This thread is a matter of courtesy to the TC of the "Idea for Heroes" thread where this discussion originated, found here.
This thread's purpose is ostensibly to continue the argument that began there, although anything related to leveling systems could be discussed here.
That is a tremendous strawman.
Riddle me this, what about this leveling system makes the game more fun to play? In fact, what about leveling is fun?
If you can't grant me an answer, then I submit that leveling is superfluous and pointless at best, and that's if you can manage to debunk the issues I raise below.
Giving the players who perform the best the best weapons and giving the worst players the worst weapons (e.g. CSS) means:
A) you make the game more difficult for new players and people who just join the server
B) you give the best players an obscene and totally unnecessary advantage they clearly didn't need by the fact that they had to dominate in order to unlock the AWP, etc
In a nutshell, it is one of the most nonsensical, evidently intentionally imbalanced systems in competitive games and should be killed with fire.
By "limited to select players," you literally mean the best players, who have an advantage already in that they are already the most skilled players. The advantage is unnecessary and compounds the problem of skill gaps even further. Competitive games should be based on skill, and tactics can be explored by offering different, but balanced weapons, to all players.
Again, I'm talking about competitive games not limited by this "historical authenticity aspect" like RO, so these arguments do not extend to RO.
[Bold], ergo it will not be abused. I've not seen a voting system of any kind abused in 5 years.
I was playing a game of Warsow the other day and it took 5 minutes of continuous kick votes being drawn before we could get a voice chat spammer out of the game.
In fact, I've raised the issue that better players having preference over others creates gameplay imbalance, and thus is undesirable and pointless in a competitive game.
Suppose in a running competition, last year's gold medalist had access to all running shoes, whereas newcomers did not. That is absurd and anti-competitive. The point of a running competition is running. It is finding out the best runner, not finding out who is the best runner with the best shoes. The best way to do this is to control for all variables, namely shoes, clothing, position, track, start and end times so that the competition best reflects genuine gaps in ability instead of artifice.
This does not support your point at all. I don't care whether AA has a leveling system, that is irrelevant. I obviously have the same issues with it that I have with any leveling system and I think it should be scrapped.
This thread's purpose is ostensibly to continue the argument that began there, although anything related to leveling systems could be discussed here.
Once again, you're not "souring your experience" for the first 40 hours grinding through a level system because you're HAVING FUN PLAYING THE GAME THAT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU. What don't you understand about this? Where are you getting the idea that RO2's leveling system will turn the game into a bare-bones shooter where you have to gain XP to unlock 80% of the games content?
That is a tremendous strawman.
Riddle me this, what about this leveling system makes the game more fun to play? In fact, what about leveling is fun?
If you can't grant me an answer, then I submit that leveling is superfluous and pointless at best, and that's if you can manage to debunk the issues I raise below.
Well this one is easy.Age of Empires is a competitive game. And I could list more. In what way does the weapon purchasing system hurt gameplay? As I said, there is a reason why these features exist. In CS, the purpose is clearly to limit access to more powerful weapons to select players, rather than allowing all players to instantly select the best weapons, or alternatively, to have all weapons perfectly balanced against each other (boring).
Giving the players who perform the best the best weapons and giving the worst players the worst weapons (e.g. CSS) means:
A) you make the game more difficult for new players and people who just join the server
B) you give the best players an obscene and totally unnecessary advantage they clearly didn't need by the fact that they had to dominate in order to unlock the AWP, etc
In a nutshell, it is one of the most nonsensical, evidently intentionally imbalanced systems in competitive games and should be killed with fire.
By "limited to select players," you literally mean the best players, who have an advantage already in that they are already the most skilled players. The advantage is unnecessary and compounds the problem of skill gaps even further. Competitive games should be based on skill, and tactics can be explored by offering different, but balanced weapons, to all players.
Again, I'm talking about competitive games not limited by this "historical authenticity aspect" like RO, so these arguments do not extend to RO.
How would a waiting period solve this problem? Player replacement votes/votekicks can be abused, and voting of any kind rarely works.
[Bold], ergo it will not be abused. I've not seen a voting system of any kind abused in 5 years.
I was playing a game of Warsow the other day and it took 5 minutes of continuous kick votes being drawn before we could get a voice chat spammer out of the game.
[Bold] is not an issue, ergo you have no point here. Describe to me how it's an issue and maybe I'll follow along.A training requirement per class would not work, because it does not solve the issue of which players have preference over others.
In fact, I've raised the issue that better players having preference over others creates gameplay imbalance, and thus is undesirable and pointless in a competitive game.
Suppose in a running competition, last year's gold medalist had access to all running shoes, whereas newcomers did not. That is absurd and anti-competitive. The point of a running competition is running. It is finding out the best runner, not finding out who is the best runner with the best shoes. The best way to do this is to control for all variables, namely shoes, clothing, position, track, start and end times so that the competition best reflects genuine gaps in ability instead of artifice.
AA has an honour system that is more or less exactly what the devs have described RO2's leveling system will be, in which you accumulate XP to gain bonuses like first choice of weapons and access to new weapons and addons.
This does not support your point at all. I don't care whether AA has a leveling system, that is irrelevant. I obviously have the same issues with it that I have with any leveling system and I think it should be scrapped.
Last edited: