Wait... There can be only one?!?!

[koboshi]

I've been having a lot of fun with the new 360's integration of "Live" into its games but I am becoming awkwardly aware of the problems of a world wide competition.  Conveniently enough the best metaphor for this problem is still fresh, the Olympics.  Those who have watched the Olympics have seen athletes competing for the title of best in the world. But even as we sit all atwitter about whom won what, and how many broken bones they had when they did it, like every Olympics past, we will witness the alarmingly swift half-life of Olympic stardom. First we forget who was in the prelims, then we forget who was out of the top ten, all that before the event is even decided. Of course once the victory is at hand we forget all but the top three, and forget the top two the moment the award ceremony is over. Even the gold medalist has but a month after the Olympics end before they can once again walk down a crowded street without being recognized. Hell by the time the world cup returns we can’t really tell you if the Olympics even happened this year
.
But I’m getting a bit off topic the point is this, what place are you? You’re certainly not a medalist, you weren’t even asked to join the Olympic team, you’ve never competed in the world cup of your particular sport, or in a competition at all, when you go out to practice, if you practice, you aren’t even the best within spitting distance. So what place are you?

What if we stipulate that, of all the people who have ever played the sport in question, you rank 203,281st. How good are you? Who is your primary competition for that spot? Would you be much better if you were 203,253rd? Would you care?

This is the problem of the ranking system of the current generation of Xbox 360 games. I have no idea if I’m supposed to care that I’m the 2000th or so best player in the world at mutant storm. And when I look at the high score list all I can see is that if I scored one more hit I would jump 20 or so positions. The players who surround me on the charts are as significant to me as a driver of a passing car, I’d be hard pressed to identify them later on if I saw them again, and in such a large and fluctuating crowd what’s the chance of that.

Essentially the problem is if you aren’t competing for first place of what value is that list to you? And if the only point of the game is to be in first then why should anyone but the top contenders even play. For that matter why should developers make a game which only a handful of players can win?

Obviously this problem has resonance for MMOGs, for all of them, be they MMORPGs, MMOFPSs, or MMOWhatevers.  In this context the argument that MMOGs are a niche which will atrophy eventually is moot, it would be foolish to believe that the future of gamming won’t include online attributes, if nothing else Live has seen to that.  That is the beauty of what I am trying to point out, it isn’t about the personality of the player or the obstacles between a player and the goal, it’s a general law of interconnected games.

If you have x players in a game, x – 1 are Losers.

QED: developers must discover means to break, negate, or obfuscate, this law.


Possibilities and examples

Break: Create many high score tables so as to allow for more winners. A good example of this is Amped 3 every challenge in the game has a high score table, I may be 1600th place on one and 53rd on another. (Flaw: you can’t make a winning case for every player. Tony Hawk American Wasteland gives you “achievement points” logging on to a level online, what next an achievement for successfully inserting the disk and pressing the power button?)
…

Obfuscate: Compare apples to oranges. A Tale in the Desert is both the best and worst example of this answer. On the one hand by allowing for players to decide for themselves what they would create, they insured that competition would be a relatively minor attribute of the game, and therefore the title of “Winner of ATITD” doesn’t have meaning. Unfortunately by removing the competition they removed the “game” part of MMOG.

Obfuscate: manipulate high score lists so that they have only interesting competitors. Actually one prime example of this is the 360 Live’s high score lists, not the world wide ones which I am pointing to as a problem, but the “my friends only” filtered versions which compare you only to people who you know. Another possibility is to create a archetypal high score list where the list a player sees is something like the players who are in 1st, 10th, 25th, 50th, 100th, 500th… that might give players a sense of their place in the world.  other possibilities include graphs which show players climbing and falling on the high score lists over time, or algorithms meant to discover true rivals online by finding players who the player hovers around on the high score list. The point of all is to filter the information so that it can be useful in charting progress if not victory.
…

Negate: create a win state that players can reach regardless of rank. “Your level 60! You win! grats ding!” Do you really need me to point out an example? The main problem with this answer is best summed up by The Incredibles, “when everyone is super, no one will be.” 
…

[Triforcer]

Viklas?

[Merusk]

Viklas?

Koboshi realized that designing a game purely for competition will mean nobody will play it, because everyone except one person loses.  He then gives his ideas on how to jiggle that around so the pwned don't just say "fuck this" and leave.  None of those ideas was "Make the game fun."

[Paelos]

I'd say not all people have a burning desire to be #1 in a game, nor would they consider it to be a massive achievement in their lives if they could melt faces around the world in Kirby's Dreamland Battlezone. Also, I think not all people consider not being #1 out of a bajillion means you are a loser. It's a very stupid way to view life imo, and one that will inevitably leave people horribly unsatisfied. If people have that mentality of "omg, I'm not the best ranking in a game, therefore I must pwn my way to the top or it's worthless," I'd say you're probably OCD.

Make the game fun, and people will see rankings as a cute little addon.

[HaemishM]

I give not a fuck what my ranking in the world is. Unless there's money, a free game or something to go along with it, WHY FUCKING BOTHER? I've long come to the realization I won't be "TEH BEST" at any of this shit, so why would I give a fuck? Either the game is fun and I play it because it's fun or I don't play it because it's not. My ranking matters nada to most games, whereas in MMOG's, sometimes the ranking means more power in game, which is even more retarded than actually thinking that because you aren't "TEH BEST" somehow the game isn't worth playing.

