Active & dynamic "Ranking/Level" System

[edhe]

There's a recurring point in all these threads that people would like to see a proper player tracking & matching system that will zone servers with certain levels of players into 'your level' or 'not your level' or flat out 'no go'.

The biggest driving issues would be:

• How?
• Why?
• Opt in/out?

How: Statistical analysis. By collecting serious stats from every game in every gametype you play, rated against the players in that server, a ranking function could be developed to marks servers/players as good/bad for your skill level.
Such stats would/should include:

• Efficiency against other players
• Percentage of pickups taken vs other players
• percentage of time of pickups used (or how long the armour stays on?)
• Aggression (% of time spent in enemy territory &/^ close proximity to enemy players
• Positional - % of time spent near nme/base flag/nodes/objectives
• Teamwork - % of time spent in zoned distances from team mates.
• etc

Comparisons of this against the other players in the server, using a branching search to backdate against whom other players have played against that the current player may have played against, would render a Plus or Minus stat that could be used to 'rank' against those in that server.

Also this kind of information could be used to find clanners that could fit into your side, or you could trade for if you've got spare... (heartless clanning... )

Please add your serious comments to this post - mods maybe even sticky it?

 

[Xipher]

I like the idea. I wouldn't mind being able to grab this info via some sort of web interface as well (maybe grab an XML file with the info). Would be nice to be able to incorperate the data into a personal site, or even a clan site.

 

[1337]

I usually fool around and sometimes I don't fool around as much. Sometimes I can hang with TDM clan players other times I can't. It has to do with what the connection is like, what my mood is, if I'm screwing around, if my game is minimized, if I am using sound, if the computer's environment is warmer than normal, etc... I think there would be alot of other players also not showing a consistent competitive pattern. I don't think it would be worth the effort or resources. But it might be a marketable feature, even though I doubt it is going to be accurate. And any clan that dumps a clanmate for someone else's higher utstats score shouldn't be considered a clan.

 

[CyMek]

There are also intangibles! And there are unmeasureables, like dodging. I mean, sure you can say that factors in in DM, but really once you get into team games (Yes, the link gun is in Envy... Can you say ONS?) there are things that you really can't measure that determine how good of a player someone really is.

 

[edhe]

You can measure everything that happens in a game.

Determing a player's 'level' takes something else

I still think it's an idea that would provide an excellent extension to the support of the users. And to be honest i don't think the UT series will compete with anything else if it doesn't have some sort of automatic guidance for the newbs vs the experienced. The game will flop if people only play it for a week, get bored of the SP immediately and can't enjoy themselves online.

That's the most important part of it all, the game needs to regenerate a community, despite the actions of the 'pros'.

 

[Taleweaver]

I don't think the measurement will be much of a problem; after all, the tracking of stats goes back to UT99.

What I'd like to see is an extra filter that you can add/remove in the server settings (exactly like the 'standard only' filter). There are two ways this can be done:

• server side: each server admin has the ability to assign a minimum and/or maximum skill level.
• client side: makes the computer do a check on a certain server, namely checking each player's skill and computing the average skill level

Like Cymek says: there will always be flaws or skills that aren't tracked. Therefore, there shouldn't be too much skill levels (about 8 at the very most).

 

[Mulch_D]

There's another problem that I don't think has been mentioned, I live in Australia and we don't have many servers or many players it would seriously suck if I couldn't get into our only good CTF server 'cause I'm not good enough or (less likely) too good. It would also not be good if our servers could no longer fill because we have 6 in one and 10 in the other due to skill and not 16 all in the one.
Is there any news on this sort of stuff?

 

[Taleweaver]

Ehm...I mentioned it, but maybe this wasn't clear enough: the advantage of using the players' skill as a filter means that you can turn it on and off whenever you like. Just as in UT2004, filters don't work on favorite servers, or whenever you're querying for buddies.
However...If you're looking at the general server, you are free to 'get rid' of the servers you're not going to like anyway...like empty servers, full servers, servers with too low/high average skill, servers without mutator X, and so on...

 

[Mulch_D]

Okay, thanks. I never thought of complaining to the admins of the servers (if that's what your saying)

 

[edhe]

Ehm...I mentioned it, but maybe this wasn't clear enough: the advantage of using the players' skill as a filter means that you can turn it on and off whenever you like. Just as in UT2004, filters don't work on favorite servers, or whenever you're querying for buddies.
However...If you're looking at the general server, you are free to 'get rid' of the servers you're not going to like anyway...like empty servers, full servers, servers with too low/high average skill, servers without mutator X, and so on...

