The Philosophy Of Multiplayer
SmoodCroozn
Join Date: 2003-11-04 Member: 22310Members
Join Date: 2003-11-04 Member: 22310Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">and Ignored vs. Controlled Balance</div> In any game, there will always be those who are skilled and those... who just aren't. From my point of view, I have always enjoyed challenging games the most, as the outcome was never predictable. A good opponent was just as, if not more important than a good game. With games evolving into more challenging and complex scenarios, I often feel the gap between the hardcore and casual is growing too distant. If the length is too vast, it could discourage would-be gamers from competing.
There are several multiplayer game genres, and I have divided them into two sections, those with rubber band systems and those without. The rubber band system does as the name implies; the farther one end is from the other, the harder it resists, trying to bring both ends together. This system is further divided into three more types: nerfing, boosting and accomodating. If a rubber band system is to be implemented, it should be changing and controlled by the computer, rather than other players to avoid human bias and errors.
Nerfing has to deal with the leader or leaders of a game, and does not effect any other players. As one may guess, the performance of these players are toned down to keep them at the skill levels of the other players. An example of this idea would be in the popular online multiplayer game, Counter-Strike. Before I go further, note that I'm talking about a single round in general, rather than several. Moving forward, the players who are skilled generally get the most amount of kills in a round. The factor that slows them from complete domination is their health. When a victim is attacked by the skilled player, there is a chance that the victim can do some damage, whether small or large back at the skilled player. As a result, the next enemy that the skilled player encounters has a better chance to kill him. The problem with this system is that though skill levels are toned down, an average player is more likely to defeat a wounded skilled player, than if he was a beginner.
Next, but more rarer is the boosting type of rubber band system games. These games help the losing player or players in order to help them stay in the average range. The only adequate example I could find would be in a fighting game such as Soul Calibur, where a player is allowed to set their hit points above the recommended level. Depending on the factors of the amount of extra hit points and the difference of skill of both players, the situation could be either better or worse. This example is limited since it is only a two-player game, which means all that is needed is an even match of two players, rather than a group. This means that even a nerf would do the same exact effect in this situation as a boost. Though there maybe games with more than two players with this options, I have yet to see one.
Finally, there are games that use both nerf and boost devices, which I refer to as accomodating. An example of this system in effect is the Mario Kart series. Leading players are nerfed with poor items, as lagging players are given the best items. This sort of gameplay helps even skill levels, by giving a challenge to both ends of the skill spectrum. Average players however, are left as that, with neither a loss or gain. Of the three types of rubber band systems I mentioned here, games with the accomodation type will be the easiest for beginning or casual players to jump into.
On the other hand, there are games without the rubber band system, which I call pure multiplayer games. An example of this type is represent by the Gran Turismo series. A leading player has no factor other than his blunders to slow down. A lagging player however, will only be as good as his skill. In conclusion, there are no definite factors in determining the victor except the individual skill of both players.
In conclusion, any of the rubber band system games are open to a greater audience of people since it attempts to balance the player. Pure multiplayer games however, rely on both players having nearly the same amount of skill to acieve balance. With that said, many questions come to surface. Which is better, pure multiplayer or rubber band system games? Should games help those who are worse, hinder those ahead, or both? Are the best games those with balanced skill levels?
We come to an era where balance is greatly sought, but handicaps are unpopular. In theory, any game will always end up as a draw, if perfectly balanced. Should balanced games be determine by random factors? I leave the answers up to you.
Thank you for reading.
There are several multiplayer game genres, and I have divided them into two sections, those with rubber band systems and those without. The rubber band system does as the name implies; the farther one end is from the other, the harder it resists, trying to bring both ends together. This system is further divided into three more types: nerfing, boosting and accomodating. If a rubber band system is to be implemented, it should be changing and controlled by the computer, rather than other players to avoid human bias and errors.
Nerfing has to deal with the leader or leaders of a game, and does not effect any other players. As one may guess, the performance of these players are toned down to keep them at the skill levels of the other players. An example of this idea would be in the popular online multiplayer game, Counter-Strike. Before I go further, note that I'm talking about a single round in general, rather than several. Moving forward, the players who are skilled generally get the most amount of kills in a round. The factor that slows them from complete domination is their health. When a victim is attacked by the skilled player, there is a chance that the victim can do some damage, whether small or large back at the skilled player. As a result, the next enemy that the skilled player encounters has a better chance to kill him. The problem with this system is that though skill levels are toned down, an average player is more likely to defeat a wounded skilled player, than if he was a beginner.
Next, but more rarer is the boosting type of rubber band system games. These games help the losing player or players in order to help them stay in the average range. The only adequate example I could find would be in a fighting game such as Soul Calibur, where a player is allowed to set their hit points above the recommended level. Depending on the factors of the amount of extra hit points and the difference of skill of both players, the situation could be either better or worse. This example is limited since it is only a two-player game, which means all that is needed is an even match of two players, rather than a group. This means that even a nerf would do the same exact effect in this situation as a boost. Though there maybe games with more than two players with this options, I have yet to see one.