Let the hardcore mongoloid social rejects worry about their epeen measurement and just play the goddamn game for fun. FUCK. I cannot understand why some people want to make playing games for entertainment such a fucking chore.

[Sky]

Let the hardcore mongoloid social rejects worry about their epeen measurement and just play the goddamn game for fun. FUCK. I cannot understand why some people want to make playing games for entertainment such a fucking chore.

Some folks find their worth in digital realms, because they want to avoid the fact that cleaning shit-stained sheets for seniors or asking if you want fries with that isn't exactly what they dreamed of as a kid.

Sure, I wipe grandmother's asses....but I'll fucking pwn you in CS:S!

[Hoax]

This doesn't matter and is not even true.  Comparing the Olympics to online gaming is asinine.

The reason the gold medalist only has a month before nobody cares about him walking down the street is simple.  He doesn't play a sport most Americans care about.

I know every team that made the playoffs last year in football, with some work I could recreate the bracket from 2004 as well.  I can tell you which teams have won the super bowl recently, which teams have drafted well and which teams suck.  I know the names of players that have never made the pro-bowl and consider them to be great.  The same goes for competitive gamers, I remember Thresh's 1v1 videos, the names of Imperial Elite's cappers (Natural and Warnipple) and cherish my memories of meeting some of the best Tribes1 players of their time in person.

If you make the top20 on a populated fps ladder, you will be happy.  If you defeat a top flight team you will have that memory for some time.  I remember both tribes I made it into the top10 on OGL (and later the team I made it on TWL into the top20) and that was the mid 90s'ish.

In Myth or Gunbound for example, the actual number-rank was hidden instead at certain plateaus you gained a new rank icon.  A simple method of hiding that you are 201,777th instead you have the rank of dual steel axe or something.

While a noble endeavour I find the post to be trying to develop a non-issue into one.

[Megrim]

keklol

Basically, it comes down to this. Either, you play and get top 10 because you are good, or just play for fun and don't stress over ranking. If you happen to be Thresh, or happen to be  born Norwegian and like the strafespam headshots - good for you. There is nothing wrong with just playing the game for fun and not 'winning'.

[koboshi]

My point is that the ranking lists may be misused or poorly implemented, for example by ranking players who are just having fun. I’m a "just for fun" player most of the time and when I am I don’t want to be told how much I suck.  It’s true that you could plot everyone on a chart of who has the most money but you should stop at the Forbes list. Imagine walking down the street with a guy who points out everyone who passes you who makes more money than you, it doesn’t matter whether or not you care he's still going to tell you, how long before you kill yourself... or him? It’s inherently negative and therefore will drive players to have a negative impression of the game... unless you break negate or obfuscate the law.

[Evangolis]

I think there is a risk of developers creating multiplayer capability and a ranking system and thinking that is enough for a multiplayer game.  If the core game is really great, maybe, but I think that approach sells the multiplayer game way short.  At the very least they need modability for the game, so that players can add their own content, and it would be better if there was quality content available for the multiplayer game as well.

[Velorath]

In Myth or Gunbound for example, the actual number-rank was hidden instead at certain plateaus you gained a new rank icon.  A simple method of hiding that you are 201,777th instead you have the rank of dual steel axe or something.

Yep and as far as Myth goes, while I was never a great player, it was nice any time I beat one of the top ranked guys (the top three players had unique icons, the eclipse, the sun, and the full moon I think).

[HaemishM]

My point is that the ranking lists may be misused or poorly implemented, for example by ranking players who are just having fun. I’m a "just for fun" player most of the time and when I am I don’t want to be told how much I suck.  It’s true that you could plot everyone on a chart of who has the most money but you should stop at the Forbes list. Imagine walking down the street with a guy who points out everyone who passes you who makes more money than you, it doesn’t matter whether or not you care he's still going to tell you, how long before you kill yourself... or him? It’s inherently negative and therefore will drive players to have a negative impression of the game... unless you break negate or obfuscate the law.

I am not on that Forbes list. Nor on game rankings. And I never care if I am, or who is. If there was a guy who constantly pointed out how much more money than me he made, I'm never going to feel the need to kill myself because somehow I am inferior to him. I might dickslap him just to shut his piehole, but it won't make my life any better or worse for knowing about it.

Rankings mean fuckall. I agree with Evangolis in that they shouldn't be tacked on to multiplayer in an effort to give the multiplayer some sort of depth. Rankings don't have depth. They are nothing, less than nothing. They only matter if you make them.

[Megrim]

My point is that the ranking lists may be misused or poorly implemented, for example by ranking players who are just having fun. I’m a "just for fun" player most of the time and when I am I don’t want to be told how much I suck.  It’s true that you could plot everyone on a chart of who has the most money but you should stop at the Forbes list. Imagine walking down the street with a guy who points out everyone who passes you who makes more money than you, it doesn’t matter whether or not you care he's still going to tell you, how long before you kill yourself... or him? It’s inherently negative and therefore will drive players to have a negative impression of the game... unless you break negate or obfuscate the law.

Oh, my fault then; i misinterpreted what you had meant. I guess one could say that this then is a feature of poor design, and the game should really give you an option of seeing what your overall rank is when you choose to, rather than telling you that you are 27897056'th out of 27897070 every time you die.

However i think i mostly agree with Haemish, in that it really does not bother me unless i make a point of it bothering me.