Integral to the idea

 

[Go&nd]

I'm sorry if I'm way off here, but doesn't Halo 2 have a ranking system that helps similarly skilled players play together? I haven't played Halo 2 and it's been a few months since I read about it, but I understood that to be one of the innovative Xbox Live features of Halo 2.

Couldn't we gauge the success of such a feature by how it's doing in the Halo 2 community? And then couldn't Epic learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the Halo 2 system?

I really like the idea of making this ranking system a filter. :tup: However, the filter would have to be something that can be enabled both by the client and the server (separately).

I definitely would like the ability to turn it off and play against players superior to me. Some of my best early UT memories and best learning experiences came from having my ass owned by better players.

It's difficult to improve your game if you don't have to the courage to play with players better than you.

 

[Taleweaver]

Okay, thanks. I never thought of complaining to the admins of the servers (if that's what your saying)

Ehm...No. That's not what I said at all.

Well...maybe that can happen if the feature is implemented. Just look at the server situation as it is: some public servers seem to attract better players than others (Cains, Jolt, Dry Lobster, Titan, ...). Admins are aware of this, or at least they should be. All I suggest is a better way to let the general audience know what kind of players they want to draw in.

@Go&nd: the idea isn't so much of allowing servers to enable/disable the feature, but by setting the default settings to "minimum skill=<lowest skill level>" and "maximum skill=<highest skill level>", the servers can still reveal themselves to everybody out there.
At the same time, players aren't obligated to use the filter if they don't want to...in fact, they can even set the filters to display the servers that just advertise themselves to the stronger audience.

The point isn't to separate the different skill levels, but to make sure that when you join a server, you know what kind of game you can expect.


Hmm...while thinking of the skill levels, I came to another idea I have for a while...I guess this is the right thread for it. It's about the "starting skill". I'd like to suggest that everyone starts at skill level 0. You are not allowed to play online at this skill level. To get to play online, all you have to do is either watch all the tutorial missions, or win the singleplayer campaign (no matter what skill level).
Here's an example that happened a few days ago at Titans: a guy asked for help, because he couldn't move "his thing"...It quickly turned out he was trying to drive off with a turret. Somewhat later, he asked for more help, because he didn't knew how to exit the game...

Though entertaining, we can miss these kind of players online (these kind of questions generally don't have polite answers). The best way to practice is online, but don't you all agree that you should know at least the very basics about the game before starting on the net?

EDIT: almost forgot...anyone know how the "Halo 2" system of finding likewise-skilled players work?

 

[Go&nd]

@Go&nd: the idea isn't so much of allowing servers to enable/disable the feature, but by setting the default settings to "minimum skill=<lowest skill level>" and "maximum skill=<highest skill level>", the servers can still reveal themselves to everybody out there.

At the same time, players aren't obligated to use the filter if they don't want to...

in fact, they can even set the filters to display the servers that just advertise themselves to the stronger audience.

The point isn't to separate the different skill levels, but to make sure that when you join a server, you know what kind of game you can expect.

Oh I understood this -- but I guess I didn't explain why I said "the filter would have to be something that can be enabled both by the client and the server (separately)."

In every generation of Unreal multiplayer, starting with the original Unreal all the way through UT2004, I've witnessed leet players who loved to inflate their egos by joining servers of less skilled players to indulge in some ownage.

If you make this an entirely client-determined filter, I guarantee you a large number of asshats out there will abuse it to find newbies to pound.

Thus you have to offer some kind of server control, too -- a device that protects a newbie server from players who distinctly outrank anyone playing on it. (Again, such a feature should be optional, of course.)

I definitely support the idea of requiring a minimum skill level to get online, with that skill level determined by progress with in-game tutorials.

 

[BooGiTyBoY]

I don't think the measurement will be much of a problem; after all, the tracking of stats goes back to UT99.

Yes and look at how well it works in it's current state.
Pardon me while I fall over

There's just so much to take into consideration for a system like that and there's always going to be players who purposefully bork it, mods/muts that will throw a kabosh on it (love how ut's current system tracks invasion and vctf stats ), and then there's players like me and Briach who will hop on a server and jump around and stuff committing lots of suicides and such in the process.
I just don't see it coming off well....

And back to my previous statement.. how long has 2k4 been out and they STILL don't have the stats working correctly? (and probably still won't by the time the next game is released)

 

[Go&nd]

Just because the stat system for UT2004 doesn't work doesn't mean an entirely different system for a different game can't work. (Again, I'd like to know how things are going with the Halo 2 system.)

