Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 04:50:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Intentionally Unbalanced gameplay 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Intentionally Unbalanced gameplay  (Read 20215 times)
Xilren's Twin
Moderator
Posts: 1648


on: October 13, 2004, 01:11:16 PM

This thought was spurred by discussion in anthor thread about a utopian mmorpg providing a variety of gameplay each time you enage in it, to which someone replied, "have a human opponent".  Couple with old idea like EQ small attemp to let players "be the monsters" got me noodling, and then it reminded me of an old CCG game Netrunner.

For thos who never had a chance to try it, Netrunner was a cool little collectible card game about hacking into corporate systems ala Shadowrun/Cyberpunk style.  Created by Richard Garfield,the same guy who came up with MtG, the unqiue part about it was the two side of the game, the corporation and the hacker, had totally different play experiences.  Their card types, objectives, actions, and even win conditions were completely different from each other.  For example, the corporation would "win" if it could create data forts, install agendas in them and advance those agenda to completion, or kill the hacker.  The hacker could win by stealing a set number of information points by breaking into those data forts and obtaining those agenda.  The hacker had equipment cards for their computer and programs (like memory modules to increase abilities, icebreakers, passwords sniffers and such) and the corp had ice programs, as well as nefarious traps and tricks like tracer programs and flesh and blood hit squads.  Good fun game.

Which got me to wondering, if we want to encourage players to basically be each others content so people don't get bored, could such an unbalanced system be utilized in a mmog setting?  Fer instance, the "heroes" could play the typical first person avatar fighting mobs for loot and glory, and pehaps the "monster side" of the game is closer to a dungeon keeper or a mini RTS where you build lairs and caves, stock with various npc baddies and order minions about trying to raze villages and steal gold and the like.

It would be like two totally seperate game play expeirences, but have good synergy.

(IIRC, there was a Wheel of Time FPS game which at least dabbled in this for multiplayer by allowing people to design their own keeps stocked with gaurds, treasure and traps, and try to raid your opponents while they attempted to get through yours.  Not sure how well that did).

For that matter, you could design as many unique "sides" into a game as you wanted, so perhaps the economic game of running stores has a totally different interface and play to it rather than just being some windows that pop up while your playing your avatar.

Just some thoughts.

Xilren

"..but I'm by no means normal." - Schild
Shannow
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3703


Reply #1 on: October 13, 2004, 01:34:36 PM

Thats not a bad idea.

Variation on that is an idea I've vaguely thought about (and definately needs more development) , that of a Co - op massively multiplayer game. In which players would all play on the same side most likely against some overwhelming enemy. The scenario of Warhammer 40k terminators ala Space Hulk comes to mind.

The AI either needs to be really smart or really really numerous (thats why losta baddy aliens might work)...but if you threw in the ability of humans to either control those masses that might make it truely entertaining. Question is would those players be regular players or GMs?

Someone liked something? Who the fuzzy fuck was this heretic? You don't come to this website and enjoy something. Fuck that. ~ The Walrus
Riggswolfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8024


Reply #2 on: October 13, 2004, 01:50:12 PM

This could be interesting though you'd have servers where the Dungeon Keeper has totally stalled the players and servers where the players have totally overwhelmed him/her.

"We live in a country, where John Lennon takes six bullets in the chest, Yoko Ono was standing right next to him and not one fucking bullet! Explain that to me! Explain that to me, God! Explain it to me, God!" - Denis Leary summing up my feelings about the nature of the universe.
AOFanboi
Terracotta Army
Posts: 935


Reply #3 on: October 13, 2004, 01:58:17 PM

It's not so much "imbalanced" as "players play using different gameplay mechanisms in the same game". That is doable, but harder to balance.

It will be interesting to see if City of Villains succeeds in adding such a differentiated system to CoH. At least, that is the impression I got from reading about CoV...

(As an aside, Netrunner was criticized (esp. after the virus-introducing expansion) for having one Killer Deck - though I forget which side had it - which basically meant you won if you played it. I still love the game, though.)

Current: Mario Kart DS, Nintendogs
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #4 on: October 13, 2004, 02:05:25 PM

Netrunner was a decent CCG. Cyberpunk Online as it was originally envisioned would have made a kickass MMOG, if it could have been brought off with stability.

Shadowbane had this sort of approach, because the city-building aspect was really like an RTS. Except with really bitchy minions who were individuals in their own right. And really horrible interfaces. The fact that only a few people could really attempt this side of the game made the game seem less deep, because most people would never see the work that went into designing, maintaining and running a defensible city. Too much work that could be thwarted with too little effort (see dumbass guards being trained away at the beginning of a siege).

