Forum Discussion

5 years ago

Solved

Unpopular opinion: Intelligence questionnaire for ranked

So... I'll post the question right away so you can answer it without reading my possible upcoming dissertation on why I'm asking it: Do games with ranked modes need an intelligence questionnaire next to whatever matchmaking they have to enter?

The reason I ask this question is not even Apex per se, but more the things I've always seen with ranked in games; lack of common sense or skill. So most times it's easy to play ranked. In Apex you just need to be lvl 10 and you can hop in and start ranking up. Other games also have similar conditions or no conditions at all for playing ranked safe for having an account... While others you need to put actual work to get a shot.

What sparked this question? Well I think I made a similar thread in the past or just comments about it, but what sparked this was another game in which I was still pretty low in rank but still couple hours in. Then someone who said "This is one of my first matches in this game" was in my team... So I was slightly taken aback how someone like that could be in a team where the others spend hours upon hours gaining levels. Needless to say we lost XD But it wasn't too bad, cause that happens in games. It can't always be flawless and in this case it was actually within the margins of normal. What wasn't normal is in Apex and other games where ranked is basically accessible to everyone is when you have little kids playing who don't know what they're doing. I'm not talking about 14+ who already show signs of creating their own comprehensive thoughts and other higher functionality, but 5-13 year olds who should just play the game for fun and not be in ranked play.

In Apex most of us have played with kids it seems. You have the little squealers who start raging their pre-ball drop throats out whenever they miss shots or get downed or the cute little ones who say "Hello mister" and you instinctively be like "Whoever shoots this kid is dead meat! You hear me?! DEAD MEAT" and proceed to go ferocious at any team shooting at you and ending up with 10+ kills and winning the match while that little dude/girl has 0 kills and between 0-50 dmg :P But that's what casual is for. I titled this unpopular opinion cause I know some/alot will not agree with me on this one but casual play in games is just for everyone to 'have a good time'. Now that sentence can't be quantified for every person the same way because for some that indicator means 'just having a lot of kills' while for the other it just means 'spending time in the game'. Ranked however is a whole other beast entirely. Ranked is for ppl who are competitive and want to advance through the ranks who need like-minded individuals. This is why I'm asking the main question.

It can be proven that 8-13 year olds usually don't possess the brain functionality that adolescents and older demographic groups have. Their brain is still molding into shape... Yes it still does this until 24/25 but by 16 comprehension and other brain functionalities are already in place but it continues to grow. That's why kids are often (also by law) not responsible for their actions, same as ppl who are older but intellectual disadvantaged. Should ranked modes include some sort of 'easy' test to gauge an individual fit for ranked? Like a 3 question questionnaire that you can't quickly google to cheat but is easy for the general public? So like some math problems or easy science stuff? This way you can deter very young kids or less mentally intellectually abled to be in ranked games to enhance the games for the masses?

This can go both ways of course. For some games you don't really need to have common sense, just skills, but for some you definitely need a good noggin upon your shoulders to win consistently. You don't need much sense to shoot guns in games, but you do need it for tactics, observing, flanking, drawing out and so forth like in Apex. Most claim that (ranked) matches in apex, other than then campers or non-engaging-xp-rankers, are lost due to a lack of common sense, awareness or seemingly intelligence. This way, it might get rid or lower the chances of getting such individuals. Now being able to equate math or science or whatever topic questions doesn't mean you will have more common sense or intelligence. Heck, it might not even do anything, but wouldn't it give you a little bit more piece of mind? It's like knowing just as you did in middle or high school that you should stay clear of asking advice from the guy who always got D's in a certain class :P. Now the game does it for you. That's because you can have intelligence without common sense, but you can't have common sense without intelligence... a good quote... but not good enough for the book of quotes by koochi... :P

There are alot of unanswered questions or drawbacks like: 'should this test be done before every game or daily', 'should it be done when advancing higher than 'beginner's brackets', 'should there be a retrial for inputting the wrong answer', 'should it even exist because it's unethical to exclude ppl from gaming', 'what kind of questions should be asked' and so forth... Maybe I or others will touch upon these subjects in due time. I hope to see a healthy discussion tho cause I'm really interested in seeing what you guys have to say regarding this matter.

So: Do games with ranked modes need an intelligence questionnaire next to whatever matchmaking they have to enter?

discussion

pastaclown
5 years ago
@Koochi-Q short answer, no. A pop quiz for skill is purely subjective and really doesn't have too many defining concrete definitions.
Biased answer, NO. 95% of the player population would fail. Especially if the smooth brained, no skill, snail like reaction time, salted slugs that I get on my squads are any indication.
Long answer:
Skill is entirely subjective and hard to weigh concretely in terms of numbers. It's why SBMM currently doesn't function properly. They may SAY your teammates are similarly skilled, but again, my salted slugs argue otherwise. On that note, it would be difficult to weigh knowledge vs. practice. For instance, how do you determine how much skill someone has in a scenario where they have amazing game-sense and overall knowledge of mechanics and rotations but has shoddy aim? A fast looter with great aim but absolutely no knowledge on when or how to push a target / hold a position? Even then, how does skill weigh differently between premades and solo players? Will a solo player have a higher skill metric? Or will the premades? A test implies right and wrong answers, and while there are favorable and unfavorable outcomes to certain situations that happen in game, overall there is no "correct" answer, simply multiple answers that will probably work, and multiple answers that probably won't.

13 Replies

MandatoryIDtag
5 years ago
@Koochi-Q In short no.
We either choose to spin the roulette wheel by playing with randoms or we hunt for players who meet our criteria and form premades.
You can't just isolate players from a game mode based on their intellect lol.
However the minimum level to join ranked SHOULD be increased. There is no reason to be playing a game competitively at level 10....the rarity of naturally good level 10's is like that of discovering a unicorn.
This would also make it much harder for smurfs to join ranked as they would have to spend more time on the accounts to join ranked..bumping their SBMM up in the process.
For me personally level 50 should be the bare minimum to play ranked.
Koochi-Q
5 years ago
@Koochi-Q So... This didn't get the amount of responses I wanted so bumping it up with a warning...

I know where you all live! 🤓😈
apostolateofDOO
5 years ago
@Koochi-QThey should have gone to military school or served in the forces with an understanding of military jargon, a peer reviewed selection process, basic training gaming period of a bare minimum of six weeks before completing an observed assessment with no close friends or family to distract them from the vital ranked grind. Those who can endure or enjoy punishment should be fist in line. 😛

You popping round for a brew then? xD
xTomboyRespecte
5 years ago
@Koochi-Q that'd be a good way to earn a lot of negative press and have the game/company labeled as ableist. Probably not the best optics.
If you're like me and don't play ranked then it doesn't matter what the outcome is anyway.
Whereas if you play ranked then you'll find a way to game the system and climb to whatever rank tier you want anyway.
No point in getting bad press when the outcome is the same.
1ronKeys
5 years ago
I remember suggesting this monthsss ago haha.
Jumpmaster sees 247 squads landing in Octanes map part, still decided to land their short and sprint their weaponless 10 seconds after the whole lobby has landed there. Dies and leaves immediately.
I can't comprehend what goes through these peoples heads.
EdwardDLuffy
5 years ago
😇 small children should not be playing this game and (b) if a squeaky voice says "hello mister" I do not respond as I'm an adult and talking to anonymous children on the internet when you're an anonymous adult is not a good thing to do.
Koochi-Q
5 years ago
@apostolateofDOOM I concur, this would not exacerbate the problem... or maybe it would... likely not tho since without these social ques, a well defined selection process and the military breathing down their necks, they would know what it is to be a hardcore gamer without having to spend well over a certain amount of money I can't divulge here or have been gaming for at least a certain amount of years in only a short time.

Let's raise our glasses in the hopes that your solutions will be implemented... patent pending :P

@xTomboyRespecter, yea, but that's why I made this as generic as possible and not for one company but the gaming as a whole... at least ranked play. If the whole of gaming did this, what can the media do... it can't be worse than the stories they did about microtransactions and lootboxes; expose 'gaming disorder/addiction' :P Maybe the media would even praise such a bold move... billion to one they wouldn't tho.
But lets say bad press... for gaming as a whole... maybe this would dissuade parents not to let kids game certain games... which would in turn be better for the 16+ demographic knowing less kids playing a mp version of DOOM for instance... cause now kids age 7+ play those kinds of games which makes you wonder whats happening with parenting...

@1ronKeys... maybe I got it from you then... In all fairness *starts whispering so only you can hear: "If that's the case it's my idea now sucker! I can't be held accountable if this idea makes me millions and I'll sue you with a barrage of lawyers if you try to sue me. Like Burns did Marge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3hhAH4mlQk)" starts maniacally laughing* XD. But yea, we've all been there... luckily most of us know to select solo jump already to not be baited into going where a weird JM is going and if he's going to a spot that's more packed than wallmart on a saturday with a sale, then you have the choice to leave, follow, go somewhere else :P But that's why this questionnaire is so invaluable!

@EdwardDLuffy... nahhh it's only bad if they know who you are... if it's anonymous it's alright to respond... as long as you don't start A) creepily laughing/snickering B) ask if their parents are around C) how old they are D) where they live or any other questions going down this line of inquiries :P

Thanks for the responses, keep 'em coming... cause... I still know where you all live... the ones who have responded are cleared already >: P
OldTreeCreeper
Hero+
5 years ago
@Koochi-Q I have to agree with @EdwardDLuffy here about the interactions with minors and by minors I mean u18's. Its all well and good if the parents are in the room of the player, but I would generally doubt it or the child could lie to you. It is one of the reasons I don't use a mic. If nothing else but to protect myself. Perhaps I am overly paramoid as I am involved in underage girls football and we are very very strict on our protocols.
I find it very suprising that parents have no problem allowing their children interact with complete strangers in their own homes, but would not leave the child unaccompanied in the local playground.
As to the questionnaire, wouldn't some sort of ingame assessment be a better indicator of game ability?
Koochi-Q
5 years ago
@OldTreeCreeper They would definitely lie to you, just like how ppl used to fraud their way into 18+ sites on the internet when they were 12... Easy to do.

That makes total sense... but the line is still creepy (we both know which one) XD and with your name it's even creepier XD

Wait there they don't leave children unaccompanied in local playground? I see kids between 3-6 unaccompanied here at a playground all the time and I know they aren't the kids who live 10 seconds away from it... Also young kids buying quick groceries unattended or other situations where I question the parents' competence. I even find it dumb if a parent is with their 4-7 year old walking, but the child is like 10-20 feet behind the parent... seriously, it takes less than 10 seconds to sweep up such a small child, place 'em in a car and casually drive away and the parent is left oblivious (it's been tested how 'easy' it is to do) and frantic. If the parent looks behind from time to time, I can sorta... and I really mean kind of see what they're doing but what I see is parents not looking at their child for tens of seconds on end...

Also I watch/listen to horror narrations of true stories and there it happens all to often that kids are almost snatched because of the laissez vaire attitude of the parent(s). Luckily since the early 2000's parents teach their kids more and earlier about stranger danger, but when that is preached, you think they'd encompass righteous upbringing themselves instead of leaving it all to the kid.

You got an idea for this game? What kind of assessment? I think an assessment would require more... coding than 3 question test that's randomized as an assessment is meant for that particular job/subject or in this case game. So they'd have to make it themselves. The questionnaire doesn't do that :P but I'm still curious tho as an assessment would definitely be better, but you'd have to make so many situations or randomize the conditions in the assessment for it to work properly and not be cheated in
pastaclown
5 years ago
@Koochi-Q short answer, no. A pop quiz for skill is purely subjective and really doesn't have too many defining concrete definitions.
Biased answer, NO. 95% of the player population would fail. Especially if the smooth brained, no skill, snail like reaction time, salted slugs that I get on my squads are any indication.
Long answer:
Skill is entirely subjective and hard to weigh concretely in terms of numbers. It's why SBMM currently doesn't function properly. They may SAY your teammates are similarly skilled, but again, my salted slugs argue otherwise. On that note, it would be difficult to weigh knowledge vs. practice. For instance, how do you determine how much skill someone has in a scenario where they have amazing game-sense and overall knowledge of mechanics and rotations but has shoddy aim? A fast looter with great aim but absolutely no knowledge on when or how to push a target / hold a position? Even then, how does skill weigh differently between premades and solo players? Will a solo player have a higher skill metric? Or will the premades? A test implies right and wrong answers, and while there are favorable and unfavorable outcomes to certain situations that happen in game, overall there is no "correct" answer, simply multiple answers that will probably work, and multiple answers that probably won't.