Could we Alter the Leveling System a Tad?


#1

I’ve been wondering something…and it may be too far along now to actually be changed at this point…during the Big Alpha it was usual for me to be placed with Lvl 1 or 5’s when I was 17 or 20. When this happened players generally thought they would get clobbered (if I was joining up as their monster), or that we’d have a sure win if I was a hunter. This was a big misnomer in some cases because, by the time I was level 17 I hadn’t even tried to play Support yet (my least preferred role), yet my team automatically expected a golden performance.

My question is, could the leveling be changed to levels based per class? Or is this just too redundant and unnecessary? What I mean to say is…say I play as Medic and I’m awesome, playing as Medic a good deal if not most of the time…so with Medic I am Lvl 32. But now I want a change of pace…I want to be Support but I don’t want the team to think I rock as Support at Lvl 32 but I want it to be reflected as the true number it should be…Lvl 1, being my first time as Support. I’d also like to play alongside of others that don’t have a lot of experience in their current roles too, so I don’t feel as pressured.

So, I could be Lvl 32 as Medic, 17 at Trapper, 12 at Assault, and 1 as support, and 14 as Monster. I feel this would at least do a few things…it would match-make me in with players around the same level, it would reflect my skills as that class better, and would eliminate on-sight assumptions by teammates. I know that if I was running with a game of Lvl 15’s and 20’s and I got stuck with Assault but wasn’t that good with that class yet, I was terrified of letting the team down because of course I also assumed they were pros at their role. My lvl being high as well they assume the same.

I’m wondering if there has been any thought put into this instead of the current system that’s in place?


#2

Yeah i’ve discussed this with some people in other topics aswell. Maybe there is a hidden level for each class/monster and your overall level( what is is now ). Nothing has been really said about this but oh well :slight_smile:


#3

This is a great idea. I feel the same way in COD (Don’t hate me Evolve forum gods for bringing Call of Duty into this). Let’s say I’m on Black Ops 2. I’m a prestige master on that game. People expect me to play well, but sometimes I just have a bad game. It’s embarrassing when a person who hasn’t even prestiged yet does better than a person who has prestiged until they can’t anymore. These are just my thoughts. So in short, yeah, I totally agree with you.


#4

I agree that the system needs a few tweaks. It’s way too easy right now to end up with people of a wildly different skill level. I think changing it to take both numbers into account would be good. Like, a Lv32 overall might be Lv1 Support, but they still have a basic understanding of the game. It would be unfair to pair up someone like that with people who were, say, Lv1 in their class but also Lv1 overall, because now you’ve got somebody with lots of game experience with newbies.

I think there should be a compromise between the two ranks. Have both character level and overall level displayed, and allow the game to take both levels into account when searching. Perhaps allow it to compromise by dropping a person with low character level but high overall level into a match with middling overall level people. So, in the instance of a Lv1 Support with Lv32 overall level, if the game can’t find a game with enough similarly leveled people in both, have it drop them in a game with people around Lv15-16 overall. That way, they’re still matched with people who know the rudimentary stuff without ending up either on a team that expects too much from them, or on a team full of brand new players that they’ll easily overshadow.

I’m sure it’s way more complex than that to adjust the system, but that’s my suggestion.


#5

I agree that the leveling system could be altered in some way, but I don’t think that a class specific level system would be good. Also what about perks? Would they be class specific then aswell or what? It’s more simple to just have a player level instead of 5 different levels per class.

They could change the level system in some other way, maybe have it take more xp to level up and gain bonus xp if you complete x amount of matches with every class. This way you’d know that a higher level guy has played atleast the x amount of games with that class.


#6

I think people need to realize that level does not equate skill, it is simply time invested. Anyone who tries to extract more information based on a number like that is at fault. ANY game where there are levels means very little. Take WoW for example. Just because someone is max level doesn’t mean they know how to tie their shoes. Same thing with BF4. Levels are simply a means of rewarding time investment. That being said though, if there was some way to notify others (A badge, icon, whatever) that you did this awesome unlock/move that takes skill instead of time, then it might be worth while.


#7

There are some badges you can get but idk how :slight_smile:


#8

Mumbles about wanting a Cabot badge


#9

I mostly agree, but at least levels can give you an educated guess on how good a player is. Usually with a higher level player you can assume since they have invested more time they are better at the game than say a level 1 player. Also, higher level players will usually have slightly buffed weapons (not by a lot, but enough that they can make a difference).


#10

After years of gaming, I consider everyone to be below average until they prove otherwise in gaming. Everyone will start at level 1 when the game comes out, even if they are the best one in the world. All I take from levels is that I don’t have to explain to a level 20 that a red ping dot is the monster… (Hopefully)


#11

The badges will be earned in game like the medals you would get for doing a certain amount of damage etc… At least I am fairly sure that is how.


#12

Personally, I think that it doesn’t matter much as hunters if you have had a ton of experience on a specific class. As you play as a hunter, you learn things that apply to all hunters. I feel like if you have an understanding of what the new class is supposed to do, you can still do well.


#13

I wouldn’t mind individual leveling per class, ala KF, that gives it’s own perks.

But really being a high level means NOTHING. All leveling is, is a time sink, it all comes down to skill.


#14

Couldn’t give a crap about levels, levels are just a way of saying “it’s ok kid you are special”, seriously let the people who need levels have it i know they need it, and i know it appeals to the mass majority, but seriously add a ranking system that means something, it won’t bring you in $$££ in but have a heart for the gamers that actually care.


#15

Levels and unlocks are a method of putting content behind gates as a means of teaching the game. Unlocking things allows players to slowly experience all the content and consider how it works in relation to what they know so far. If all characters and perks were unlocked from the start, it may seem overwhelming and players may never try some of the options. This way, it unlocks gradually, and players try out these ‘rewards’ and learn better than if everything was instantly available.

So, it’s not completely pointless. Yes, levelling up does have an addiction quality to it, but I don’t think the levels will take too long to go through, I’m sure some kind of ranking system will be implemented, but view the levelling up as a tutorial, as about 30 or 40 hours will easily see players reach max (assuming the same values as in the alpha). I’ve played L4D 1 & 2 for about 1.8K hours and I personally think it takes about 50 hours to get a good grounding in the game, and about 200 to become ‘average’, I think Evolve will be about the same in terms of skill required from the average player.


#16

@SledgePainter I agree with the intention of your post. However, I think the better solution would be to show how many stars a player has in their choice of character. If we’re going to be stuck with those things identifying who has what buffs then best to put them to use! The general rank number doesn’t really tell us much about how proficient an individual is with a specific character.

[quote=“lordweh, post:15, topic:23795”]
Levels and unlocks are a method of putting content behind gates as a means of teaching the game.[/quote]
Some of us have been playing games since Wolfenstein 3D or earlier. To gate content so that I must be eased into it is frustrating. I never like this justification. I think it’s worse than the carrot on a stick thing.


#17

I can agree with that. Stars seems like a nice idea.


#18

[quote=“zjbdragon, post:16, topic:23795”]
Some of us have been playing games since Wolfenstein 3D or earlier.
[/quote]oh, believe me, I started gaming on the ZX Spectrum, but it’s nothing to do with being patronised, there are viable choices, characters and perks that simply may be overlooked if you’re not encouraged to play with them. Playing as Markov, for example, you don’t unlock level 2 expertise with anything until you’ve completed level 1… I initially ignored the arc mines, then begrudgingly started throwing them down to try and unlock level 2… Then I started to realise how potent they were, how much of a tactical choice they are. This is something that I could have completely ignored had I not been ‘forced’ (taught) to use them.

The same goes for the tiers of hunters and locking away the higher tiers, someone may look at Val and think on paper she’s pretty useless, and never touch her and always go with Laz, but this way you find that each has their own strengths and weaknesses.

I’m not saying either of you are wrong, I’m just saying I think that this system works better than any alternative (and much better than just having everything ‘open’), the few who it frustrates will very quickly have everything unlocked anyway, so it’s not much of a problem.