Ladders and Team Games – Doing it Wrong – Extra Credits

Ladders and Team Games – Doing it Wrong – Extra Credits

100 comments / Add your comment below

  1. Progression systems and points are practically a given in most video games–except for team-based games, where individual skill is ironically rewarded more than teamwork and cooperation. How do we fix that?

  2. Rocket League is one of those game who encourage toxicity, by giving points for ramdom shots and giving banners about salt or people who are saying they are sorry about playing bad. How developpers can think this is a good idea. I clearly don't understand -_-

  3. You should put the octave pedal back on the vocals. We'll still know it's a different person. Something about the higher pitch voice just makes learning easier. Maybe you can do a video studying the concept 😀

  4. Hey! May I offer a small critique? Perhaps adjust the volume settings that balance high and low volumes. Your enthusiasm is great! But your vocal tone range hits some bassy lows and highs which can be a bit jarring.

    Cheers!

  5. This ignores the basic thing that it's a bit odd that people play games not to play the game, but to achieve some ladder rank.

  6. I think eventually I’ll get used to the new voice. But he does seem a bit fast and loud.

  7. tl;dr instead of making a better ladder, let's just take some vague, high-level ideas and toss them into the current system to distract people from the problem

  8. dont starve togethers event mutiplayer system is fairly good you get a chest every other game all loot box items are cosmetics and dont give advantages and getting people to go into dierent roles that influence team work

  9. I wouldn’t mind seeing deeper dive videos on ladder systems on the channel. Maybe with enough good discussion, a designer may make a change to a game and gain lost fan base. cough**cough*overwatch*cough**cough

  10. You make one assumption I disagree, that you can't measure performance of player in game. Is hard but you may make it. And one thing more you can do, not look at each game as isolated case, if someone do badly in many games this should be as point of balance for points distribution. I think system where player from loosing team can have more points then best player in wining team is great to deal.
    I still remember game where I can kill all players in enemy team, but it not lead to wining, but then they focus on me and I die, we lose. I lose point even I was best in this game (I not best in most, but this was one exception), this is problem, I stop playing after it, because it only make me angry on others in my team, and become some times toxic, so i stop playing. For me is one case, but there are many good players, and they feel same. Most people not get they are bad, but is not important if they have nice games, there they feel they do something.

  11. Would adding a greater focus on assists (I.E. you get a bonus to the ELO if you get x number of assists) encourage team play?

  12. I just want to point out that "decreasing toxicity" is never as easy as "banning a handful of words." First of all, people will figure out how to dodge the filters. Secondly, if you ban a word like "gay" or "trans", you might think you're stopping homophobic or transphobic bullying but more often than not what you're really doing is making your LGBT players feel like you want them to stay in the closet. Third, you don't need to use a word that is most often seen as offensive in order to cause offense. Teabagging dead enemies is a great example of wordless humiliation. Your game's community will find ways to circumvent whatever rule you put in place, no matter how draconian, and often they'll find the challenge rewarding.

    Putting in a mechanism to block other players or a handful of mods will go a lot further than just auto-banning certain words or phrases.

  13. is the point of the ladder to make the player feel good about improving or to give the player an idea of their skill? I thought the point was to make even teams during matchmaking. We should only say it is failing when ranking places you on uneven teams.

    All of the problems you've mentioned with team-based games are present in online fighting game ladders, with the difference being that people have to blame something other than the team they're matched with.

  14. One of the things I have noticed with ladder systems in video games is there no true moderator to watch over every match. So you have people in lower tiers that should be higher and are only there to troll other people.

  15. I had two games where I tried to attempt to carry(this is Paladins)my first game I was playing tank(terminus) and during are pick stages, 1of our players chose lex(lex is considered to be the second shittiest flank champ by the time I am saying, he is outclassed by other champs) and all because of that shitty choice, no one can get the healer so I am here, trying to get that dumbass healer ending up with above 40 elinmatios and 10 deaths. While doing my objective with the points above 200(but we still lost, because of a lucky ult) now the same goest with my other game, but I am too pissed to explian everything.

  16. What the heck happend to extra credits? This is a disgrace for the instution and authority on game design that extra credits normally is. Whoever approved of this script should be fired…

  17. >talks about ladder systems
    >shows a stepladder on the screen
    Looks like Maya Fey did guest art on the episode…

  18. Though i had involving all the problems involved in watching the numbers go down (and how little we care watching them go up.)

    What if we don't show the change in those numbers every game? What if changes are only shown once a day? Or only once ypu haven't played a game in, say, 90 mins so the game knows your play session is done?

