Why does no multiplayer shooter have a mode like this?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

You know how every multiplayer game now has character levels? Ranks? Of course you do. I was just thinking... Why isn't there a mode where a high level has to fight a bunch of low levels? Like, one experienced player versus six beginners. No special powers or boosts. It would be the easiest thing to set up. It would finally bring some purpose to that whole leveling system.

Because skill would murder the shit outta noobs every single time. The experienced play would know the maps too well, hiding spots, vantage points, etc. Even if the new players were only new to that particular game, they wouldn't have that layout advantage and would loose.

It would be a dead mode very quickly as the new players wouldn't feel like it was fun to just watch one dude pick them all off.

This type of gameplay mode is a idea with potential that doesn't work in practice. That's why asynchronous mutliplayer games don't last very long. Friday the 13th is working currently but it isn't something that has enough appeal. The problem with having a bunch of lameasses fighting one badass is that everyone wants to be the badass and it feels bad to only get to be the badass once every 20+ games.

That's part of the reason as to why PUBG is so big right now. There is than RNG potential of finding just awesome shit and having that edge on all the other players. It grants power without feeling unfair.

It'd wouldn't be any fun. The lesser skilled players would get beaten more often than not and the higher skilled players likely wouldn't stay interested long enough to keep playlist viable without significant incentive, i.e.: tax cuts for the rich which does not make for a healthy community when high ranked players are incentivized to beat down newer ones. I recall the days of Halo 2 ranking system wherein level 30-40 players would start new accounts to play at low levels again; it was NOT fun at my legit level 8 to watch a level 6 "somehow" go 25-0 in an 8 person free-for-all. As for a team of low levels versus a single high level player, when's the last time you were on a team of random players of any skill level that managed to truly coordinate on a single objective? In my experience, it's usually one or two people barking suggestions and the rest lone wolfing it looking for the power weapons or best hiding spots. A highly skilled player would pick that ragtag assemblage apart.

They could name it Man Among Boys mode.

CritialGaming:
Because skill would murder the shit outta noobs every single time.

Not necessarily. 6 maybe. But what about 20? 40? Should be able to mathematically raise the number of noobs until the match evens out at some point.

Imagine 40 low levels trying to take down a "boss" who is a high level geared player. Like an MMO raid. That would be hilarious.

Kerg3927:

CritialGaming:
Because skill would murder the shit outta noobs every single time.

Not necessarily. 6 maybe. But what about 20? 40? Should be able to mathematically raise the number of noobs until the match evens out at some point.

Imagine 40 low levels trying to take down a "boss" who is a high level geared player. Like an MMO raid. That would be hilarious.

Either way, one side wont have any fun. Even if you put it as a hundred players against one powerful as fuck dude, not only would that balancing be a fucking nightmare, but it is not nearly as fun being lost in a sea of dipshits as it is to stand above all with your own talent or ability.

Like I said, nifty idea, but impractical and unfun in practice.

CritialGaming:

Kerg3927:

CritialGaming:
Because skill would murder the shit outta noobs every single time.

Not necessarily. 6 maybe. But what about 20? 40? Should be able to mathematically raise the number of noobs until the match evens out at some point.

Imagine 40 low levels trying to take down a "boss" who is a high level geared player. Like an MMO raid. That would be hilarious.

Either way, one side wont have any fun. Even if you put it as a hundred players against one powerful as fuck dude, not only would that balancing be a fucking nightmare, but it is not nearly as fun being lost in a sea of dipshits as it is to stand above all with your own talent or ability.

Like I said, nifty idea, but impractical and unfun in practice.

I changed my mind. They should call it Sea of Dipshits mode.

Well, the real reason why is because no one will play it, regardless if it is fun or not.

Most people are boring and dont play the fun modes, they just play Team Deathmatch and maybe one other objective mode.

They have/had a mode like that in Robocraft. Can't remember the name of the mode, and haven't played the game in a long time, but a high tier (8-10) player/vehicle could go up against, like, I think it was 12 or so tier 1-3 vehicles or something like that. Was actually pretty balanced, though yeah, good players had an advantage on either side.

I can think 2 reasons:

1. Skill beats up numbers.
2. What incentive do the low skill players have to improve? Once they do, they can't play as part of the low level group anymore, and they are forced to play solo instead.

Katherine Kerensky:
They have/had a mode like that in Robocraft. Can't remember the name of the mode, and haven't played the game in a long time, but a high tier (8-10) player/vehicle could go up against, like, I think it was 12 or so tier 1-3 vehicles or something like that. Was actually pretty balanced, though yeah, good players had an advantage on either side.

I was gonna bring that up myself, though as I remember it any high-level player with half an ounce of sense could usually pick off newer players and their fragile vehicles one-by-one unless they'd brought a really bad build into the match.

Kerg3927:

CritialGaming:
Because skill would murder the shit outta noobs every single time.

Not necessarily. 6 maybe. But what about 20? 40? Should be able to mathematically raise the number of noobs until the match evens out at some point.

Imagine 40 low levels trying to take down a "boss" who is a high level geared player. Like an MMO raid. That would be hilarious.

Yeah, I'm not buying it. A bunch of beginners should be able to beat one pro. You can also make the mode available after the player has reached a certain low level, so that they're not completely clueless.

Xprimentyl said the higher skilled player wouldn't stay interested. With that, I disagree. I don't see how it wouldn't not be fun kicking so much ass or trying to survive.

Saelune:
Most people are boring and dont play the fun modes, they just play Team Deathmatch and maybe one other objective mode.

Sadly true.

"What incentive do the low levels have?" The satisfaction of gang raping? More experience? Maybe I should ask Katherine.

Katherine Kerensky:
They have/had a mode like that in Robocraft. Can't remember the name of the mode, and haven't played the game in a long time, but a high tier (8-10) player/vehicle could go up against, like, I think it was 12 or so tier 1-3 vehicles or something like that. Was actually pretty balanced, though yeah, good players had an advantage on either side.

I spend about an hour and a half helping a bunch of low level Russian players get achievements today. I asked if they could let me play against them all in a game of Deathmatch afterwards, but they left one by one, and by the time the guy on my friends list finally said okay, there were only two players left. Lame. I just left. You're welcome.

Ezekiel:
-snip-

"What incentive do the low levels have?" The satisfaction of gang raping? More experience? Maybe I should ask Katherine.

Katherine Kerensky:
They have/had a mode like that in Robocraft. Can't remember the name of the mode, and haven't played the game in a long time, but a high tier (8-10) player/vehicle could go up against, like, I think it was 12 or so tier 1-3 vehicles or something like that. Was actually pretty balanced, though yeah, good players had an advantage on either side.

Higher tier players have better weapon tech, so they could easily pick off the lower level players with a single good hit to their vehicle. As I said, it was balanced rather well, and matches could go either way. I liked joining as a low tier player with a healing beam, and just repairing my team mates so they could get back into the fight.
But aside from that, I think it paid fairly decently, and the matches weren't too long either way, but that was just Robocraft. No idea how it would work for other games, like a traditional FPS. Odds would be in favour of the many winning.

That would be a horrible mode, it would just give the good players a way to pad stats even more. Even if they lose the match, their KDR is going to be great. Plus, the mode is just then deathmatch, which is the worst type of mode to begin with. It's not even a good way for new players to learn much either since a group of them only has one player to attack thus getting into less gunfights (i.e. less experience gained) vs a normal mode.

Oh my god, it just happened... I killed them all so much that they decided to team up. It was what I hoped it would be. Sadly, however, there were only three of them.

Phoenixmgs:
Plus, the mode is just then deathmatch

In what way?

which is the worst type of mode to begin with.

You have strange opinions. Deathmatch is fun because it's a race. I'd like to see a reverse of it, though. Deathmatch (free for all) with tickets. Last man standing.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Plus, the mode is just then deathmatch

In what way?

which is the worst type of mode to begin with.

You have strange opinions. Deathmatch is fun because it's a race. I'd like to see a reverse of it, though. Deathmatch with tickets. Last man standing.

In the way that the only objective is killing... aka deathmatch. If you don't have an objective, then shooters become so camper happy.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Plus, the mode is just then deathmatch

In what way?

which is the worst type of mode to begin with.

You have strange opinions. Deathmatch is fun because it's a race. I'd like to see a reverse of it, though. Deathmatch with tickets. Last man standing.

In the way that the only objective is killing... aka deathmatch. If you don't have an objective, then shooters become so camper happy.

Depends on the shooter. Also, nothing wrong with camping.

I would imagine balancing and niche appeal are why what you propose isn't done and why when similar things are done it usually gives the outnumbered player some form of boost, power up, or is just balanced for asymmetrical play.

