Should Games Always Be A Level Playing Field?

[cavalcade]

I've seen a lot of comments about Call of Duty 4 multiplayer arguing that the fact more experienced players can get access to better equipment and additional skills is likely to spoil and unbalance the game. In other words, as a n00b coming to the game late, you may be underpowered compared to better players and have a bad play experience.

Similar upgrading systems have been seen in games like Rainbow Six Vegas, which offers enhanced weapons/equipment for better players. CoD4 takes this even further by offering incentives per round for the better players, like allowing airstrikes if you rack up a certain number of kills. Is this a step too far, should better players be rewarded within a multi-player round, or is something like the catchup mechanic in Burnout 4 a better idea? Should the better players be penalised, rather than rewarded?

But then, should games provide a level playing field, or is this almost a reflection of society, where nobody ever "wins" any more, and competition is kept to a minimum? Why should a better player be brought down to the level of a worse one? Can games be enjoyable where more experienced players have more power? Isn't it just human nature? Isn't Call of Duty 4 giving us what we really want?

[Keith]

Even without the ranking systems etc., games like CoD would still be the same - the experienced players are (nearly) always going to be better than someone just stepping in for the first time, because...well, they're experienced.

At the end of the day though, it's the "experienced" players that will keep playing, and it's the variety of things like the perk system that will keep them playing. And if people just coming into the game really want to get good at it they won't be put off by being killed a few times.

"Better" players should never be penalised for being "better" though, as that's just frustrating (not that I'm claiming to be a "better" player at anything at all mind!). I'm sure we've all been in a situation (online or offline) where we've been killed and been positive that there was nothing we could do to prevent it; and if some whiney little teenager comes into a game and suddenly he's owning all of the higher-ranked players and whooping and hollering about how great he is...well, I'm damn sure it'd put me off playing.

[eastyy]

agreed better players should not be penalise.........i really hate the catchup thing in racing games its so annoying

thing is it does not really bother as with games such as COD4 as multiplayer wise there is no end its not like you get killed and have to start again from scratch

[charlesr]

Interesting topic. As an example, I used to play a lot on the Quakeworld noob servers which were handicapped depending on number of kills. So me and a friend would be bouncing around all over the place with axes, while all the noobs had rocket launchers. It was hilarious fun.

Halo2's ranking system kinda worked except the problem was you never got to learn off the really good players. You ended up at a certain level and then stayed around there forever because you only saw people with similar skills and ideas.

[cavalcade]

Halo2's ranking system kinda worked except the problem was you never got to learn off the really good players. You ended up at a certain level and then stayed around there forever because you only saw people with similar skills and ideas.

Which is true for many games. Often seeing higher skilled/better tooled players than yourself can drive you to further your own skills. World of Warcraft, especially on a PVP server, was like this. So many times between level 1 to 20 I was killed by higher level characters that ambushed me. The day I became more powerful I exacted revenge by tormenting lower level players as well. It's wrong. But it plays to the basest of human emotions.

[charlesr]

heheh. Evil. Like the D.evil.

[charlesr]

Like knowing where the respawn and weapon points are and camping there.

[charlesr]

Playing Rallisport Challenge 2 online, you always went up against really good people because they were the only ones playing it

I always came last or 2nd last early on in the evening, but then after an hour or so, I'd start coming 4th occassionally. It seemed like a massive achievement because they were so good at it.

[charlesr]

Is this meant to be just a discussion of MP/online stuff?

How about Shmups? Should they have different difficulty levels? Shouldn't we all just play them on the default level? Last Hope doesn't count

[Number45]

I don't think anyone suggests that the better players should be penalised (Or at least I hope not) but the impression I get from the COD4 beta is that it indirectly penalises the less experienced players yet further, by giving the better players access to 'better' (Or those with more time available to them) weapons/air strikes etc...

There is already a steep learning curve to most online games, so to make it even harder for those that pick it up after release (Or perhaps don't get the chance to play it so often) just seems counter productive.

Same with the levelling thing. There is no way, in a game like this, that two players of equal skill should be mismatched just because one of them has the ability to play constantly - unless the matchmaking system is flawless which, to be honest, is unlikely.

I quite like the way Warhawk handles it to be honest. There are incentives and awards and ranks to show that you've progressed well within the game, but that doesn't give you an advantage over anyone else. Your skill and experience with the game should be enough. That and you get to wear bright orange trousers.

[anephric]

You can level up to get most of the half-decent perks in CoD4 (at least, if the Beta ranking-up isn't accelerated) in the space of an evening, even if you're crap, so there's not much of an advantage there. R6:V doesn't reward you with much at all for levelling up, other than different camo and stuff to show how OMG1337 you are. The only unlockable weapon that made any difference was the Desert Eagle. Oh, and I suppose the SPAS12.

[Keith]

Aye, I'm crap on CoD4 but after playing the Beta just twice, neither time for more than an hour, I'm on level 8 or something. And you don't have to be much cop (as I've shown! Haha) to get a few kills under your belt.

[Number45]

But isn't the level cap on the beta just that? A level cap? What happens when the game releases and you can level to, say, 50?

I still maintain that you get all the advantage you need by putting the hours into the game (A more in depth knowledge of how the game works, maps etc...) and that adding further bonuses on top of that increases that barrier to newcomers exponentially. And (Sticking with COD as an example) the less said about the bonuses you get for kill streaks the better!*

* - note, I'm not at all down on COD4 as may be coming across in this thread.

[Soi]

In my opinion, any multiplayer game that has a system that gives an extra advantage to skilled players is ridiculous.

Skilled players are, by definition, and so do not need an extra advantage. Having equipment perks for better players just worsens the barriers to entry for new players.

Games that provide better equipment for longer playtime are bad, but not quite as bad. For example, a multiplayer racing game that needs you to complete the single player to get the best car (e.g. PGR2) is pretty badly designed. Again, that just rewards experienced (if not necessarily "better" players).

I'm told WoW is the worst though. PvP in that at high levels is determined to a degree by armour and equipment that you need to be a certain rank to wear. Your rank is basicallu determined by play time compared to other players. I've read that to get the best stuff, you need to play for 11 or 12 hours a day. If you don't play enough, you lose the right to wear the good armour. I'm not a WoW player, but that system just seems hugely explotative.

In my opinion, multiplayer games should have all the players with the same tools at thier disposal. Noobs should get the same kit as the pros. Like a fighting game -everyone should step into the ring equal.

[moonwhistle]

How about Shmups? Should they have different difficulty levels? Shouldn't we all just play them on the default level? Last Hope doesn't count

I've always thought that difficulty levels as well as selectable number of lives and bombs should be abolished from shooters. They serve only an illusion of choice and can destroy valid high score challanges. The only changeable option in a shooter should be control mapping imo.

Games like Ibara and Mushihimesama Arranges modes illustrate this perfectly; with no options to speak of and best of all no continues they produce a perfect level playing field.