Finally, there are games that use both nerf and boost devices, which I refer to as accomodating. An example of this system in effect is the Mario Kart series. Leading players are nerfed with poor items, as lagging players are given the best items. This sort of gameplay helps even skill levels, by giving a challenge to both ends of the skill spectrum. Average players however, are left as that, with neither a loss or gain. Of the three types of rubber band systems I mentioned here, games with the accomodation type will be the easiest for beginning or casual players to jump into.
On the other hand, there are games without the rubber band system, which I call pure multiplayer games. An example of this type is represent by the Gran Turismo series. A leading player has no factor other than his blunders to slow down. A lagging player however, will only be as good as his skill. In conclusion, there are no definite factors in determining the victor except the individual skill of both players.
In conclusion, any of the rubber band system games are open to a greater audience of people since it attempts to balance the player. Pure multiplayer games however, rely on both players having nearly the same amount of skill to acieve balance. With that said, many questions come to surface. Which is better, pure multiplayer or rubber band system games? Should games help those who are worse, hinder those ahead, or both? Are the best games those with balanced skill levels?
We come to an era where balance is greatly sought, but handicaps are unpopular. In theory, any game will always end up as a draw, if perfectly balanced. Should balanced games be determine by random factors? I leave the answers up to you.
Thank you for reading.
Comments
It is true that if a beginner learns the hard way in a game, he may get better than if helped, but I don't think too many people would have the patience of losing many times in a row. Most people are casual gamers and there are times where they play a multiplayer game that they don't know. In that case, even if they are new, they would still like to have a chance to win.
And there really is no way to balance skill levels in NS, although I agree with you wholeheartedly. If I were to propose a quick solution, I would force everyone to be random. Though it could be flawed at times, it would be harder for amazing players to choose the better team.
Players falling behind are given speed/acceleration boosts (maybe better handling as well). This leads to more interesting races as they field stays relatively tight throughout the race, but can also lead to a very annoying "yo-yo effect" where a superior player is in the lead for the entire race, only to be overtaken right before the finish line because the player behind him was given an advantage.
No system will ever be perfect.
The other side of the coin is coop; rather that working against each other you work together.
Looking back at ye olde snes and megadrive/genesis there was a time where this burst to the fore with probotector/contra, gunstar heroes, even bomberman had coop back in these days.
Rather than 'rubberbanding' I think coop is a far better way to be introduced to a game; the more skilled players can help the newer ones and dying isn't quite as hard on people's pride this way :p
This way they can develop the base skills needed for a competitive game; it helped me introduce many a person to bomberman for example, where with later bombermans where the coop wasn't included they won't play because I usually grind them to dust without trying... even when I'm holding back :s
while team vs team games are a kind of twisted coop I don't believe they really fit the bill; proper coop where the enemy is a computer swarm helps a lot more as it stops someone eliminating the whole team before the newer players can learn anything and it allows a gradual increase in difficulty so that players can learn at an appropriate pace :3
One other point of note is that it's easier to learn and unfortunately master something if it's static. If a level has the same layout every time it's played then it will help newer players learn it; the problem is it also allows experienced players the rather powerful trait of familiarity and pre-determined knowledge :s
DoA2 also had coop, which was also very fun. You didn't fight simultaneously, sadly, but you could switch in and out on the fly - so quickly that one player could start a combo attack, knock the opponent in the air, then swap with player 2 who could then juggle the opponent. Great fun. Especially the tag-team attacks where both players would gang up on one opponent briefly.
OH! And Ico. Ico was fun in coop. Especially yelling to player 1 to save you when shadows carried you off. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And most MMORPGs are PvM, which is also coop.
Yep, coop ftw. Let's have more of it.
Games like Planetside or Allegiance allow novice players to perform less demanding tasks like scouting or acting as a medic. These tasks aren't as skill-intensive, but they are still vital to the team and they can be made fun. This allows new players to ease into the game world; after learning the intricacies of piloting a scout in Allegiance, someone will be more well equipped to dogfight with better players.
On the other side of the coin, there are classes that only the most experience players can use effectively. Using these classes, the best players lead the team, setting the example for average and novice players. All in all, it's a great system imo, because everyone can find <i>something</i> to do that will help their team equally, just in different ways.
Come to think of it, that describes NS rather well at the moment. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Games like Planetside or Allegiance allow novice players to perform less demanding tasks like scouting or acting as a medic. These tasks aren't as skill-intensive, but they are still vital to the team and they can be made fun. This allows new players to ease into the game world; after learning the intricacies of piloting a scout in Allegiance, someone will be more well equipped to dogfight with better players.
On the other side of the coin, there are classes that only the most experience players can use effectively. Using these classes, the best players lead the team, setting the example for average and novice players. All in all, it's a great system imo, because everyone can find <i>something</i> to do that will help their team equally, just in different ways.
Come to think of it, that describes NS rather well at the moment. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though it may apply to aliens, where beginners can just build res and hives, on marines, you're only as good as your aim since everyone can build, although you can have the skill of strategy, but the commander is better equipped to do that.