  19. I have to disagree on this one. More micro-rewards doesn't solve anything. Getting a reward for losing doesn't feel good. You need to come up with a solution for grading an individual player based on a team game, or making mandatory to rank in teams, and then grading the whole team.

  20. To solve this problem, we have to change two rules. 1. Not every match rewards the same rank points. Calculate quality of the game by using stats like gold differences, times of "tide has been turned", etc. Find those moments in stats you want every player to enjoy and reward those moments with more rank points. 2. Not everyone gets rewarded/punished the same rank points. Calculate individual contribution to the cause based on stats like kills, assists, wards bought, teammates saved, tower dammage, times in the capture zone, etc. Make it so that only the player with least contribution to the cause gets punished, those who fought hard gets punished less or even gets rewarded instead. A lot of the times when players become toxic is when they fought very hard, and very well, but the team just didn't have the same level of commitment, and the match is still lost. It's really hard not to become angry even if you are a good tempered person. With this mechanism in place, players will know for sure that if they do their jobs well enough, they won't get punished even if they lose. This gives them less reason to just throw the game too. This will ensure everyone starts a fresh game with a good attitude instead of being bitter and resentful.

  21. Another problem you failed to mention is that ranking systems like Dota 2 is a zero-sum game. The points you earn is always at the price of someone losing it. This creates a very hostile environment for new players. New players will almost certainly get stompped by experienced players. The game is really hard to learn in the first place, argubly one of the hardest competitive games to master. The barrier to entry plus the hostile environment for new players make new players give up very easily. I tried to teach my cousins Dota 2 many times, but they all just turned to LoL in the end. This unfriendliness to new players creates a stale player base. It's always the old players who play the game and rarely any new blood. When it reaches to a point when there're not enough new blood to sacrifice on the ladder, frustrated old players like me will eventually leave the game too. That's exactly what is now happening to Dota 2 if you look at its Steam graph. I still love this game, I'm excited to watch TI every year, but I don't want to play the game, at least not the ladder.

  22. To all the people complaining about 'yelling': some people just talk louder. That's just how their voices work. Also, turn down your volume to a reasonable level, you're damaging your apparently sensitive ears.

  23. I'm the rare person who would rather just have all my cosmetics from the start and don't particularly about new content being added. And with my experience in Splatoon Turf War, I know what it feels like to be matchmade in teams without MMR/Elo in a game with a huge playerbase. But Splatoon! Splatoon does this micro-reward thing pretty well. I just want the weapons to not take quite so many levels to unlock since at a certain point it's just keeping options locked, and a couple more ways to turn the now-mostly-excessive rewards I get into more efficient ability grinding.

    Edit: But, please no gacha, no lootboxes. That's another way to get players to stay up too late for "the thing they want." Sure, they might do that if they can see the reward they want, but I think a clear vision of when you'll get that thing is much better. It's also a crapshoot actually getting what you want compared to a shop system, I never feel good from a system like this as opposed to "aw yeah I can spend these points on this!" Splatoon has some RNG, in that the shops stock select clothing daily, but it's a once-per-day thing so you're not grinding for rolls. Plus, you can pay some extra cash to order clothing someone's wearing in the hub, which includes all the players from your last match.

  24. This is a god video and it explains exactly why I avoid ladders or feel so frustrated when I play Heroes of the Storm, that I end up quitting the game within weeks every time I pick it up.

  25. stupid teammates is why I can't play Splatoon 2 on any sort of ranked mode.
    Even on casual turf war, I have that number that shows my skill at a weapon, and it goes up and down with wins and losses.

  26. This is just part of how unrewarding Overwatch's system is, anyhow. Loot boxes come infrequently, and when you open them, there tends to just be nothing. To encourage you to spend that money, of course but like. Compound this with all the competitive and ladder stuff, and it gets worse.

  27. Sorry, but this time you are not even close. Its not about reward. I don't believe so. Its about progression. You need to be able to move in the ladder all the time.
    Current game systems have 50% win ratio, but some of them would take 50 point if you loose and give you 50 point when you win. This creates a feeling that you are not progressing at all. It doesn't take your seriousness into an account. You may have played 20 games and be rank Bronze and others may have played 3 won them all and be rank silver. That is frustrating.
    I have seen this resolved in one platform which was called ICCUP. They had 3 months seasons after which based on your rank last season you have a different starting point. The system was simple. You win 130 if you play with people at random 100 if you play with friends, less if you play against inexperienced players below your rank below, but most importantly – you loose only 50. This creates the feeling that the more you play, the more serious are your teammates. And it worked.

