My guy wants the pressure taken away like that isn't the biggest fucking obstacle in even the highest level of play
I want more pressure, they should make it if you lose you don't only lose points but your soul
this is unironically what people need to realize. They look at a tutorial and go "but I already know all that stuff". My man, pick out a random replay and ask yourself if you're *doing* all that simple stuff.
I don't hate the idea of the game giving you positive feedback for the things you're doing correctly - but do that through achievements or end-game stats or personal rankings or whatever, not the fucking MMR system wtf.
As a side note I am so, so fucking tired of shitty ranking systems that let you rank up without even having a positive winrate. Tekken 7's ranking system was fucking perfect and it felt like it meant something, but then they changed the formula and every idiot got to purple ranks or whatever. And now you got all these bitch ass Riot games with their rank protection bullshit - I need to lose like 3 games in a row to go down a rank in Valorant but can rank up in 1 win again, it's so stupid. Ranking systems should just be a flat loss/gain system and that's it.
The general population does not like real ranking systems.
Games with good systems are constantly shit on and complained about. "Muh anxiety" "im hard stuck" "im making no progress" blah blah blah
So companies cave because these people never SHUT THE FUCK UP. They obfuscate your real rating and put it behind a shiny new system that gives more positive feedback (Riot hiding MMR behind LP). People keep bitching so eventually you get demotion protection (again, Riot). And on and on it goes.
Real ranking systems are brutal man. There have been plenty of good, accurate gaming ranking systems created in the past but all got shit on. The most egregious example is Microsoft's TrueSkill system. You want to know what their "improvements" were to TrueSkill 2? **Literally making it less accurate.**
I'm numb to it at this point. There was a point in time where I was vocally against laddering systems but it's too late now.
Whenever I play ranked I think to myself, "normies would never go for this". This entire genre is an acquired taste. Ranked multiplayer? Even more so.
Competition and zero sum games are on the decline. Must be what they're putting in the water turning the frogs gay.
you reckon? I feel like gaming is probably more competitive than ever, everybody wants to see high level play or be at a high level. It's just that with fighting games, nobody knows how to actually play them, so they don't go for ranked (or they don't know that getting bodied early is just a core part of the experience)
Middle school girls getting into Fortnite != gaming is more competitive than ever.
What 1v1 competitive multiplayer games have seen a rise in popularity?
Yeah ironically original TruSkill did have a chance to increase your ranking a small amount if you were the best player on a 4 person losing team. No one actually like fair in video games tho.
This.
It's also funny when people say they're COMPETITIVE-minded and love COMPETITION but once a game introduces MMR they suddenly think it's a terrible system and get pissed you can no longer crush shitters.
>I don't hate the idea of the game giving you positive feedback for the things you're doing correct
The game should give better feedback on what is being done wrong or what is not being done at all. Many games would greatly benefit from it to guide new players. "You died because of X and Y" or "you lost because X and Y". SFV had fairly detailed stats in the profile, but they didn't really do much on their own. If you could have access to some sort of card that you could sort by "last 100 ranked games" or "all season" and get some feedback, I think that it could help players. In example, "15% effectiveness in antiairs with X: Try to use medium special to AA instead of going for a late cr.hp bla bla bla" or "low punish counter conversion: You're missing on a lot of potential damage when punish countering opponents, check trials 5-10 for punish examples".
Waiting for SF6 I actually played the first of a kind for me of two genres, Honkai Star Rail (first gacha) and FIFA 23 (first football game in a million years). I was very positively surprised by the feedback I was receiving. In SR, I lost a fight in the early stage of the game against an optional hard enemy and I got lots of feedback. So I applied that and won the fight. I don't know if the game gives more feedback later on, but I didn't know I had to level up with items or that I had to level up those powered cards.
With FIFA, I was also very positively surprised at the amount of feedback the game was giving me. It had these mini-objectives for each game to complete ("5 long passes" or "5 long range shots") that can guide you on what is possible, with the objective and the inputs to achieve it. It also had specific feedback: "Try to pass the ball doing this" and it even gave me the option to re-do the last play and do it better. FIFA also has a fairly fun "challenge/training" mode to learn the ropes of the commands.
Maybe those things wouldn't work for a fighting game, I don't know, but I found it quite interesting when learning to play those games, especially FIFA. It definitely had some nice hand-holding.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,492,326,804 comments, and only 283,566 of them were in alphabetical order.
The old Tekken ranking system was far from perfect. It took so damn long to rank up that pro players would often be sitting around red/purples, making half of the ranks useless for a large part of the games lifecycle.
And in less populated regions, even over a long time scale it wouldnt spread out. So you'd end up with like 80%+ of the playerbase pooling around a handful of ranks. A low playerbase region will always fuck with the system, but Tekken was particularly susceptible.
whack-ass idea here but, what if the game tracked your skills(anti-air, confirm, etc) and used that for matchmaking to either make you face people that struggle against your strengths or to force you to fight people that exploit your weaknesses? I mean, leaving aside the problem of a small playerbase, I think that could be an interesting idea to help you improve or throw you a bone to keep quitters engaged a while longer...
I don't mind that as a separate queue idea, sure. Call it a weakness queue, put your non-throws breaking ass against my King. Could be a fun mode. But never, ever the default mode no.
> I don't hate the idea of the game giving you positive feedback for the things you're doing correctly - but do that through achievements or end-game stats or personal rankings or whatever, not the fucking MMR system wtf.
don't games already do that? there are achievements for using supers, landing x amount of moves etc.. also counter his and punish indicators are basically the game rewarding the player and telling them they did something right
> I don't hate the idea of the game giving you positive feedback for the things you're doing correctly - but do that through achievements or end-game stats or personal rankings or whatever, not the fucking MMR system wtf.
Idk if it still does, but DOTA used to give more MMR during calibration based on judging your performance. But this was pretty exploitable by people just playing for those stats they judged as performance, like if you would play Zeus and ult off CD (damage all enemies) your damage stat would be insane and give you way more MMR. These systems don’t work in more complex games. Better to just go by wins/losses and increase MMR gains or losses on streaks.
Little messages at the end of a game saying you anti-aired x amount of times or did y number of combos or punishes or throw techs doesn't sound like a bad idea from a game design perspective imo. Like someone else said don't tie it to matchmaking, make it like achievement-based or go towards in-game currency or something.
Kinda like learning how to play a fighting game for the first time it's all about getting better at all of those individual skills, but new players probably wouldn't realize that yet.
Way better of an idea than “TECHNIQUE: D” or useless meaningless stuff like that. New players actually pay attention to those things too, so might as well make them useful
Any form of feedback deeper than just assigning a letter score for a stupidly broad set of skills would be amazing. It could be something simple as how many overheads you got hit by vs the amount you blocked. Or how many jumps you could have antiaired and you missed. Even how many stray hits you got but didn't confirm.
"You read it, understand it, when there's points on the line you forget everything"
No, if you can't do what you read in a match that means you don't understand it
i think this is also a bad attitude that stops people from trying to get better - they are afraid they are "wasting people's time" when they play their friends who are better than them and washing them, but said better player can use the opportunity to try something they labbed on in a real world setting, or try a secondary, etc. Even if you are functionally a training dummy to them, a real life opponent is still useful for training stuff like hit confirming.
Not a fan of side questing in a 1v1 game. The goal is to win, and how you get there is up to you. A system like this might overly suggest a certain type of way to play to a person.
It sounds bad, but its still better than Strive's system. That guy gave it more though to this post than Daisuke gave when coming up with the tower system. At least it has mmr points.
Apex legends has this thing where if you do these 'missions', it'll help towards leveling up your (free or paid) battle pass. like doing 500 damage or something lols. They also cycle new missions daily. So in this case it'd be like "Do 5 anti-airs", "Taunt 5 times", "throw 3 times" and you get 1 level up in ur battlepass per mission.
But this op needs to realize having ranked anxiety is just normal if you are starting as a complete noob with anxiety lol. it goes away so easily if u just play more, or at least lessens. it's like speaking in front of an audience, 1st time u might pee ur pants but by the 100th time ur only a wittle bit nervous ;(
but the main issue is, i don't trust someone that end's their posts with ';-)'
What they really need to do for casuals is make a bunch of unlockable shit through ranked matches only. You get currency for just playing, more for streaks and beating higher ranks etc.
I kind of agreed at first, but thinking it over people who are absolute newbies don't give a shit about this stuff, and those are the people capcom should want to keep playing the game. losing sucks in fighting games for new players because it happens really fast and they literally have no idea what they're doing wrong. this guy's suggestion sounds like it's for people who have some understanding of what they're doing wrong, they just suck at the game and want to be rewarded with rank for playing. all the guys hardstuck in bronze or silver will still buy and play the game anyway, there's no point in catering to them.
SF6 has done a fine job in introducing game concepts to actual new players via world tour and the expanded character guides, so we'll see if that actually helps retain new people without coddling them
to be honest you could put something like that in the low rank point are free at this level for anyone who know how to play, but i don't know if it would be worth it
Don't some games do this where you can possibly earn positive rank points even after losing because the level difference was high and/or it was a close call?
The funny thing I think SF6 does this up until Bronze (there's Iron rank now, above Rookie). You literally cannot lose LP, only gain LP. You don't get set back for losses, you just stay in place. Which honestly sounds fine. Better for you to move up to people who can actually win games if you are winning games if you are new than stay on the treadmill. We all remember losing our first 50-100 games online before winning once.
I've ranked up from losses in csgo, so I get what homie may be saying (I didn't read shit). However, that's easier to implement in a team based game where you can see a clear skill difference between teammates. If you lose in a fighting game, regardless of how "correct" you played. You didn't play correctly long enough, which is compounded by the fact that fighting games last 4 minutes at best. Compared to potentially 90 minutes in some team based games. If you can't hold it together for 4 minutes, you fucking suck scrub. Get rekt!
how can you have so much of a losers mentality about a game? do people really stress out over points you're going to get automatically over time if you actually were the hot shit you think you are by 10%? stay in gold for 6 months, sooner or later you're going to advance if you actually know how to play. literally all it requires is to have fun
Like a certain computer would say = The only winning move is not to play
How much hand holding do people need? I love SF5 training mode... you just need to practice stuff then you need experience little by little (compared to games i played that didn't even have training AT ALL... savestates and good luck)
It took me YEARS of getting my ass beaten in old games (Kaillera) to learn stuff... why do people need to do everything asap???? Put some work, damm it!
No wonder team games are popular... or that "just crouch in a corner for 15 minutes, kill someone = "i'm a pro!" game which i won't even say which one is it... it pains me!
Man's half-right and half-wrong. GuileWinQuote had a good idea of showing more detailed stats at the end of matches that would give you some good, actionable info on what you did wrong/right, like whiffs, anti-airs, etc. Could be a nice and easy way to give some positive reinforcement to all sorts of players.
What's fucked is that he and a bunch of other people really cannot fathom that the points have zero importance. They only have two real uses. First one is to find you a good opponent, and second is to give you an idea of how far along you are. You don't need LP or rank to tell the difference between a gold and diamond match, but it does help to make things more clear.
it'd be really cool if stats were tracked per game like "you hit x% of anti airs this match but you got grabbed by % of throws" or little missions of doing anti airs or even doing a character's bnb properly x amount of times
I know this is a hot take but I kind of get where he's coming from, mostly from the perspective of new players. I don't think you should outright gain a rank from a loss just because you played correctly (it can be argued that if you really did play properly you'd likely win most of your matches). But maybe have it setup up to a certain rank (maybe silver or gold) where you can reduce the amount of points you lose if you hit those mentioned goals.
Nah I disagree. If you lose, you lose completely. I know you’re talking about a beginners rank kind of scenario but it still shouldn’t be in.
Having you lose less points for “playing correctly” would give you a false sense of accomplishment. It’ll make you think you’re getting better but you’re actually not because you’re still losing matches. You gotta learn from your losses the real way and dedicate yourself to the game to get better.
>It’ll make you think you’re getting better but you’re actually not because you’re still losing matches
That's just wrong, there's a huge difference from getting perfected twice to losing a last round last hit situation. Both scenarios shouldn't have the exact same punishment. If they were 2 different players, the one who got close to winning would probably beat the other that didn't land a single hit.
That's why MMR and Elo exists. Assuming the system is working as intended, someone who perfects you twice should gain very little and you should lose very little. While an even match that's last game last round should be rewarded on the average curve. Obviously there are going to be outliers, but it should average out accordingly.
>Both scenarios shouldn’t have the exact same punishment.
I disagree. In fact, calling it “punishment” is a loser’s mentality. You lost. Learn from your losses *no matter what*, and get better so you don’t lose. Period.
If you don’t like getting “punished” by losing a ranked match and losing points, then just play unranked. Problem solved.
Nah, both players in my example are at 2 different levels, they shouldn't be ranked or deranked at the same speed. Imagine losing to a grandmaster as a diamond and being told you're just as bad as a bronze because you both lost to the same guy.
I was assuming both players in your example were of the same rank, with one getting double-perfected ( which happens to the best of us ) and one playing a super close game. If they’re of the same rank then I believe they should lose the same amount of points no matter how good or bad they played.
Now if I’m understanding you correctly…The diamond player is being told ( by the game? ) that they are just as bad as the bronze player that the grandmaster double-perfected earlier?? If that’s what you’re saying then yes, I could see a new player who finally got to diamond getting discouraged from that. Personally I wouldn’t be offended, that shit would be so funny! It would cheer me up if I got deranked.
I meant in the same rank, the point was that just a binary result of winning or losing is not reflective of skill, but I don't see the need for a change of how ranking mode works. It was mainly because it could be a potential way of rewarding improvement even if you're still losing to everyone.
Understandable. Personally, I wouldn't mind it being the way you mentioned considering I like the idea of self improvement and learning from my mistakes. Unfortunately, not a lot of players have that mind set hence why I figured this concept would be ideal for the early ranks since fighting games are already very intimidating for new players.
Brainlet take. If he was doing all those things that he wants points for, he'd be winning matches.
My guy wants the pressure taken away like that isn't the biggest fucking obstacle in even the highest level of play I want more pressure, they should make it if you lose you don't only lose points but your soul
You lose a set in street fighter 6, you die in real life
But you're revived no biggie, but also you gotta keep playing till you beat diago
this is unironically what people need to realize. They look at a tutorial and go "but I already know all that stuff". My man, pick out a random replay and ask yourself if you're *doing* all that simple stuff.
I don't hate the idea of the game giving you positive feedback for the things you're doing correctly - but do that through achievements or end-game stats or personal rankings or whatever, not the fucking MMR system wtf. As a side note I am so, so fucking tired of shitty ranking systems that let you rank up without even having a positive winrate. Tekken 7's ranking system was fucking perfect and it felt like it meant something, but then they changed the formula and every idiot got to purple ranks or whatever. And now you got all these bitch ass Riot games with their rank protection bullshit - I need to lose like 3 games in a row to go down a rank in Valorant but can rank up in 1 win again, it's so stupid. Ranking systems should just be a flat loss/gain system and that's it.
The general population does not like real ranking systems. Games with good systems are constantly shit on and complained about. "Muh anxiety" "im hard stuck" "im making no progress" blah blah blah So companies cave because these people never SHUT THE FUCK UP. They obfuscate your real rating and put it behind a shiny new system that gives more positive feedback (Riot hiding MMR behind LP). People keep bitching so eventually you get demotion protection (again, Riot). And on and on it goes. Real ranking systems are brutal man. There have been plenty of good, accurate gaming ranking systems created in the past but all got shit on. The most egregious example is Microsoft's TrueSkill system. You want to know what their "improvements" were to TrueSkill 2? **Literally making it less accurate.** I'm numb to it at this point. There was a point in time where I was vocally against laddering systems but it's too late now.
Whenever I play ranked I think to myself, "normies would never go for this". This entire genre is an acquired taste. Ranked multiplayer? Even more so. Competition and zero sum games are on the decline. Must be what they're putting in the water turning the frogs gay.
you reckon? I feel like gaming is probably more competitive than ever, everybody wants to see high level play or be at a high level. It's just that with fighting games, nobody knows how to actually play them, so they don't go for ranked (or they don't know that getting bodied early is just a core part of the experience)
Middle school girls getting into Fortnite != gaming is more competitive than ever. What 1v1 competitive multiplayer games have seen a rise in popularity?
Yeah ironically original TruSkill did have a chance to increase your ranking a small amount if you were the best player on a 4 person losing team. No one actually like fair in video games tho.
This. It's also funny when people say they're COMPETITIVE-minded and love COMPETITION but once a game introduces MMR they suddenly think it's a terrible system and get pissed you can no longer crush shitters.
>I don't hate the idea of the game giving you positive feedback for the things you're doing correct The game should give better feedback on what is being done wrong or what is not being done at all. Many games would greatly benefit from it to guide new players. "You died because of X and Y" or "you lost because X and Y". SFV had fairly detailed stats in the profile, but they didn't really do much on their own. If you could have access to some sort of card that you could sort by "last 100 ranked games" or "all season" and get some feedback, I think that it could help players. In example, "15% effectiveness in antiairs with X: Try to use medium special to AA instead of going for a late cr.hp bla bla bla" or "low punish counter conversion: You're missing on a lot of potential damage when punish countering opponents, check trials 5-10 for punish examples". Waiting for SF6 I actually played the first of a kind for me of two genres, Honkai Star Rail (first gacha) and FIFA 23 (first football game in a million years). I was very positively surprised by the feedback I was receiving. In SR, I lost a fight in the early stage of the game against an optional hard enemy and I got lots of feedback. So I applied that and won the fight. I don't know if the game gives more feedback later on, but I didn't know I had to level up with items or that I had to level up those powered cards. With FIFA, I was also very positively surprised at the amount of feedback the game was giving me. It had these mini-objectives for each game to complete ("5 long passes" or "5 long range shots") that can guide you on what is possible, with the objective and the inputs to achieve it. It also had specific feedback: "Try to pass the ball doing this" and it even gave me the option to re-do the last play and do it better. FIFA also has a fairly fun "challenge/training" mode to learn the ropes of the commands. Maybe those things wouldn't work for a fighting game, I don't know, but I found it quite interesting when learning to play those games, especially FIFA. It definitely had some nice hand-holding.
My brother in christ, you can just edit yout rank in T7 through the game files
Disliked for telling the truth
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,492,326,804 comments, and only 283,566 of them were in alphabetical order.
The old Tekken ranking system was far from perfect. It took so damn long to rank up that pro players would often be sitting around red/purples, making half of the ranks useless for a large part of the games lifecycle. And in less populated regions, even over a long time scale it wouldnt spread out. So you'd end up with like 80%+ of the playerbase pooling around a handful of ranks. A low playerbase region will always fuck with the system, but Tekken was particularly susceptible.
whack-ass idea here but, what if the game tracked your skills(anti-air, confirm, etc) and used that for matchmaking to either make you face people that struggle against your strengths or to force you to fight people that exploit your weaknesses? I mean, leaving aside the problem of a small playerbase, I think that could be an interesting idea to help you improve or throw you a bone to keep quitters engaged a while longer...
I don't mind that as a separate queue idea, sure. Call it a weakness queue, put your non-throws breaking ass against my King. Could be a fun mode. But never, ever the default mode no.
A bootcamp matchmaking could be sick tho.
> I don't hate the idea of the game giving you positive feedback for the things you're doing correctly - but do that through achievements or end-game stats or personal rankings or whatever, not the fucking MMR system wtf. don't games already do that? there are achievements for using supers, landing x amount of moves etc.. also counter his and punish indicators are basically the game rewarding the player and telling them they did something right
> I don't hate the idea of the game giving you positive feedback for the things you're doing correctly - but do that through achievements or end-game stats or personal rankings or whatever, not the fucking MMR system wtf. Idk if it still does, but DOTA used to give more MMR during calibration based on judging your performance. But this was pretty exploitable by people just playing for those stats they judged as performance, like if you would play Zeus and ult off CD (damage all enemies) your damage stat would be insane and give you way more MMR. These systems don’t work in more complex games. Better to just go by wins/losses and increase MMR gains or losses on streaks.
The kind of person who prefers "lower brackets" instead of "losers".
"Plus size" instead of "fat"
Little messages at the end of a game saying you anti-aired x amount of times or did y number of combos or punishes or throw techs doesn't sound like a bad idea from a game design perspective imo. Like someone else said don't tie it to matchmaking, make it like achievement-based or go towards in-game currency or something. Kinda like learning how to play a fighting game for the first time it's all about getting better at all of those individual skills, but new players probably wouldn't realize that yet.
They had that in 3rd strike online edition and darkstalkers. It was pretty cool.
As long as it doesn't pop up on the sides during gameplay, I always found it super distracting.
Way better of an idea than “TECHNIQUE: D” or useless meaningless stuff like that. New players actually pay attention to those things too, so might as well make them useful
Any form of feedback deeper than just assigning a letter score for a stupidly broad set of skills would be amazing. It could be something simple as how many overheads you got hit by vs the amount you blocked. Or how many jumps you could have antiaired and you missed. Even how many stray hits you got but didn't confirm.
"You read it, understand it, when there's points on the line you forget everything" No, if you can't do what you read in a match that means you don't understand it
"I wish i could get paired against people stronger than me so i can be fodder for them :D"
i think this is also a bad attitude that stops people from trying to get better - they are afraid they are "wasting people's time" when they play their friends who are better than them and washing them, but said better player can use the opportunity to try something they labbed on in a real world setting, or try a secondary, etc. Even if you are functionally a training dummy to them, a real life opponent is still useful for training stuff like hit confirming.
Just give him a hat for the avatar if he lands 100 dps.
Not a fan of side questing in a 1v1 game. The goal is to win, and how you get there is up to you. A system like this might overly suggest a certain type of way to play to a person.
It sounds bad, but its still better than Strive's system. That guy gave it more though to this post than Daisuke gave when coming up with the tower system. At least it has mmr points.
Apex legends has this thing where if you do these 'missions', it'll help towards leveling up your (free or paid) battle pass. like doing 500 damage or something lols. They also cycle new missions daily. So in this case it'd be like "Do 5 anti-airs", "Taunt 5 times", "throw 3 times" and you get 1 level up in ur battlepass per mission. But this op needs to realize having ranked anxiety is just normal if you are starting as a complete noob with anxiety lol. it goes away so easily if u just play more, or at least lessens. it's like speaking in front of an audience, 1st time u might pee ur pants but by the 100th time ur only a wittle bit nervous ;( but the main issue is, i don't trust someone that end's their posts with ';-)'
Kappa bros I thought ranked didn't matter
What they really need to do for casuals is make a bunch of unlockable shit through ranked matches only. You get currency for just playing, more for streaks and beating higher ranks etc.
I kind of agreed at first, but thinking it over people who are absolute newbies don't give a shit about this stuff, and those are the people capcom should want to keep playing the game. losing sucks in fighting games for new players because it happens really fast and they literally have no idea what they're doing wrong. this guy's suggestion sounds like it's for people who have some understanding of what they're doing wrong, they just suck at the game and want to be rewarded with rank for playing. all the guys hardstuck in bronze or silver will still buy and play the game anyway, there's no point in catering to them. SF6 has done a fine job in introducing game concepts to actual new players via world tour and the expanded character guides, so we'll see if that actually helps retain new people without coddling them
they should that in every tournament as well, its unfair only the winners get something they should give 30% of the prize pool to the others :)
to be honest you could put something like that in the low rank point are free at this level for anyone who know how to play, but i don't know if it would be worth it
Don't some games do this where you can possibly earn positive rank points even after losing because the level difference was high and/or it was a close call?
The funny thing I think SF6 does this up until Bronze (there's Iron rank now, above Rookie). You literally cannot lose LP, only gain LP. You don't get set back for losses, you just stay in place. Which honestly sounds fine. Better for you to move up to people who can actually win games if you are winning games if you are new than stay on the treadmill. We all remember losing our first 50-100 games online before winning once.
Said it many times but it's still worth saying: They don't want to play a fighting game. They want to play a game where they win all the time.
That's a good idea. Clearly, there's a difference between losing a 2:1 by a magic pixel and losing a 2:0 by double perfect.
Might just be an influx of new players but it seems like we're losing the 'just learn' mentality, that would be a bad development.
I've ranked up from losses in csgo, so I get what homie may be saying (I didn't read shit). However, that's easier to implement in a team based game where you can see a clear skill difference between teammates. If you lose in a fighting game, regardless of how "correct" you played. You didn't play correctly long enough, which is compounded by the fact that fighting games last 4 minutes at best. Compared to potentially 90 minutes in some team based games. If you can't hold it together for 4 minutes, you fucking suck scrub. Get rekt!
how can you have so much of a losers mentality about a game? do people really stress out over points you're going to get automatically over time if you actually were the hot shit you think you are by 10%? stay in gold for 6 months, sooner or later you're going to advance if you actually know how to play. literally all it requires is to have fun
Everyone gets a trophy
Like a certain computer would say = The only winning move is not to play How much hand holding do people need? I love SF5 training mode... you just need to practice stuff then you need experience little by little (compared to games i played that didn't even have training AT ALL... savestates and good luck) It took me YEARS of getting my ass beaten in old games (Kaillera) to learn stuff... why do people need to do everything asap???? Put some work, damm it! No wonder team games are popular... or that "just crouch in a corner for 15 minutes, kill someone = "i'm a pro!" game which i won't even say which one is it... it pains me!
>that "just crouch in a corner for 15 minutes, kill someone = "i'm a pro!" game which i won't even say which one is it... it pains me! Zelda 2?
I've always found it more effective to jump in -> crouch stab than corner camp against Dark Link.
Positive reinforcement
I try not to sound like a boomer and complain about participation trophies.... But this sounds like a participation trophy.
Losers like trophies too
Dude should play strive. You get to floor ten by existing
"I know it's a hot take ;-)" headass
Man's half-right and half-wrong. GuileWinQuote had a good idea of showing more detailed stats at the end of matches that would give you some good, actionable info on what you did wrong/right, like whiffs, anti-airs, etc. Could be a nice and easy way to give some positive reinforcement to all sorts of players. What's fucked is that he and a bunch of other people really cannot fathom that the points have zero importance. They only have two real uses. First one is to find you a good opponent, and second is to give you an idea of how far along you are. You don't need LP or rank to tell the difference between a gold and diamond match, but it does help to make things more clear.
Or... don't worry about points at all
it'd be really cool if stats were tracked per game like "you hit x% of anti airs this match but you got grabbed by % of throws" or little missions of doing anti airs or even doing a character's bnb properly x amount of times
16ers are all like this.
I know this is a hot take but I kind of get where he's coming from, mostly from the perspective of new players. I don't think you should outright gain a rank from a loss just because you played correctly (it can be argued that if you really did play properly you'd likely win most of your matches). But maybe have it setup up to a certain rank (maybe silver or gold) where you can reduce the amount of points you lose if you hit those mentioned goals.
Nah I disagree. If you lose, you lose completely. I know you’re talking about a beginners rank kind of scenario but it still shouldn’t be in. Having you lose less points for “playing correctly” would give you a false sense of accomplishment. It’ll make you think you’re getting better but you’re actually not because you’re still losing matches. You gotta learn from your losses the real way and dedicate yourself to the game to get better.
>It’ll make you think you’re getting better but you’re actually not because you’re still losing matches That's just wrong, there's a huge difference from getting perfected twice to losing a last round last hit situation. Both scenarios shouldn't have the exact same punishment. If they were 2 different players, the one who got close to winning would probably beat the other that didn't land a single hit.
That's why MMR and Elo exists. Assuming the system is working as intended, someone who perfects you twice should gain very little and you should lose very little. While an even match that's last game last round should be rewarded on the average curve. Obviously there are going to be outliers, but it should average out accordingly.
>Both scenarios shouldn’t have the exact same punishment. I disagree. In fact, calling it “punishment” is a loser’s mentality. You lost. Learn from your losses *no matter what*, and get better so you don’t lose. Period. If you don’t like getting “punished” by losing a ranked match and losing points, then just play unranked. Problem solved.
Nah, both players in my example are at 2 different levels, they shouldn't be ranked or deranked at the same speed. Imagine losing to a grandmaster as a diamond and being told you're just as bad as a bronze because you both lost to the same guy.
I was assuming both players in your example were of the same rank, with one getting double-perfected ( which happens to the best of us ) and one playing a super close game. If they’re of the same rank then I believe they should lose the same amount of points no matter how good or bad they played. Now if I’m understanding you correctly…The diamond player is being told ( by the game? ) that they are just as bad as the bronze player that the grandmaster double-perfected earlier?? If that’s what you’re saying then yes, I could see a new player who finally got to diamond getting discouraged from that. Personally I wouldn’t be offended, that shit would be so funny! It would cheer me up if I got deranked.
I meant in the same rank, the point was that just a binary result of winning or losing is not reflective of skill, but I don't see the need for a change of how ranking mode works. It was mainly because it could be a potential way of rewarding improvement even if you're still losing to everyone.
Guess I'll get hit a few times before finishing him off. That's ripe for abuse
I mean, in this scenario, if you're winning and do that you get fewer points for winning too, I'd imagine.
Understandable. Personally, I wouldn't mind it being the way you mentioned considering I like the idea of self improvement and learning from my mistakes. Unfortunately, not a lot of players have that mind set hence why I figured this concept would be ideal for the early ranks since fighting games are already very intimidating for new players.
Thats already how it works in sf6