It could work.

MrHat
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7432

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.


Reply #5 on: October 13, 2004, 02:07:48 PM

Quote from: HaemishM
Netrunner was a decent CCG. Cyberpunk Online as it was originally envisioned would have made a kickass MMOG, if it could have been brought off with stability.

Shadowbane had this sort of approach, because the city-building aspect was really like an RTS. Except with really bitchy minions who were individuals in their own right. And really horrible interfaces. The fact that only a few people could really attempt this side of the game made the game seem less deep, because most people would never see the work that went into designing, maintaining and running a defensible city. Too much work that could be thwarted with too little effort (see dumbass guards being trained away at the beginning of a siege).

It could work.


bah, when is the Shadowbane intellectual property being auctioned off along witha few key members to someone who will create SB2.  SB2 = SB without all the crap.
Fargull
Contributor
Posts: 931


Reply #6 on: October 13, 2004, 02:16:40 PM

Quote from: Riggswolfe
This could be interesting though you'd have servers where the Dungeon Keeper has totally stalled the players and servers where the players have totally overwhelmed him/her.


You know.. you could make the DM/Dungeon Keeper would actually advance by getting missions to setup lairs and terrorize the populus.  In theory the farther along your career as a master of terror or whatever.. you got pushed into more and more hard to control areas.  Thus, the elite of the DM side would end up against the Elite of the PC side..

The interesting part is that both of these could be instance areas that would be quest based.. so the land could be transformed.. at least in the beginning then after achieving a certain diabolical rank have them unleashed in non-instance areas if desired.

"I have come to believe that a great teacher is a great artist and that there are as few as there are any other great artists. Teaching might even be the greatest of the arts since the medium is the human mind and spirit." John Steinbeck
Alkiera
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1556

The best part of SWG was the easy account cancellation process.


Reply #7 on: October 13, 2004, 02:29:03 PM

The idea of players in an MMO game fighting against an RTS-opponent is one I've had for awhile now.  I never got around to typing it up for my PvE entry in the '$50 million dollar MMOG concept' thread.  After all, people built RPGs into Starcraft... with a Starcraft-style AI and a human behind it to set goals for the AI on a global scale, you would have a situations where you could, in fact, kill off the orcs in an area...  destroy their baracks/town hall or whatever, and they'd no longer respawn in that area, without having to re-invade and rebuild.

I'm really curious as to how well it would work... it'd require some actual RTS skills on the part of the GM for some events, but I think it could work out well.  The GM client would be a cross between a modern RTS client and the RTS level-editing app, because the GM would likely need script-level control over the AI for certain things.  Other than that, you can have the peons go about harvesting wood and gold and what-have-you from the same places players would (a la horizons, but without the giant signs), and those resources would be used to build bases where indicated by the GM, and produce units to go raid player locations, like towns and villages.

It would need some balancing to make the GM challenging enough, perhaps alter his resources gained based on the number of logins that day, or something, to keep the enemy side balanced with the players.

I think this could be a blast... no endless creature respawn, an actual reason to kill the things, etc.  Heck, if you had one of those 'ultra-massive' games like wish, you could give each enemy group it's own GM, and let them go nuts trying to take over the world.

--
Alkiera

"[I could] become the world's preeminent MMO class action attorney.  I could be the lawyer EVEN AMBULANCE CHASERS LAUGH AT. " --Triforcer

Welcome to the internet. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a character assassination on Slashdot.
WayAbvPar
Moderator
Posts: 19268


Reply #8 on: October 13, 2004, 03:02:27 PM

Quote
Shadowbane had this sort of approach, because the city-building aspect was really like an RTS. Except with really bitchy minions


Heh. Total flashback there. Nothing like tell hell from the hoi polloi.

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine. HaemishM

Always wear clean underwear because you never know when a Tory Government is going to fuck you.- Ironwood

Libertarians make fun of everyone because they can't see beyond the event horizons of their own assholes Surlyboi
Jayce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2647

Diluted Fool


Reply #9 on: October 14, 2004, 06:14:39 AM

Quote from: Alkiera
RTS


I have also thought about this.  I even hoped, when I first heard about WoW, that it was along these lines.

I think Planetside and SB have fulfilled it to a certain extent, but they both fall short a bit.  I think that just a few more tools for the players would go a long way toward making a really innovative game.