In fact, the old ngWorldStats for UT was actually quite a bit more reliable and accurate than anything Epic's done with UT200x (although, no, it wasn't perfect, either).

Maybe that portion of the game requires Epic out-source it to a company that specializes in stats and huge, high volume web-based databases. *shrug*

I guess I need to add that I agree the system will never be 100 percent perfect -- especially with UT's plethora of gametypes and mutators. But I think they can at least make it worthwhile for players looking for a reasonable spectrum of standard games with players of a certain skill level.

 

[BooGiTyBoY]

Isn't that kinda what they did for ngWorldstats in UT? Probably why it worked so much better
But could still easily be worked around...
I remember quite a few people in UT that were in the top 50 players.. and didn't exactly "earn" their place if ya know what i mean.

 

[Taleweaver]

Ah...the criticism I expected. That means the idea has potential

If you make this an entirely client-determined filter, I guarantee you a large number of asshats out there will abuse it to find newbies to pound.

Thus you have to offer some kind of server control, too -- a device that protects a newbie server from players who distinctly outrank anyone playing on it. (Again, such a feature should be optional, of course.)

Basically...you want to prevent people from joining servers that are underneath their skill by a large margin. I am certainly aware that in my approach, asshats will abuse it. IMO, those guys will always find a way around it, because there will always be server admins out there that just want to attract about as much players as possible. Sorry, but removing these kind of pwnage guys from the server is the job of the admin. I don't want the game to interfere which servers I can and can't join (note that sometimes you just want to join a game with someone you know, independant of what server it is).

Yes and look at how well it works in it's current state.
Pardon me while I fall over

There's just so much to take into consideration for a system like that and there's always going to be players who purposefully bork it, mods/muts that will throw a kabosh on it (love how ut's current system tracks invasion and vctf stats ), and then there's players like me and Briach who will hop on a server and jump around and stuff committing lots of suicides and such in the process.
I just don't see it coming off well....

I'm fully aware of that fact. But then again, I didn't want the stat system to take every headshot, rampage, flag cap or lollerskate session into account. I just want it to divide the players' skill into a small amount of groups (8 at the most). If that is too much to do even remotely accurate, then stats should never have brought over into UT200X in the first place...

[RANT]What is the problem with those stat lovers, anyway? From one side, you have a group that absolutely loves it, but as soon as you try to do something usefull with it, it gets greeted with criticism
It's almost as if people want stats to be nothing more than webpages that boost up their ego...[/RANT]

 

[1337]

This seems like more of a hindrance than anything else. Hardly any TDM servers have people in them nowadays. Disallowing people from joining pubs will only make it harder to play a game online. Not being able to join a server with a new friend because he is pro and you are beginner. Don't make a social system built-in within the game, let the community create the system. 8 levels? Too many if you ask me. If they were to do anything similar to this they'd have to make 3 levels. 8 levels? honestly what game has that many players?

 

[FireCrack]

It should be a server side setting, "only allow people beween ranks xxx and yyy"

 

[carmatic]

It's difficult to improve your game if you don't have to the courage to play with players better than you.

hm i think its only difficult to improve your game if you dont play with players better than or as good as you, and playing with players as good as you is better than both playing against people who are better and people who are worse than you... like going to the gym and selecting the correct weights, really...

if you start dividing servers between players , it will chop the server scene up into something that not alot of people can use easily... its like, at the end of each match , you get to see people's scores and stuff, if you split people according to their scores and put them into different servers, you'd need alot of servers with alot of players which come back again and again to play... and what about the details in UTstats, like their efficiency with different weapons, how they died, etc etc, how will this affect whether they are 'good' or not...

i think that its important to put players in an environment where they can learn the fastest, by pitting them with people of equal skill... like , they get to try out their skills and styles against other people without getting killed before they even get to try, but they also will get killed if they dont pull it off well enough...
what makes a good player, simply is at the end of the match you look at their scores and they have the most kills etc, something about how they play enabled them to gain more kills than most people they played against... if you go into the game and you record how they play , you might be able to find out what made them win... maybe its just good aim (or an aimbot) , or some specific way of not getting killed in situations where other people would have gotten killed and in turn killing someone instead...
i think that in every client, as well as having the player at the computer doing stuff, there is also something that tries to match the player's complicated pattern of movement to what the AI would have done in that situation... the worst the player can do is ignore any threats to him and get killed like a very easy bot, but as the player gets better , the more complicated his responses should have been just like the bots, and this way we can equate players with bot skill levels...