In balancing, there is no way to reliably just pick high skilled players out of only one side, you are going to get a lot of good to mediocre players ending up on the larger team or many slightly good players that just play a lot end up on the smaller team and end up against players that are almost as good but just don't play as often, and that's before you have high skill players purposely smurfing to end up on the low skill team.

Gameplay wise, most games just aren't balanced to make lopsided teams work without boosting one side, either the high skill guy is overwhelmed and max health is low enough that he is inevitably going to die even if he consistently takes 3 or 4 people with him per round, or it's a smaller arena shooter and the pro wins through dominating the good weapons spawning on the map.

You also run into the problem that the high skill player pool that can take on a whole team of people without boosts is going to be really small, and the low skill pool isn't just going to be rookies for more than a week or two after launch, it's going to be a lot of mediocre to pretty good players and small groups of friends with decent coordination, not enough to challenge a team of pros but more than enough to wreck any single good player bar maybe a dozen or two of the best of the best, the kinds of people that don't play a mode like that to begin with.

The latter issue is the niche appeal, without a boost or something to attract someone to the lone wolf team, pros and really skilled players aren't going to treat the mode as more than a curiosity as bashing rookies isn't going to get you to the top of a competitive ladder and is useless for e-sports pros that need to practice against other pros.

Without some form of asymmetrical balancing, it just seems like something that too easily turns into one side or the other getting completely stomped in a not very fun way, most people just aren't going to have the patience to wait for that one perfect match where both sides are just balanced just enough to make it fun.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
If you don't have an objective, then shooters become so camper happy.

Depends on the shooter. Also, nothing wrong with camping.

When there's no downside to camping, then the game is extremely boring. Every shooter is about camping; however, it's all about knowing when and how to properly camp coupled with learning how push and play aggressive when needed. Deathmatch doesn't facilitate players learning how to properly play because if there's no objective, you can always camp with no downside or punishment.

This minute or so of commentary is exactly how to become a good player in any shooter.

If I had the chance to make a mode like that, I would call it 'inferiority complexion.'

So it's going to be like Dynasty Wariors

Well, pub-stomping via experienced players starting new accounts would be hilarious.

I can imagine the chat logs now.

That doesn't sound like a particularly good idea, but there is a game mode in an mmo I played that had a game mode that sounds similar. The game was called Lost Saga. One of the game modes involved picking a player to basically be a boss character and all the other players would try to take the boss out. The player that gets the killing blow then becomes the boss.

Captain Marvelous:
That doesn't sound like a particularly good idea, but there is a game mode in an mmo I played that had a game mode that sounds similar. The game was called Lost Saga. One of the game modes involved picking a player to basically be a boss character and all the other players would try to take the boss out. The player that gets the killing blow then becomes the boss.

Max Payne 3 has a mode like that. It's called "Payne Killer." I don't like it, though. Max is too buffed and only the player that got the last shot on him gets to be Max in the next round.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
If you don't have an objective, then shooters become so camper happy.

Depends on the shooter. Also, nothing wrong with camping.

When there's no downside to camping, then the game is extremely boring. Every shooter is about camping; however, it's all about knowing when and how to properly camp coupled with learning how push and play aggressive when needed. Deathmatch doesn't facilitate players learning how to properly play because if there's no objective, you can always camp with no downside or punishment.

But there ARE downsides to camping. It's a valid strategy.

I wouldn't win as many deathmatches if I camped.

This minute or so of commentary is exactly how to become a good player in any shooter.

I know how to push and how to use cover.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Every shooter is about camping...

But there ARE downsides to camping. It's a valid strategy.

I wouldn't win as many deathmatches if I camped.

I know how to push and how to use cover.

How did I imply camping isn't a valid strategy when I literally said "every shooter is about camping"? There's pretty much no downsides to camping in a TDM, which is why I never play TDM. Straight-up DM is too luck-based and really just about twitch skills and nothing else. DM is a horrible mode to actually facilitate newbs improving at the game, especially your newbs vs good player DM mode. Even the spawns in a DM make learning the map harder for newbs vs a singular spawn area in an objective mode. When did I imply the video was for you to watch to get better? That video will help a new player so much more than playing your hypothetical DM mode. The vast vast majority of players (at least 90%) don't understand how to camp; you don't camp at the start, you push and take map control THEN you camp. How many times do you see like the whole team in a standard COD Domination type mode (3 objectives with 1 in the middle) all run to the objective closest to their spawn while giving the enemy free map control instead of pushing for the middle objective? Most players don't even understand how to play basically the most simplistic objective mode of a shooter.

Quite hilariously, I googled "COD Domination" just to make sure I got the game mode right as I haven't played COD since COD4. And the 3rd search result was a link to a forum post of a player detailing how you're supposed to play the game mode while themselves not understanding how to play the game mode; they already failed at Step 1.

I smurfed in Nosgoth once to see how much I had improved. I destroyed the other team, and I was nowhere near a "high" level player yet. Even when the opposing team started targeting me specifically I still came out way on top. And after like 3~4 games it was already getting a bit boring so I went back to my normal account. So I think a mode like that would only result in the high level players owning the new players most of the time. And I doubt the high level players would like it for long.

Sidenote: I miss Nosgoth. :< Or at least how Nosgoth was before they messed it up at the end.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Every shooter is about camping...

But there ARE downsides to camping. It's a valid strategy.

I wouldn't win as many deathmatches if I camped.

I know how to push and how to use cover.

How did I imply camping isn't a valid strategy when I literally said "every shooter is about camping"? There's pretty much no downsides to camping in a TDM, which is why I never play TDM.

One downside is that you might not be able to get as many kills. Especially if the other team tries to ignore you. I don't know why players often rush into a well encamped, skillful player's line of sight over and over. Sometimes I try to steer completely clear of players whom I know are better than me. A mouse doesn't try to fight a cat. Another downside is that you can be ambushed. Trying to take down a camper can be interesting. It's part of the reason The End is such a popular MGS fight.

Straight-up DM is too luck-based and really just about twitch skills and nothing else.

Free for all DM is skill-based. I don't know what you mean by twitch skills. If just point and shoot, then no, it's much more than that. It's about that and being aware of your surroundings, evading, using cover (No, I don't mean sticking to it.), knowing which situation to deal with first and sometimes being unpredictable.

DM is a horrible mode to actually facilitate newbs improving at the game, especially your newbs vs good player DM mode.

I got good playing DM.

Even the spawns in a DM make learning the map harder for newbs vs a singular spawn area in an objective mode.

I think most of the multiplayer games now have players spawn near other players, usually as far away from the action as possible. I can't predict where someone is gonna spawn in my current multiplayer game.

Ezekiel:
One downside is that you might not be able to get as many kills. Especially if the other team tries to ignore you. I don't know why players often rush into a well encamped, skillful player's line of sight over and over. Sometimes I try to steer completely clear of players whom I know are better than me. A mouse doesn't try to fight a cat. Another downside is that you can be ambushed. Trying to take down a camper can be interesting. It's part of the reason The End is such a popular MGS fight.

Free for all DM is skill-based. I don't know what you mean by twitch skills. If just point and shoot, then no, it's much more than that. It's about that and being aware of your surroundings, evading, using cover (No, I don't mean sticking to it.), knowing which situation to deal with first and sometimes being unpredictable.

I got good playing DM.

I think most of the multiplayer games now have players spawn near other players, usually as far away from the action as possible. I can't predict where someone is gonna spawn in my current multiplayer game.

In a TDM, one team can get the 1st kill and camp hardcore afterwards. You just need one kill to win TDM technically. I've played basically every game mode in clan matches over the years and TDM is the worst game mode by far.

Free for all is all gunskills, which won't win objective game modes when everyone is very close in said gunskills.

It's hard to learn maps when you get spawned in random places. Having a set spawn location (buddy spawns are fine too) allows you to learn the map properly. Just getting dropped in some place when you don't know the map only makes it harder for new players learn. I'm also guessing you'd have the good player spawn in random places, which won't help new players at all. Giving a good player a spawn on the flank of newbs is a bad idea. New players are supposed to learn such things like map control, which is literally impossible when you don't have the enemy player(s) spawning from the same location.

This is literally Playerunknown's Battlegrounds. If one pro player is in a match, he/she is pitted against up to 100 players of lesser skill. last man standing.

I hate ranks in multiplayer shooters. I wanna play Free for All Deathmatch and objective-based games, but all the high level players wanna play only Team Deathmatch. Like Saelune said, people are boring. Low levels are more willing to try out different game modes, but they often kick me as soon as we're in the match, just because they see my number or badge. Ranks kill playability. I'm never ever going Prestige (or any copy of it) again. It's the worst thing you can do to yourself if you wanna be able to play with a variety of people. The Prestige symbol scares people away. I tried deleting my save file, but my stats are on the server. Fuck.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
One downside is that you might not be able to get as many kills. Especially if the other team tries to ignore you. I don't know why players often rush into a well encamped, skillful player's line of sight over and over. Sometimes I try to steer completely clear of players whom I know are better than me. A mouse doesn't try to fight a cat. Another downside is that you can be ambushed. Trying to take down a camper can be interesting. It's part of the reason The End is such a popular MGS fight.