Say for example, that anyone could spawn and command a group of 5 NPCs (player-raced or monster).  But higher ranks in the guild structure can command other players, with things like arrows telling the players which way to go and what to do (attack, reload, etc).  Not that every player would obey, but that would be part of the challenge of leadership (player skill, not character).  The players would be similar to heroes in WC3 - more powerful combat pieces, with additional abilities like auras.

Hell, I've come up with a way to make every player a "hero" as well as use player skill in lieu of character skill in a non-twitch way, all in one fell swoop.  I'm a genius ;)

Witty banter not included.
rscott
Terracotta Army
Posts: 46


Reply #10 on: October 14, 2004, 08:41:06 AM

The idea of making a unique playing experience for each player is not new.  Originally i had hoped that you would 'choose' your play experience by choosing your class.  Clerics would obviously play a different game with different obstacles and enemies than would thieves.  

The problems start to enter when one facet of the game grows so large as to necessitate all other classes must deal with and indeed be built around, this facet.  For instance, combat and angry mobs are two very prevalent themes in these games.  So much so that clerics are really fighters who fight with holy spells, wizards are fighters who shoot spells, theives are fighters who backstab, and rangers are just fighters who shoot arrows.  They are all just fighters when you get down to it.

Clerics should do clerical activities, not fight.  Druids should cultivate the forest, not fight.  Theives should be stealing things, not fighting.  There are many cool things that could be done if games weren't centered around combat.

I feel if games weren't so one dimensional, so focused around fighting, then races and classes could be truly different.  The fact they aren't balanced around fighting won't matter so much because fighting won't be the end all and be all of the game experience.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #11 on: October 14, 2004, 08:50:45 AM

Here's a thought about the role of clerics in a PVP-focused MMOG built around war. Clerics are meant to be the priests, the ones who bless the army and exhort them onto victory. So the priests are allowed a sort of pre-battle oratory, in which they must speak to the players who make up the armies. They may also be allowed to do some things that fit their deity. Evil deities might allow the sacrifice of innocents, good deities might allow some kind of sacrificial lamb or other such thing, which could be done in the form of a mini-game (EQ Gems or some such puzzly thing that fits the action required). At the end of the ritual, the priest gets an aggregate score; part of it is based on the score he achieved in the mini-game, part of it is based on length of his speech and content (i.e. how many times did he mention his deity, etc.) and a third factor which is based on votes from his army. A buff is then applied to all in the army, RANDOMLY picked from a set of buffs with modifiers based on his score. The buffs would also need to be deity-specific. Now we all know the army would vote as positively as possible for their priest in order to get the army buff, but the vote would be not just a numeric score but also some multiple-choice questions about the "feelings" the sermon gave them. Does it make you more bloodthirsty? More merciful? Etc. etc.

During the battle, the wounded/killed could be respawned back where the priest is stationed. They would only be allowed back in the battle with a blessing from the priest, and only for a limited number of respawns. The enemy could assault the priest's station and thus remove the ability to respawn. This would have to be done with instanced battlefields of some form.

Soukyan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1995


WWW
Reply #12 on: October 14, 2004, 10:05:10 AM

Savage already does this in a way. Albeit more in a Guild Wars size scenario and with FPS/RTS on each side. One commander plays the RTS aspect and the other players hit the battlefield. It's rather fun, but Savage itself has its own set of problems.

I do like the idea of the sides playing differently better than Savage's setup. Hell, they could take Evil Genius and do this. If you play the arch villain, you have an RTS. As a super spy, you get FPS (see No One Lives Forever for appropriately campy lines and nifty-neato gadgets). That could be really damn fun.

"Life is no cabaret... we're inviting you anyway." ~Amanda Palmer
"Tree, awesome, numa numa, love triangle, internal combustion engine, mountain, walk, whiskey, peace, pascagoula" ~Lantyssa
"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis qu'on a perdus." ~Marcel Proust
Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2189


Reply #13 on: October 14, 2004, 12:00:14 PM

Guild Wars has something similar to the "priest" thing you describe (but by far not as complex) in that you fight your way back to the enemy priest and once you take him out the match is over (and the priest is an AI). Players that die respawn at their priest.

Agreed that Savage does the RTS+FPS element already. And each side does fight differently if only in the sense of Terran vs. Zerg style.


The stumbling block I see with something like this (and both PS and WWIIOL have this problem) is you end up fighting an endless war over the same territory with no real persistant gain/loss.

The idea I had for possibly getting past that would be you basically have a "peaceful" land and an enemy creates "lairs" anywhere they want which have to be destroyed. For example, orcs taking up residence in the local mountain (or a Dungeon Keeper player burrowing in and setting up a lair).

So you're continually fighting but never over the same thing twice.
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #14 on: October 28, 2004, 08:09:29 PM

Strange thing is that if monsters roll you over and kill most players shrug and carry on, substitute other player in place of monster and you have endless complains and whole bunch of people would refuse to even try your game. Also who would want to pay to play weaker monsters when you can play as a regular character? You are better off creating system where you have different groups of players combat each other and advance through combat.

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #15 on: October 28, 2004, 08:15:59 PM

Quote from: Krakrok
The idea I had for possibly getting past that would be you basically have a "peaceful" land and an enemy creates "lairs" anywhere they want which have to be destroyed. For example, orcs taking up residence in the local mountain (or a Dungeon Keeper player burrowing in and setting up a lair).

So you're continually fighting but never over the same thing twice.


Would you want to pay to play to get 'ganked' every time? Nobody wanted to play helpless miner in UO for some random PKs to kill, why do you think anyone would want to play 'Dungeon Keeper' when you have no chance of winning? Problem is that monster's side is designed to loose and PCs are as a rule allergic to loosing.

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
Dodger_
Terracotta Army
Posts: 21


Reply #16 on: November 01, 2004, 07:56:58 AM

Quote from: sinij
Would you want to pay to play to get 'ganked' every time? Nobody wanted to play helpless miner in UO for some random PKs to kill, why do you think anyone would want to play 'Dungeon Keeper' when you have no chance of winning? Problem is that monster's side is designed to loose and PCs are as a rule allergic to loosing.

Because it's a game and it's fun to win and lose?  If you're always winning it's no fun and if you're always losing it's no fun.  It's the balance in between that makes a game ultimately fun or not.  It forces Dungeon Keepers(DK) to continually refine their traps and designs to "beat" the other players.  It's sounds like a fun idea to me.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #17 on: November 01, 2004, 02:07:09 PM

Quote from: sinij
Strange thing is that if monsters roll you over and kill most players shrug and carry on, substitute other player in place of monster and you have endless complains and whole bunch of people would refuse to even try your game.


I think many people object to the fact that when PVE monsters roll over you, they don't tend to insult your manhood in exclamations that are barely decipherable as English with such cunning phrases as "I PKed J00, f@g!"

sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #18 on: November 01, 2004, 05:34:07 PM

Quote from: HaemishM
I think many people object to the fact that when PVE monsters roll over you, they don't tend to insult your manhood in exclamations that are barely decipherable as English with such cunning phrases as "I PKed J00, f@g!"


You confusing reason and excuse - people hate being rPKed almost as much as being rPKed and taunted and its not childish taunts that create angst. Core of this issue is that people hate loosing and prefer NPCs do that for them. Main reason mobs are in mmorpgs is to provide losers that don’t mind loosing.

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
rscott
Terracotta Army
Posts: 46


Reply #19 on: November 01, 2004, 07:16:31 PM

Quote from: sinij
Strange thing is that if monsters roll you over and kill most players shrug and carry on, substitute other player in place of monster


Yes and no.  Personally i don't feel its the 'lose to a human' factor that pisses people off.  i sometimes get pissed when i die to PvE monsters as well.  And when i fought other humans in DAOC, i never cared, even when they did the 'disrespect' emote.

For me at least its more a case of what circumstances that led up to the loss than the actual loss itself.  PvE mobs are well behaved, meaning that are written by the devs to be an ideal foe.  They are there purely for the enjoyment of the player.  Mobs played by players don't behave in such an ideal way.  So is it any wonder that many find the pve monsters more fun?

A good GM won't throw fights at a bunch of players if he feels they are having fun otherwise.  But if they are going looking for a fight, they will find one.  PvE mobs, by virtue of their not being very aggressive nor having a wide ranging area work the same way.  When players don't want to fight,they don't get one.  And when they do want a fight, they get one.  PvE mobs follow the good GM rule.  Mobs played by players don't follow the good GM rule, and thus they tend to suck as monsters.

So i'll be upset when i die to a pve monster that i wasn't in a particular mood to fight, but i won't be upset at a player monster if they are in a confined area (like DAOC).

Thats why people don't like dying to another player, its not because of the actual fight or death, but because of how it happened.  Granted, obscenities after the fight don't help.

The one thing that player mobs DO provide is that the actual fight itself is more fun on average.  But thats like 5% of a monsters life time activities. Somehow a system has to be arranged where the computer can drop a player into a  mob at the last 5 seconds before a fight.  Short of that, i don't see  much future for player mobs in a mmorpg.
Dodger_
Terracotta Army
Posts: 21


Reply #20 on: November 02, 2004, 06:51:12 AM

I guess we're coming at this from different angles.  I was thinking more along the lines of Krakrok.  Players that are these "Dungeon Keepers" simply build a lair that players can choose to venture into or not.  They have no direct control over the mobs they place, they simply arrange the dungeon and the mobs.  Along with some type of resource gathering that's fun(money earned through adventuring, an RTS NPC[ala Warcraft 2] gathering, gems and minerals mined by NPCs digging out the lair, etc), perhaps adventure players could rate dungeons when they're through with their adventure for a small supplemental income for the player who created the lair.

As far as player run mobs.  I thought when EQ's test server had this, it was an extremely fun option to play with.  You'd click the button at the player select screen and get dropped into a random mob.  It was always an old world zone and the mob was never very powerful but it was fun to run around and attack players.  You couldn't attack mobs and I never killed a player but the players seemed to have more fun based on the excitement of seeing a mob that didn't act like every other mob in the game.  You were never much of a threat as a bat or a zombie.
Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2189


Reply #21 on: November 02, 2004, 04:28:12 PM

Quote from: Dodger_
Players that are these "Dungeon Keepers" simply build a lair that players can choose to venture into or not.  They have no direct control over the mobs they place, they simply arrange the dungeon and the mobs.


I'm actually playing around with prototyping something like this in my spare time. At the moment I have a playable isometric Rome: TW style map that "hero" characters can move around on between cities. I also have a simple Dungeon Keeper style dungeon builder (not visible in the prototype).


For the strategy part of the prototype I was thinking something along the lines of the following:

My thoughts were to have maybe a few static major cities on the map at the start of the game. There could be three sites, good, evil, and rebels. The good and evil sides would play at capturing each others cities. If one side got too big, their cities would start to rebel and could fall into rebel hands (neither good or evil). This plays into an empire falling from within and keeps both good and evil sides from becoming too powerful. Have some kind of resource system attached to each city to make certain cities more valuable.

The hero characters could earn traits like in Rome: TW, they could capture or help capture cities, and they could found new cities/dungeons/lairs. Maybe depending on how old or how well your hero character has perform you would earn the ability to create bigger dungeons or control more minions at the same time. Cities/dungeons/lairs could have an influcence zone around them which could grow the longer it existed (or the more skilled the hero). Minions could farm resources and bring them back to the lair or city ala an RTS. The hero character could defend the area via an RTS view.


The other part of the game could be a first person shooter (like Savage) or something in the Diablo/Guild War vein. Each city or area would be captureable or winnable like a FPS map. Players would have respawnable characters that would battle it out for control of each area. Maybe once an area was captured it could not be re-captured for a period of time (1 hour?). Only adjacent controled areas could be battled over. I really like the idea of stacking the deck against power players to make it more challenging for them and buffing crappier players to allow them to have a fun time too. For example, maybe RTS "hero" characters would have permadeath if FPS characters got to the center of the dungeon and killed the "hero" avatar (think evil wizard or something equally Tolkienish).

A lot of this stuff is already covered in the thread above.


Anyway, you probably get the picture and this is getting long winded so you can check out the simple prototype below if you're interested.

Click For bigger Screenshot.


Download Prototype Mirror #1
Download Prototype Mirror #2
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #22 on: November 03, 2004, 09:31:29 AM

Quote from: sinij
Quote from: HaemishM
I think many people object to the fact that when PVE monsters roll over you, they don't tend to insult your manhood in exclamations that are barely decipherable as English with such cunning phrases as "I PKed J00, f@g!"


You confusing reason and excuse - people hate being rPKed almost as much as being rPKed and taunted and its not childish taunts that create angst. Core of this issue is that people hate loosing and prefer NPCs do that for them. Main reason mobs are in mmorpgs is to provide losers that don’t mind loosing.


It's losing to an asshole, not losing in general that turns most people off. Look up sportsmanship. Most PVP players DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. Most people are as bad a winner as they are a loser.

sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #23 on: November 03, 2004, 03:57:47 PM

I disagree with you HaemishM. Simple fact that you just lost a fight to rPK makes that rPK new incarnation of devil for most players regardless of anything that happened before or after that fight. Loosing is a key, rest is just excuses or rationalizations.

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
Righ
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6542

Teaching the world Google-fu one broken dream at a time.


Reply #24 on: November 03, 2004, 04:24:56 PM

Quote from: sinij
I disagree with you HaemishM. Simple fact that you just lost a fight to rPK makes that rPK new incarnation of devil for most players regardless of anything that happened before or after that fight. Loosing is a key, rest is just excuses or rationalizations.


Haemish is probably speaking from his own opinion, and I don't think you know it better than he does. I share his opinion. I don't mind losing to a gracious victor at all. I'd be less upset at losing to a better player opponent, or indeed one that took advantage of a weak moment in my defense than being rolled by the same AI I've fought a few million times in my grind. Immature shits are tiresome, however.

The camera adds a thousand barrels. - Steven Colbert
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #25 on: November 04, 2004, 08:25:04 AM

Quote
I'd be less upset at losing to a better player opponent, or indeed one that took advantage of a weak moment in my defense than being rolled by the same AI I've fought a few million times in my grind


Taking advantage of your opponent’s weak moments and not having any of your own is part of combat and that what makes better player 'better'.  Why is it when you are killed by few monsters most players realize that they failed to adequately pay attention to surroundings and got too much agro but when you substitute player instead of one monster it is all the sudden other player having ‘unfair’ advantage and is a bad person for exploiting it. Fights can’t be won without exploiting your opponent’s weak moments, be it poor timing, panicking, general incompetence or not paying attention to your surroundings.

I understand that you and Haemish disagree with me on rPK/PvP issues and I’m not trying to change your views here. What I’m trying to find here is *why* you disagree with me. To me it all boils down to loosing – some people just don’t see loosing as worthwhile entertainment. If it isn’t fun to loose you won’t engage in activities that likely result in loosing for entertainment purposes.

To me “poor sportsmanship”, “trash talking immature rPKs”, “taking advantage of a weak moment” are all rationalizations and excuses. All is fair in love and war and open-ended PvP is a love of war.

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #26 on: November 04, 2004, 10:07:03 AM

Quote from: sinij
I understand that you and Haemish disagree with me on rPK/PvP issues and I’m not trying to change your views here. What I’m trying to find here is *why* you disagree with me. To me it all boils down to loosing – some people just don’t see loosing as worthwhile entertainment. If it isn’t fun to loose you won’t engage in activities that likely result in loosing for entertainment purposes.

To me “poor sportsmanship”, “trash talking immature rPKs”, “taking advantage of a weak moment” are all rationalizations and excuses. All is fair in love and war and open-ended PvP is a love of war.


First off, 99% of ALL PVPers and PKer's do not roleplay, and that percentage holds true for PVE players as well, in MMOG's. Roleplay does not exist on MMOG's except in small groups with people you already know. So if you are using rPK's as "role-playing PKers" that is a complete misnomer.

I'll give you a bit of insight. I suck at PVP. I have never bothered to keep track of my kills vs. deaths, or any such shit like that. I don't care about those things, but I would estimate that I probably die about 3 times MORE than I make the kills. That goes for FPS, MMORPG's, whatever. I'm just not very good, for whatever reasons. I'm going to wager that most people are probably like me, or are worse.

But there is a very clear difference between a good PVP battle and a bad one. I do not mind losing to a canny opponent who just whoops my ass, SO LONG AS I FEEL THE FIGHT WAS FAIR. Fair means he didn't use exploits or cheats, fair was he was reasonably close to my relative power (whether power equates to levels, items, skills or combination of all those things - basically, whatever the game gives him to determine his avatar's strengths), fair was he wasn't an over-powered class/combo/template that is the flavor of the month. Fair fights don't bother me, win or lose, so long as the winner or loser is gracious.

Nobody LIKES losing (not loosing... learn to fucking spell). But most can accept a loss, so long as they feel they were treated fairly and were respected.

When the PVP community can finally rid itself of the trash-talking shitmittens who feel they HAVE to top off every win with some insult to the loser's manhood, or every loss with "You cheated!", THEN PVP will have a mass-market chance. When it can rid itself of the attitude that those who like PVE are pussies and not "hardcore," then maybe it has a chance. When PVP players can realize that it isn't the ONLY way to play, that it isn't the BEST way to play, but just another playstyle that may or may not be preferable to some, THEN we can have hope for a mass-market PVP game.

Until then, it's all going to be niche, because the vast majority of players won't pay to be insulted, berated, accused of cheating or beaten by whiny little fucks who claim to be hardcore but scream like a bitch when their overpowered templates get brought into line with the rest of the world.

sidereal
Contributor
Posts: 1712


Reply #27 on: November 04, 2004, 10:33:53 AM

Counterexamples to the sinij theory:

In fighting and sports games, half of the players lose every single time, and yet these games outsell MMORPG by about a billion to one.

Also, possibly a more relevant counterexample. . there is a level in America's Army with a bridge that was at one point so ridiculously unbalanced towards one side (Don't recall which side. . it's been a while) that there was generally about an 80% victory rate for that side.  There was a not insignificant number of people who would simply log out rather than be on that side.  And yet people played the other side. . in fact, many people (like me) went out of their way to play the other side.  Because if you could string a few victories together on that team, you knew you were a bad dude.

What these have in common is that a) they set expectations.  The AA example would suck if you didn't know how unbalanced that level was.  You know going in what your chances are;  and b) the penalty for losing is small.  Losing is generally bad enough.  Nobody likes it.  Docking your xp or your gold or your equipment is unnecessary pain.  

I think the effect of p33n-waving banter is pretty subjective.  For many people it's just unnecessary pain on top of losing, and deeply sours the experience.  I felt that way for a long while.  Now I just think it's funny, because it's like a big banner that says 'I can't get laid'.

THIS IS THE MOST I HAVE EVERY WANTED TO GET IN TO A BETA
Shannow
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3703


Reply #28 on: November 04, 2004, 02:08:53 PM

Team based play is key to I believe, it allows the players who is not superl33t to enjoy the feeling of victory and gives them the ability to still contribute to the fight.

Someone liked something? Who the fuzzy fuck was this heretic? You don't come to this website and enjoy something. Fuck that. ~ The Walrus
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #29 on: November 04, 2004, 03:11:28 PM

Quote from: HaemishM
 So if you are using rPK's as "role-playing PKers" that is a complete misnomer.


rPKs stand for random player killers, term used in open-ended PvP games like Shadowbane where you need to differentiate between rolling someone for a reason, like for belonging to enemy nation or trespassing on your claimed land, or just randomly rolling people that you happen to find.

Quote
Fair means … <opponent> was reasonably close to my relative power … <in> levels, items, skills or combination of all those things.  Fair fights don't bother me, win or lose, so long as the winner or loser is gracious.


This is Catch22, only fight that you lost and would find fair is where outcome is completely random, like coin tossing. For example if someone killed you because they are more skilled in PvP according to your definition this fight is not fair. Perhaps if you feel that you had a chance to win or escape would be sufficient?


As to my theory how to make PvP appeal to mass North American audience – it isn’t about changing players, you will never succeed there, it is about building PvP system correctly. PvP should not be meaningless and have clear goals, looser should not be penalized other than failing to reach PvP goals, it should be mostly skill-driven and non-skilled components should have fast advancement curve, all PvP’s necessities, like adequate gear or experience, should be easily available and there should be very minimal forced interaction between winners and losers after the fight. Good luck trying to build working PvP based on finding “gracious” PvP player base that are still gracious after having to put up with “whiny little fucks” type of attitude.


Quote from: sidereal
What these have in common is that a) they set expectations. The AA example would suck if you didn't know how unbalanced that level was. You know going in what your chances are; and b) the penalty for losing is small.


I tend to agree.


Back to original point of this thread, maybe if you design player-controlled monsters that cannot interact with players and are significantly weaker than players but provide benefits to players that can win playing on the monster’s team you can make it work.

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
Alkiera
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1556

The best part of SWG was the easy account cancellation process.


Reply #30 on: November 04, 2004, 04:45:22 PM

Quote from: sinij
Quote
Fair means … <opponent> was reasonably close to my relative power … <in> levels, items, skills or combination of all those things.  Fair fights don't bother me, win or lose, so long as the winner or loser is gracious.


This is Catch22, only fight that you lost and would find fair is where outcome is completely random, like coin tossing. For example if someone killed you because they are more skilled in PvP according to your definition this fight is not fair. Perhaps if you feel that you had a chance to win or escape would be sufficient?


By skills, I assume Haemish meant in-game things, such as the opponent having similar level of weapon skills, etc...  Two guys with axes and 70-80% Axe-Use skill is 'fair', two guys with axes where one has 30% skill and the other is at 100%, is NOT fair.  It sounds like you thought he meant player skills.  He stated before he didn't mind as much losing to someone who was better at the game.

Quote from: sinij
As to my theory how to make PvP appeal to mass North American audience – it isn’t about changing players, you will never succeed there, it is about building PvP system correctly. PvP should not be meaningless and have clear goals, looser should not be penalized other than failing to reach PvP goals, it should be mostly skill-driven and non-skilled components should have fast advancement curve, all PvP’s necessities, like adequate gear or experience, should be easily available and there should be very minimal forced interaction between winners and losers after the fight. Good luck trying to build working PvP based on finding “gracious” PvP player base that are still gracious after having to put up with “whiny little fucks” type of attitude.


Agreed.  For example, most games, when you die, the viewpoint goes to third-person view of your corpse, where you can see your opponent standing there taunting you, sometimes even see what they're saying.  A black screen, or just about anything else, would be preferable, from the victim's standpoint.  They're dead/unconcious, they shouldn't be able to see or hear anything.  As to the other things, my post in the $50 million MMOG thread addressed several of those points.

Alkiera

"[I could] become the world's preeminent MMO class action attorney.  I could be the lawyer EVEN AMBULANCE CHASERS LAUGH AT. " --Triforcer

Welcome to the internet. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a character assassination on Slashdot.
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #31 on: November 04, 2004, 07:58:03 PM

People play fighting games, people play chess, people play sports. You lose in all of those.

But in Chess, you play people around your same ranking, and when you lose you know why and you have a clear path to improvement. When you lose it's because the other guy was plain better. Not because he just spent more time, or more money, or had friends help him, or had a sword of Pawn Movement +2.

It's a great feeling to lose at something, improve, and then do better the next time. People love to feel that they are getting better at something.

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #32 on: November 04, 2004, 08:58:27 PM

Quote from: sinij
PvP should not be meaningless and have clear goals, looser should not be penalized other than failing to reach PvP goals, it should be mostly skill-driven and non-skilled components should have fast advancement curve, all PvP’s necessities, like adequate gear or experience, should be easily available and there should be very minimal forced interaction between winners and losers after the fight.


I want to go into bit more details on this.

It is good idea to make PvP goal-driven instead of leaving it to players to define their own agendas. When players left to their own agendas they are often turn to undesirable or unpredictable activities. Goals should have tangible benefits and these benefits should be always desirable and repeatable.  Goals can be control over recourse, control over point of interest, control over bargaining right. In mixed games PvP goals should aim to abide risk vs. reward ratio making achieving them rewarding in less time than ‘safe’ non-PvP alternatives. Goals should not be made more desirable by artificially enforcing scarcity and attaining benefits from any given goal should not make it easier to re-attain or maintain control over it. Good example is static and timed easy drop or spawn of some desirable item but not unique item. Bad example is control over the only spawn of an object that is perceived as mandatory to have.

Looser should not be penalized for simply loosing the fight, when designing PvP system you should try to make it accessible and non-restricting. Loss of a fight over a goal should not be meaningless or you risk making entire system seem meaningless. Good example is bane in SB, bad example is killing of a miner in UO.

Players should know what to expect at any given moment and should have guaranteed safe zones and activities to engage in. Good example is WoW and DaoC with realm-specific zones or SB with nation crests and relatively safe nation capitals. Bad example is early UO where you never knew what to expect from other player and had to prepare for worst.

Ideally PvP should be purely skill-driven or at least have character advancement components should have diminishing returns and bottom-heavy advancement curve. It is good idea to incorporate ‘combo’ events where players have to combine two or more elements to form successful attack or defense, timing-specific events, disruptions, damage over time, AoEs, absorbers… It should be the goal to provide players as many unique options to use against each other as you can think of.  At the same time there should be no ‘best way’, ‘sure kill’ or ‘unavoidable combo’ methods. It is bad idea to build your PvP around hard-to-obtain gear or make levels mean so much that you can’t compete until maxed.

There should be no forced interaction between losers and victors after the fight. Avoid making loser unwilling audience to gloating of a victor at all costs.

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
rscott
Terracotta Army
Posts: 46


Reply #33 on: November 05, 2004, 03:04:51 AM

Quote from: Margalis
People play fighting games, people play chess, people play sports. You lose in all of those..

Indeed I would say thats the one thing thats different about rpgs than other games, that losing is not really a part of the experience.  Nor is being a skilled tactician, or having fast reflexes or strong arms.

So if you want to prove you are better than the next guy, don't play rpgs, because that ,almost by definition, shouldnt happen.
WonderBrick
Terracotta Army
Posts: 142


Reply #34 on: November 05, 2004, 03:27:56 AM

rscott, I am amazed you have such a limited vision for RPGs.  I don't mean this unkindly.  There is alot more scope out there currently, as well as room to grow and innovate.

"Please dont confuse roleplaying with rollplaying. Thanks."   -Shannow

"Just cuz most MMO use the leveling treadmill doesn't mean I have to lower my "fun standards" to the common acceptance. Simply put, I'm not gonna do that."  -I flyin high
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Intentionally Unbalanced gameplay  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC