With all the buzz about Black Ops II, I started thinking about Call of Duty multiplayer again. There's something that's always bothered me, and I wanted your opinions on the matter.

I've only played the COD franchise up to Modern Warfare 2, and I've only participated in a limited number of multiplayer rounds. But something that always bothered me was that players who had played longer and more frequently had huge advantages over rookie players. Now, of course, this is always the case. If a player has spent a lot of time playing multiplayer, he or she knows where the best guns are, knows the best ambush spots, knows the re-spawn locations, etc.

What I'm talking about is better perks, access to better guns, etc. In other words, it is not only player skill that decides superiority; it is also character skill.

Again, I haven't played much multiplayer for Call of Duty, and i haven't gotten to the latest games yet. So maybe things aren't entirely as I described.

But what I want to know from all of you is this: how do you feel about earning experience points in competitive multiplayer? Does it give an unfair advantage to veteran players? Should matches be decided only by player skill, or should users be allowed to "level up" their characters?

Thanks guys :)

But what is the sense in leveling up if you do not grow stronger? Thats the way difficulty levels are handed in RPGs. The enemy is too strong... level up and get stronger. In an action game, you have to become more skilled to beat an enemy. In a RPG, you can simply try to get a higher level (or a better strategy).

In my opinion competitive Action games only introduced a level system so that you feel like there is some sort of progress. After putting in several hours you have to feeling that you progressed. A level system can feel as a sort of ultimate goal so that a practically "endless game" can come to a point where you can say "I have finshed that game".

So if there is a level system without real benefits (better equipment, Skills, etc.) what is the point? Level does not automatically equal skills. A skilled player can open a new account and play as lvl1 character while even a bad player can reach maximum rank eventually. And if a level systems offers a benefit it is really hard for Newcomers because they are at a disadvantage.

I personally do not like competitive gaming very much. Unfortunately many games have trophies for "reaching the highest online rank" and I grinded some online modes for the Platinum trophy. Without a level system I would have saved much time. I find those modes rather boring because there is nothing "happening"... no dialogues, no story, no cutscenes. Just the same modes over and over again, and the same old modes in almost every game with only minor tweaks. Sometimes I feel that I am playing the same game since 6 years with only small upgrades.

I like the Halo 3 system. As you win rounds and defeat higher-ranked players, your own experience rises and you rank up. These ranks and levels don't bestow special skills, perks, or weapons, but they allow you to broadcast your aptitude. So players can track their progress, but don't win any special advantages.

It is nice to reward those players who actually spend hours and hours playing the game. So what if some noob does not the same perks as the veteran. It is the way it should be.

OK. I'm sure many agree with you. But it just seems inappropriate to me. If the Lakers are playing the Celtics, each team plays with the same equipment and according to the same rules. Kobe Bryant doesn't get access to a basket-seeking ball just because he's been in the league for 15 years.

I'm not saying video games are sports, but I think the analogy demonstrates a weird dynamic in perk-based competitive multiplayer.

It is complete bullshit.

I had never encountered this issue until I bought Battlefield 3 several months after it launched. So instead of having a fair game I was faced with already more experienced players who also had better guns, laser sight, flashlights, extra ammo, SCOPES and other valuable equipments. It was a huge turn-off for me, but the issue eventually solved itself, obviously.

So yeah, I don't like it one bit. Halo 4 found a good balance though where you'll level up fast, weapons are cheap, power weapons are earned through effort in each match (meaning that you can't respawn with them), and when playing large maps in Big Team Battle you'll have the Battle Rifle (mid/far-range weapon) unlocked automatically from start. Not to mention how you can play playlists like, "Flood" in which you won't be able to use any unlocked weapons or equipment, making it the perfect playlist for those who want to unlock some important equipment before playing other competitive matches.

I should point out that I think Halo 3 had its disadvantages as well. Some people would be so dedicated to the game that they kept track on how long it took for power weapons and equipment to respawn, resulting in a massive advantage over casual Halo 3 players who only played the game once in a while. That's why I prefer the Halo 4 system.


Anyway, great topic! :P

Bumping this, just in case anyone else wants to chime in. I'm genuinely interested in what people think of it.

Well that's generally what the other stats are there for, so people can discern who is good or not.

I don't think its a problem because I'm pretty sure Call of Duty's matchmaking system places you in games with people of similar skill.

So yes, a level 50 that has unlocked all the guns/perks would destroy a level 3, but for the most part the level 3's are placed in games with other level 3's, while the 50's are placed in matches with other 50's.


Granted, my response was Call of Duty specific, so other games may be more unbalanced

I like Team Fortress 2's system. People who have been playing longer get new weapons and equipment, but its balanced by having cons compared to standard equipment. Players can then show off their skills by using combinations to make new strategies, but are still on the same level as even newbies.