  28. This is why I only enjoy carefree PvP, like Battlefield. No rank to lose, no loot to drop, no loss of anything even when I lose. In fact, even in a losing game I can still make progress on challenges and achievements. Games with ladder-based PvP are dead to me. Too much work and frustration with little reward. I couldn't help but notice that Overwatch was artistically targeted. I have almost 1,500 hours on that game and don't want to play it ever again because of the lack of reward for playing and other problems you listed. I'd rather be judged on my own skill than for how I performed with randoms. And now I look for games like Anthem that don't have PvP, since developers these days really struggle to make PvP fair & balanced. There's always a meta, something is always OP. No thank you.

  29. The problem with ladder system in team based gameplay is that, to find the best players and rewards them, you need to analyse the game itself, not it's outcome, and that is just impossible to do in a large scale. Simply put, we can't have one spectator in every of LoL, for example, watching every play and rewarding players subjectively. And we also can't just set up some form of milestone system, where we pinpoint the usual objectives that lead to victory and reward players for it, because games are usually so complex that this distinction is almost impossible to do on a mathematical level.
    For example, imagine a game of LoL where the enemy team is going for Baron. The Top and Jungler go to stop them, while the rest push Bottom. The Top and Junglers don't kill anyone, but they are annoying enough to force the other team to stop Baron and try to retreat. Meanwhile, their team pushes 3 towers in a row and gets the bottom inhibitor. If you analyze this by outcome, the 3 players pushing towers had the biggest impact on that moment, but only by looking at the full picture that you can see that it was the two players, who achieved nothing in terms of objectives, that had the biggest impact and made the push possible. In a situation like this you can't even know who made the call for that play. It would take a person, with enough knowledge of the game, to watch this play out and see who deserves recognition. On the other hand, imagine a CS:GO match on Dust 2. TRs go Long A, but the bomb carrier decides to roam and goes B. He breaks in, kill off both CTs, he wants to plant but he hears that mid already rotated, so he tries to fake, but he is late and is picked off. The rest of the CTs are already in their way, since they spotted the bomb, and now they have 3 people holding B with the bomb, while TRs have to make their way from Long A to B and break in. If we go by points, that guy would have 40% of his team's possible kills on that round, but in the meantime he lost that round by himself. A scenario like this would be way too advantageous for the CTs, and they would need to play really badly to lose. TRs wouldn't even have a numerical advantage, since due to the B design, there are only 3 entrances, and so, 3 1×1 fights.

    Since it's impossible to make a just ladder system for team-based games, I'd say that the real problem we face is not to make better ladders, but to change how we see them. In fact, we should stop calling them "ladders". Or vision should change from seeing these as something to be climbed, and more of a reflection of your average skill. We shouldn't give incentives to people to climb the ladder, giving rewards and such, because that only makes people more angry when they don't get to the rank they want, but rather we should create the enviroment that promotes them playing better, and cooperating, and the change in ranks being a mere consequence. Reward good behavior, reward communication, allow players to give scores to their peers and score them by how they score others too. Of course, that's easier said than done, but I'd say it's an easier and better path than trying to build an impossible and restricting system to score individual play inside team-based games.

  30. I would genuinely like to see game modes for team games that fundamentally celebrate specific mechanics within that game.

    Overwatch’s arcade is a prime example with deathmatch allowing for CD tracking, DPS training, spatial awareness and a host of other mechanics that you can hone a lot more definitively than in just playing a normal QP match.

    Isolating mechanics and teamwork elements that happen regularly within the standard ladder would allow people to practice those mechanics, earn rewards for them all while not impacting ranks games by ‘trying to learn while you rank up’

  31. I think the excessive focus on competitive play (and competitive players) has hurt a lot of multiplayer games. My sister plays LoL a lot, and she'd really like to see some… variety in the gameplay (for example, better use of the monsters in the Jungle), but it's unlikely such things would ever be implemented because they would mess with the rigid balance that competitive players cling so hard to (even though such additions would probably be beneficial for those players as well, in some fashion).
    I play a lot of shooters, and I'd really love to see more use of NPCs and events within multiplayer matches. Again, such things would make the competitive players unhappy, but I think it would be great to see a shift in focus away from that group and towards more casual play. As is, I feel like the focus on competitive has homogenized entire genres, limiting variation between games, and sucking some of the fun out of them.

  32. You know, its funny, Dan sped up his voice because he talked too slow, but I think you talk too fast, and I kind of like you better put at 0.75 speed. You're kind of like the other side of the coin, Matt.

  33. How about rewarding winstreaks with a little bit of ingame currency or something, incresing with each consecutive win
    And also when you lose like 3 games in a row and are at risk of being tilted and dragging your team down you would get a message like

    "you lost 3 games in a row now, if you take a 30 minute break your next win will give you xx extra elo"

    just a thought

  34. I was going to make a comment about how this applies perfectly to my experience with Overwatch and then I saw the Overwatch characters and I realized they were literally describing the Overwatch experience.

  35. Maybe a possible partial solution may be to keep the general system of ladder rankings, make more subdivisions within the ranks with distinct names beyond just bronze 1 vs bronze 2, but hide the actual point numbers. On top of that, hide the ranks of other players until you deliberately look them up AFTER the game ends. That way, someone with a lower rank isn't bullied for their rank by their team, and someone with a higher rank isn't blamed for a loss because they didn't carry the team. Even if it doesn't solve many issues outside of the game, it does lower toxicity on the whole. Also it maneuvers around the terror of losing points because the player never sees them. Since a lot of elo systems tend to actually trend upwards even if you have a win-rate under 50%, people will generally only see their progress unless they got phenomenally lucky and got carried to a rank much higher than they actually should have placed in.

  36. Comparing you’re points to a game like overwatch, competitive should have milestones for climbing up the ranking system yes, but should limit the number of games and separate people who communicate in game and people who don’t. Also, ranking for individuals should be based on the class they’re playing not on what specific overall goals you accomplished over your team and make it a game wide scale. Random groups should be incentivized instead of negatively impacted in any way possible including extra rewards or rank gains. Groups are also negatively impacted when considering incentives like social ranks who only benefit solo players and not groups. I know it sounds backwards but at the moment all I’m saying is groups are rewarded too much and solo players get no benefit from most games

  37. The problem with ranking system, is they won't let people of equal skill play on the same teams, because its bad for business. You see they put scrubs in games with people of higher skill and so these bad players have a chance to win. The system expects the higher level skill players to carry. They will say see your team is a total of 2000 rating and so is the other team so your both equal. So you have two teams one team A has 200, 400, 400, 700, 300 vs team B of 500 500 500 500, If that 700 rating player on team A makes one mistake they whole team loses, team B can afford to make small minor mistakes. The system tries its to make you win at 50 percent or make the games close as possible. Its good for more even matches but bad for players trying to solo que and climb ranks who are decent or above average skill level.

    They don't want people of equals kill playing vs each other, because its bad for bussiness they want the scrubs to be carried half the time by players who are of better rating. If the scrubs can't get wins they quit the game and company loses money. So now you have a toxic ladder system, the decent players or above average don't want to play with the scrubs, and will curse them out for being low skill level and being forced to carry them. And the scrubs get angry and frustrated try to afk, or feed the enemy team. Then you have players getting frustrated having to do so much to carry their team they afk to and say their done. Thats one reason on each team there is always some scrub who goes 0 12 2 aka zero kills, 12 deaths 2 assist.. And these scrub players tend to not take ranked matched as seriously as other players, and tend to not care if their reported or banned for a few games.Why cant these scrubs be on the same team and fight agaisnt other scrubs? O ye bad for business.

    To other people thinking why don't this scrubs play in only classics or arcade non ranked matches, well in those matches those tend to have alot of other scrubs also, along with feeding and rampant. Scrubs don't want to play with other scrubs. Its the same with people who use hacks and cheats in online shooter games they don't want to play vs each other.

  38. I have a proposition for a rating system that seems good to me. It's a way to implement the Elo system in a game. With some things i thought of myself. You rate people independently on their kills, no matter if they have a good team or not.
    Also maybe there is a 5 second hit claim countdown so there is no kill stealing and let's you and your teammates gang up on strong enemies. So if you hit someone, and in under 5 seconds your teammate hits and kills them. You both get the points!

  39. I love how loud and passionate Matt is, he always sounds like he really cares about the topic and cares about you caring about the topic!

    My brother and I recently tried to get into LoL because heck, why not? Only to realize how fucking toxic the players were. You play well and no one says a word but one wrong move and you might as well have personally murdered everyone's parents.

  40. CAN YOU PLEASE do more on this topic??? Its too pertinent of an issue not only for gamers but for designers too

  41. The trick to team ladder matches is to have someone do guard duty while the other one climbs up to get the title. These roles may vary but it's important that everyone on the team knows what role they are playing.

  42. IMO The lower tiers are actually a very very fun place to stay in because 1: moar players means fastest wait times

    2: the amount of absurd bullshit going on is AWESOME

    you'll never know who you'll get teamed up with and that's part of the fun

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *