Competitive game based on Skill, not Time played?

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 10 May 2012 at 13:47

Hey guys and girls

I'm after a competitive multi-player game with a ranking system that rewards players for winning and puts you against players of similar skill, rather than a game that rewards players for just playing (game time)

For example Call of Duty puts you against any level player and you can rank up even if you're terrible

So is there any game (don't mind if its FPS, Strategy ETC....) that has a competitive multi-player with a ranking system based on player skill?

Thanks

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 10 May 2012 at 13:56

McGray said:
Get Halo 2/3 on the egg box.

Yeah done that for years, well since Halo 2's release, trouble is I've played Halo 3 to death and not many people play it anymore (moved over to Halo Reach most likely)

I'm actually going to sell my Xbox 360 today as the only game I played on it was Halo 3.

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 10 May 2012 at 13:57

I may try Starcraft 2 again as I really enjoyed the gameplay, but I did get owned online constantly

Any other suggestions?

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 10 May 2012 at 14:02

Ezyryder said:
Online is difficult at first - it took me and my mate around 10 games before we started winning.

Yeah I feel the learning curve is brutal, but its very balanced, the only reason I would loose is because of lack of skill or tactics which is a good thing IMO.

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 10 May 2012 at 15:33

Thanks for the replay's guys, I'm re-installing SC2 now and will give it another go

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 10 May 2012 at 15:52

I hate losing too!, I will use that hate to motivate me to own noobs... or something like that....

Only 23 patches and I'll be ready to play!!

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 10 May 2012 at 18:16

Wow.. thanks guys for all the suggestions

they will certainly keep me busy.

@ Hank_Marvin, I think Rank is important if ranking up is dependant on skill, ~I'll use Halo 3's ranking system as an example.

If I'm a level 39 and I'm playing against level 40's and I win it shows that I'm better than they are (to a certain extent) and so will rank up, also there is a sense of accomplishment with ranking up, I couldn't stop smiling when I got my first 50 in Halo 3, it mean't I was in a very small community of elite players.

If ranking is based on how much you play a game then I agree that a rank doesn't show how good you are, someone who has played a game for years could still be awful.

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 10 May 2012 at 20:09

HangTime said:
Problem is the two variables aren't completely unrelated, since some would argue that the decision making that is enhanced by playing the game more is a skill.

Take FPS games for example, more experienced players will know the map layouts better (by which I mean to an advanced level not just how to get from A to B), will know the best places to spam, will have developed better teamplay etc. That is a 'skill' but a factor in that skill is the amount of time played.

I don't see that as a problem, if someone hasn't learnt a map or hasn't learnt how to work effectively in a team then he or she most likely won't win most of the games they play and therefore won't rank up, Then they will carry on playing at the rank they're at until they learn the map/teamwork.