Free for all DM is skill-based. I don't know what you mean by twitch skills. If just point and shoot, then no, it's much more than that. It's about that and being aware of your surroundings, evading, using cover (No, I don't mean sticking to it.), knowing which situation to deal with first and sometimes being unpredictable.

I got good playing DM.

I think most of the multiplayer games now have players spawn near other players, usually as far away from the action as possible. I can't predict where someone is gonna spawn in my current multiplayer game.

In a TDM, one team can get the 1st kill and camp hardcore afterwards. You just need one kill to win TDM technically. I've played basically every game mode in clan matches over the years and TDM is the worst game mode by far.

You got anything to support that or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Free for all is all gunskills, which won't win objective game modes when everyone is very close in said gunskills.

Yes, it's about skill. You don't explain how that's bad.

It's hard to learn maps when you get spawned in random places. Having a set spawn location (buddy spawns are fine too) allows you to learn the map properly. Just getting dropped in some place when you don't know the map only makes it harder for new players learn. I'm also guessing you'd have the good player spawn in random places, which won't help new players at all. Giving a good player a spawn on the flank of newbs is a bad idea. New players are supposed to learn such things like map control, which is literally impossible when you don't have the enemy player(s) spawning from the same location.

I don't like getting spawn-killed. I'd rather spawn on other players as far from the action as possible. But that's beside the point. You said spawn killing is a problem, even though most of the new games don't have predictable spawn locations. Battlefield has them, but that's because the maps are huge and the home base is far from the hot zone.

Well, in the spirit of today in case no one's mentioned it yet -

I would like to try this sometime, but not sure I'd want to pay more than...$13 for it.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
In a TDM, one team can get the 1st kill and camp hardcore afterwards. You just need one kill to win TDM technically. I've played basically every game mode in clan matches over the years and TDM is the worst game mode by far.

You got anything to support that or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Here's a match I was in and we got "first blood" then camped hardcore. Here's another match (not me or my team) showing all you do is camp the best area on the map to camp and that's it. MGO3's Bounty Hunter is basically TDM, you can fulton enemies to get back tickets but against actual good players that ain't happening. If there's no objective to go for, then camping is all you need to do. At the highest level of any game whether it's a video game, a sport, a board game, etc.; the game will be played in a manner that yield the best chance at winning. If that manner isn't fun, then the mode is a bad mode. If there's only 1 manner (strategy) that's obviously best, the mode is bad as well.

Yes, it's about skill. You don't explain how that's bad.

When you're playing with players that all have great gunskills, you need other skills to beat them, which is why I said in your other thread that shooters are 90% positioning. Say you and another equally skilled player both see each other at the same time, you have a 50/50 chance of killing them basically. What you need to do is all the little things to tip the odds in your favor. That's how you win against the best, you out-think them and out-play them in everything that's not just aiming and shooting.

I don't like getting spawn-killed. I'd rather spawn on other players as far from the action as possible. But that's beside the point. You said spawn killing is a problem, even though most of the new games don't have predictable spawn locations. Battlefield has them, but that's because the maps are huge and the home base is far from the hot zone.

I didn't say anything about spawn killing. Any good game mode has set spawn(s) so the other team knows where the other team is coming from. If you just have random spawns, there's no such thing as map control, any enemy can get a free flank at any time. Thus, newbs will not learn the most important aspects of a shooter with a good player spawning literally anywhere on the map.

Kerg3927:

CritialGaming:
Because skill would murder the shit outta noobs every single time.

Not necessarily. 6 maybe. But what about 20? 40? Should be able to mathematically raise the number of noobs until the match evens out at some point.

Imagine 40 low levels trying to take down a "boss" who is a high level geared player. Like an MMO raid. That would be hilarious.

From back in Neverwinter Nights days with servers that had PvP, it tends to go kind of poorly. Sure, different game systems might not have as dramatic a curve, but it usually ends with the high end player YOLOing in ridiculous ways, or becoming heavily toxic when tey do finally lose to the odds.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here