servers? ranking players? welcome to Battlefield 2. in other words welcome to another piece of sh1t produced by EA. if epic decides to rank people and it allows you in a server or not then epic should become a laughing stock that produces only mediocrity like EA. why do i say this? im a pretty decent player and sometimes i like going into servers and just screwing around. i dont want to always build or destroy a node in ONS. i want to just go out and DM people or do laps in the manta and see how many kills i can get before i die. would that effect how my rank? i am pretty sure it would. so bad idea piglet. BAD IDEA. so i will say if you want rankings go play Battlefield.

[Nietzsche]

Warcraft3 uses the same idea, it works pretty well there - and if accounts and not GUIDs are ranked I don't see a problem ... you can even use the same nick just change your stats-login and you are back to 0 experience ... would be a good feature imo, if not even one of the best features, that they could possibly add.

[Slaughter]

EDIT: as for not allowing ppl with the full game to connect to demo servers...how will you stop people from having both versions installed on their computer?

Of course, you would not be able to easily stop that. However, if the demo is map limited and stats are not enabled then playing the same map (for each gametypes) over and over again and not getting credit for owning new players should ultimately get boring for most.

[fuegerstef]

im a pretty decent player and sometimes i like going into servers and just screwing around.

INstant Action is your friend. Why do you want to destroy other peoples games??? It's a teamgame. Destroy the game of your AI bots, please...

[Nietzsche]

for a character profile of ST pls visit www.onscentral.com :> ...

[fuegerstef]

for a character profile of ST pls visit www.onscentral.com :> ...

I don't need any CharacterProfile of someone who states he wants to join a game and screw around.

Never said he is a bad player or something. I sometimes fool around too... ...offline.

[MonsOlympus]

Originally posted by fuegerstef
INstant Action is your friend. Why do you want to destroy other peoples games??? It's a teamgame. Destroy the game of your AI bots, please...

Good point, or you could start your own server with all the screw around muts on. I tend not to screw around online unless its invasion or something like that. If Im online I play my average best most of the time never my best of the best with honours


Yeah this is an interesting idea and can solve some problems but limiting players to certain servers and what not could lead to people not buying the game. Even worse than that they could play the demo which has no stats and then find out its a major feature in the full version and forever blame epic.

I think the goal is to expand the existing player base, not to alienate part of it or new players. Time limited demo servers and perhaps random kicks as well thrown it to stop high skilled players totally pwning, say like no godlikes and supermulti-spree's etc. Having the retail game not being able to connect to demo servers in another good idea since it would make situations like the above from happening.

I have heard there will be some kind of ranking thingo happening though, perhaps for flagged bad players or h4x etc. No doubt it'll link to your stats, control setups etc as well, Im interested to either see or hear what epic are doing on this side of things. Im pretty sure I heard someone mention battle.net in an interview thats a pretty decent system for handling online play, though Im alittle over starcraft and diablo now hehe

[rhiridflaidd]

ELO is pretty much on the ball already. If it was scaled to take a better factor of the length of a game a player is in, then it's pretty accurate. (the only caveat is that too many currently have an ELO of zero - so the bottom end needs looking at)

Currently
0-20 novice 20-40 - reasonable 40-60 good >60 v good.

So server admins should be able to choose novices and reasonables only, for example, or only reasoables or better ,or whatever.

More important by far than allowing novices onto experienced servers is to allow novices to play each other in peace.

Players will start new accounts just to kill novices, and without moderators or experienced players to deal with them it will become a very very big problem immediately on release.

So we need to discuss how to stop this.

??Only be allowed to have a maximum of 3 accounts per GUID- and only create a new one every 2 weeks

-I don't have an easy answer.

Other players will want to rank as quickly as possible, and this will create it's own problems.

In contrast to BF2, UT2004 is pretty close with it's stats- ONS plus is 99% there. More disincentives to camping need to be built in and stats taken more seriously - but that needs a seperate thread.

[2th]

I don't need any CharacterProfile of someone who states he wants to join a game and screw around.

Never said he is a bad player or something. I sometimes fool around too... ...offline.

you misunderstand. when i say screw around im not actively trying to cause my team to lose. screwing around to me is just sitting back and playing defense the entire time. the best example i can give is what i enjoy doing on Dawn. I like camping the target painter and the 100a and just sit back and control the middle and make sure no one takes my teams primary node on that side. thus while i am not actively attacking at all i am not causing my team to lose. i NEVER go into servers and take a manta or something and go for joy rides. i NEVER team kill. i NEVER do things that could be even remotely seen as impeding my team.

So why would i do this offline? what is the fun in predictable bots? i find it better practice and much more entertaining to have real people that will try different approaches in their attempts to battle me.

Oh and Nietzsche im a well known, for lack of a better term, jackass at ONScentral. i play devil's advocate all the time. im not there to be peoples rainbow, sunshine, happy times unicorn. oh and im also one of the most active and experienced members of the community. so tell me this. would there be good without evil?

[fuegerstef]

you misunderstand. when i say screw around im not actively trying to cause my team to lose. screwing around to me is just sitting back and playing defense the entire time. the best example i can give is what i enjoy doing on Dawn. I like camping the target painter and the 100a and just sit back and control the middle and make sure no one takes my teams primary node on that side. thus while i am not actively attacking at all i am not causing my team to lose. i NEVER go into servers and take a manta or something and go for joy rides. i NEVER team kill. i NEVER do things that could be even remotely seen as impeding my team.

So why would i do this offline? what is the fun in predictable bots? i find it better practice and much more entertaining to have real people that will try different approaches in their attempts to battle me.

Oh and Nietzsche im a well known, for lack of a better term, jackass at ONScentral. i play devil's advocate all the time. im not there to be peoples rainbow, sunshine, happy times unicorn. oh and im also one of the most active and experienced members of the community. so tell me this. would there be good without evil?

OK; that's a different story. It sounded like you were one of those (sometimes) looking for bunnies.

[JaFO]

you misunderstand. when i say screw around im not actively trying to cause my team to lose. screwing around to me is just sitting back and playing defense the entire time. ...

That's not 'screwing around' ... that's actually playing the game and helping.
Heck .. I wish more people would do this kind of stuff instead of wandering of around the map doing nothing useful at all.

// ---
IMHO ranked servers are a bad idea.
Sure ... it sounds nice in theory as you get a server that has people of roughly the same skill-level as you are.
On the other hand helping people that are not as skilled or being taught by someone that outranks you is more helpfull.

Then there's the problem that people start focussing on statistics in order to 'keep' their level.
This is already a problem with the 'simple' statistics-gathering in current UT-games.
Giving a rank/level even more weight will only make it worse.
Sure you can start adding rules to punish players that switch to the 'winning'-side at the last moment, etc. But history has already proven that these glory-hounds can not be stopped by patching as they will find another way to artificially increase their ranking.

There's also the problem of 'veteran' players picking a new name and 'pretending' to be low-level in order to clean out low-level servers. In fact I'd say that having a player advertised as 'low level' would make it even easier for this kind of subspecies to target the lesser skilled players.

Ie : ranking only provides a false sense of security against these idiots.
And that is IMHO far worse than no protection at all.

I'd prefer servers that have serious admin-presence as the one and only real deterrent to such anti-social behaviour.

[Omniety]

If I couldn't go to my lowest ping TDM server because im too skilled I'd be pretty FN pissed. Same with me wanting to play with my friends.

It's a bad idea.

[2th]

OK; that's a different story. It sounded like you were one of those (sometimes) looking for bunnies.

That's not 'screwing around' ... that's actually playing the game and helping.
Heck .. I wish more people would do this kind of stuff instead of wandering of around the map doing nothing useful at all.

see i consider that screwing around because i am not exactly trying. it sounds kind of odd but i find doing silly things like i described for the laugh factor mostly. it does have training purposes because you piss people off enough they will come after you again and again and after you kill them they start trying new ways of trying to kill you hehe. but yes i learned long ago there are no bunnies in this game

[cinnix]

Well there seems to be massive talk about these ranking systems etc. It would be awful to turn UT2007 into america's army IMO. Locking servers to specific "skill" is a bad idea. Perhaps make more use of the stats though.

For people who are worried about assclowns in public, how about a different system. How about another column in the server browser called "Average Skill" or something. The browser will collect the stats of the players and give the server a rating. You can have "view details" or something to get info on peoples individual stats. Rather than enforce a skill lockdown, just make it so you can choose whether or not you want to play on the server with the naablers, thats much better IMO.

Yes theres no true way to garantee you can find an assclown-free server in that, but like many other people are saying here, help the n00b, dont leave him/her fend for themselves. Hell I learned bloody loads from people better than me. And I've certainly come a long way since I first installed UT99. I thank the certain people who took time to train me up, because in the end we had more fun fighting with/against eachother.

[Molgan]

Access to servers based on skill is not a good idea, having a team balancer based on players rank would be more useful. And letting the single player level affect the rank is a horrible idea, haven't played sp and never will.

[=XM=]

...i learned long ago there are no bunnies in this game

LIES!
They exist! They hop around and hop and hop and shoot triple rockets and flak into the ground.

On Topic:
I would prefer a non-enforced option like maybe a server filter based on skill level/stats (stats are unreliable anyway to judge player quality tbh) client-side. So a newbie wouldn't get into a server where he won't enjoy himself because his (non-compulsory) filter will be set to "low" when he starts playing.

I would also like an individual rating system, where you can rate noobs/smacktards/other_idiots. So someone with a bad attitude or who always goes round bunny hunting in his manta would get a bad rating from other players and servers could then filter depending on rating level. A bit like UTAN if you will, but with the rating linked to someone's GUID and all his stat profiles.

Otherwise I always find that kicking/banning griefers/idiots works fine.

We have to keep the in mind the distinction between newbies (who should not be discouraged by being in a too hard server but need to play against better people to improve) and noobs (who deserve a good kicking).

[MonsOlympus]

We have to keep the in mind the distinction between newbies (who should not be discouraged by being in a too hard server but need to play against better people to improve) and noobs (who deserve a good kicking).

Or pro's that deserve a good kicking and so called pro's who need a really good kicking

[Oddside]

I think stats could be used as a skill rating, but not as they stand now. For instance, in a team game stats should only record things that help the team. Maybe 'possession' could be recorded, as an example: In onslaught each power node would represent a percentage of possession, so if all nodes are controlled by one team then that team would have 100% possession of the map, the stats could record which players were primarily involved in capturing each node & not things like how many frags each player got in the process (well, maybe as a separate thing).

So, based on this a rating could be generated (possibly) that indicates how good each player is at capturing nodes & thus improving the teams possession. Also, stats could also be collected for denying the opposing team possession, this could be wiping out an attacking force & thus keeping a node or by capturing a node that cuts off the link to enemy nodes or nodes under attack. Some way of measuring vehicle effectiveness would also be needed. This could get complicated. I suppose the main difficulty is measuring indirect events.

Locking servers to specific "skill" is a bad idea. Perhaps make more use of the stats though.

I agree, servers should not be locked to a skill level, the skill rating should be more of a recommendation to players. Maybe lock them in one way only, prevent top players from playing on beginner servers, but not the other way round. Although that may not work either.

[cinnix]

(stats are unreliable anyway to judge player quality tbh)

Yes they are, which is one of the reasons why I think locking down a server to stats is a bad idea. This is why I think the "Server Rating System" should be used more like a guideline than anything.

Otherwise I always find that kicking/banning griefers/idiots works fine.

Yep theres nothing better than a good human judgement, and will be good if there was an active admin in the server. You could say we could have a votekick mutator ala Counterstrike, which is good in theory but I have seen people bullied out of servers down to this.

Maybe 'possession' could be recorded, as an example: In onslaught each power node would represent a percentage of possession, so if all nodes are controlled by one team then that team would have 100% possession of the map, the stats could record which players were primarily involved in capturing each node & not things like how many frags each player got in the process (well, maybe as a separate thing).

Yea this is pretty interesting. I see people that have quite a high rank on a CSS server, but this is just due to a good KILL : DEATH ratio they have. In reality most of them are assclowns with the ego the size of manhatten, I find very few that are helpful towards the naablings underneath them.

Possesion stats would be cool as this will help show that they "dont just drive around looking for bunnies" . Perhaps a flag carry/flag assist stat would be good. Vehicles destroyed, nodes repaired, flags saved, nodes saved (fragging near a node) well you get the idea. Something to help show that you are a team player rather than a assclown.

Like I said these will be Guidelines by default, if a server admin wants to stats lock his server I'm sure someone out there will write a mutator or something, but it should be discouraged.

[cinnix]

May i just add that human-given ratings may be quite a bad idea. You wont believe how many squeeky voiced 8yo kids have dented my Xbox Live reputation because I am apparently "hacking".

[Oddside]

May i just add that human-given ratings may be quite a bad idea. You wont believe how many squeeky voiced 8yo kids have dented my Xbox Live reputation because I am apparently "hacking".

Yeah, players rating other players is too open to abuse. Although if everyone was perfect it would be the perfect system.

[{SM}LeadSniper]

ok for those making multiple accounts on the same key to advance quickly in the ranking i suggest this. put a disclaimer that by registering the same key to different comps on 2 different ip address you forfiet the ability to go into ranked match servers, you can go on ffa or lan games oh course. that would help eliminate cheating the system in that aspect. also cheaters who use aimbot god mode ect, the 1st offence being stripped of rank and no longer allowed on ranked servers. ranked servers shouldn't be locked to lower rank players rather they have a disclaimer saying there are players that are a better rank playing there. pros on the other hand should NOT be allowed on lower ranked servers. the last thing new players is an egotisitcal pro raping them to feed his ego. if a pro is admin of a lower ranked server then that would be the exception.

editn the detail of full version players playing on demo servers. they should be able to but they won't get the points, so practice in essance. the demo servers should be able to be ranked as well. players can opt to use their stats from demo and have it transferred to full version by typing in the cd key of that account. however by doing that that key becomes invalid and they will not be able to use the demo version any longer.

[Piglet]

Some nice thoughts here. Thanks for making it a constructive thread.

[2th]

May i just add that human-given ratings may be quite a bad idea. You wont believe how many squeeky voiced 8yo kids have dented my Xbox Live reputation because I am apparently "hacking".

ROFL!!! cinnix is in cahoots with helios

but yes a human based ranking system would be biased and would not produce anything actually useful or informative.

[cinnix]

ROFL!!! cinnix is in cahoots with helios

You what?!

[2th]

You what?!

Helios is one of the most notorious botters in the UT franchise. i was just joking since you said that 8 year olds think you are hacking lol

[UnrealGrrl]

players dont ever get better if they cant play with players who are better than they are. skill rating/access to servers is a bad idea.

good players always have their own passworded servers anyway - so i dont see the problem.

and the bottom line is, stats really only work for DM. Stats for team games mean next to nothing...

[rhiridflaidd]

Ranking to identify good players is a bad idea.

Ranking just for novices is a good idea.

OK a simpler idea then - every CD key gets 100 tries to play on a novice only server.

[Oddside]

and the bottom line is, stats really only work for DM. Stats for team games mean next to nothing...

That's only because they record & base ratings on the wrong things.

Another point; In 'default' onslaught no points are awarded for linking, so that's something that is completely ignored for no reason, the same goes for healing occupied vehicles, another action that helps ones team that goes without points. Monitor the correct events & stats could be meaningful for teamgames.

[E-LurK]

botters need 2 suck a dick and learn how 2 aim u retarded ****s, but i really like the idea of the server filtering noobs, so i dont have some noob comeing in my server bunny hopping around..

[Cloning Clyde]

What a stupid idea, let's just ruin the game even more. Jesus what next?? Only people who use the server regularly can use vehicles etc?

A typical stupid idea from another one of the titan do gooders who are infact doing more harm to the game than good.

Just play the game how it's meant to be played, let everyone have fun whether they play religiously of just a few hours a week. Who cares? I's scary that people like Piglet are influencing how the game develops with their amatuerish ideas. You don't design games for a living, you know nothing, let the people who know (the designers) make the game and let us play it how it's meant to be played - not how YOU want to play it.

The thing is, admins will change the game to how they want it, causing people to leave the game in droves and ultimately be part of the demise of the game (just check UT 2004 for a classic example).

A game shouldn't need any modifying whatsoever if it's that good. The only changes made should be done by the developers themselves, so that we are all playing the same game, not one of 100 variants decided upon by nooby admins - (ranked server, unranked server, vehicles, no vehicles, superweapons. no superweapons - or any amount of combos of stupid rules).

If UT2007 is going to succeed, then it needs to take a leaf out of BF2's book - be a superb game out of the box, only changes made are official ones, no nooby admins making silly servers with watered down gimmicky gametypes. UT2004 flopped, BF2 is going strong --- hmmm wonder why?

I would never listen to a word Piglet says anyhow - I remember him once banning a guy from his server for alleged botting even tho he had no proof whatsoever. Says it all really.

Bye

[Frogger]

your skill level should not determine which/how many servers you can play on.. if you are too good to play with 'n00bs' or take the time to give them pointers and grow the community then passwerd your server.. a good passwerd would be '213374U'