I forgot the basis of the other multiplayer type: co-op. When a better player is paired with a losing player, results can be mixed. If the game is balanced to keep a challenge for the harder player, the beginning player may be blown away by the difficulty. However, if it is too easy, the pro player can fly by the levels. So now the rubber band and pure multiplayer systems have a double conflict here: managing the balance of performance between player to player, and the balance between both players vs the computer.
You also have to look at singleplayer to see how a player prefers his game. If the individual wants to start hard from the get-go, he will most likely transition better onto online games, than those who select easy. The difficulty levels act as an introduction to see what there needs to be done. The higher difficulty levels are sort of an direct balance, meaning as your skill level goes up, the difficulty gets higher either usually by weakening your character, buffing the enemies or a combination of both. The question is, should this type of balance be present in multiplayer?
Cooperative is good however you'll find with people working together then the good players won't want to be 'dragged down' by the newbs.
Class systems are great, they add gameplay as well as giving new players a use in the game. However while it helps them learn the game at some point they will have to try the tough classes and their experience may not always transfer over.
hahaha i i see it now - a pr0 player making 2 dmg with each hmg bullet and a newbie with a lmg doing 30 dmg a bullet ^^
The skill curve was nearly infinate. You never fully mastered the jetpack, or the disc launcher. And even if you did in theory, there were still 20 other factors you could take part of that were also just as skill-based.
If you were new, you could get a heavy, sit in your base, defend your generator with a mortar and some turrets, and still do your team a great service, and end up near the top of the kill board. Once you got a little better, you could move up to being a stand-off heavy, a moving artillary platform. When you got a little better, you made the move to light armor and started dueling. When you could hold your own in a dual, you started flag-guarding and capping. When you had those basics of the game down, you started with vehicles, loadouts, base raping, sniping, mid-fielding...
There was no class system, and there was no rubber band effect. It was a purely skill-based game, and yet the newbies could still contribute to the game just as much as the 4-year veterans. Why? Because there were scores of roles that needed to be played. You needed people doing the jobs that were 'low skill,' those that had a small learning curve with a big payoff. However, skilled players in those low-skill positions could absolutely rip up as well.
The key to Tribes 2's ownage, and the key to an awesome multiplayer game, is the inclusion of many varied skill curves, that slope towards infinity at different levels. There should be no point at which a player's effectiveness plateaus, yet, the time needed to reach that kind of level should be insurmountable.
Let's invent a game for the sake of illustration. Call it "Deathrays." There's 3 different weapons: a hitscan weapon that does 50% damage on hit, a projectile weapon that fires in a straight line, dealing 100% damage with a small splash, and a grenade-type weapon dealing 200% damage with huge splash. Player also have a jetpack, although the effectiveness of the jetpack is equal to the weapon they are carrying.
In this simple example alone, there are 3 distinct skill curves. First, the Grenadier; He has to learn to lead his weapon, account for range, timing, prediction, and ammo conservation, as well as movement skills with his decreased energy. The skill curve for this guy is quite daunting, but someone who has mastered all these skills could rain death for minutes straight.
The 'Projectilist' has to learn timing, prediction, but not so much range, or working with the splash. It's also easyer for them to move. This means that it'll take less time to master, and that they'll still be able to do great ammounts of damage.
The Sniper, finally, has to only learn prediction, and her movement is incredibly forgiving. She can hit whatever, wherever. The only thing is, she needs a good two shots to kill someone, so although she'll be deadly when mastered, it will take some time to get to this point. However, she'll acclimate to the game rather quickly with the simplicity of her role.
Now, all three of these weapons would be required. You couldn't only have Grenadiers, because you'd get destroyed by a team of snipers. You couldn't only have Snipers, because the Projectilists would evade you, and force you to move around so much you couldn't get a shot off. And, you couldn't all be projectilists, because you'd need to be at medium range all the time; and a sniper or a grenadier would get you eventually.
All three roles would be needed, and all three roles would play totally differently.
This example can be reduced to a few principles:
<ol type='1'><li>Require combined arms for a team to be effective.</li><li>Make each weapon or role have a playstyle so unique that the skill curve is radically different.</li><li>Make each weapon just as powerful as the others, with a weapon for every place and a place for every weapon.</li></ol>
Definitely QFT. I've always believed in those principles and so few games seem to adhere to them. However I will say that as tribes had various different armours etc then there basically were classes. Class systems just make it easier to fit into roles and it is those roles, those key jobs, that make the game playable for all skill levels. Just look at the HW or Engy from TFC.
Funnily enough, CS fails on all 3 counts.
Hmm, I'd have to disagree. Simply because there was capping, dueling, vehicles, deployables, defense, offense, and each armor served a purpose there. There were so many variables that the armor just altered the playstyle for what you were trying to do... a defense made up of all heavies would get destroyed by a bomber that would blow them up faster then they could get out of the way, or a light with a shield pack that could grab-and-go and be untouchable. In the same way, an assault without HO was easily turned aside, as it had no backbone.
Tribes was a fluid system, whereby any combination of arms was deadly in the hands of a rightly-trained person. (Point and case, I clanned with a guy who would swear by Medium Shield/Elf, with a plasma gun. Wierdest combo ever, but he'd kill everyone. Elf them to the ground, flip on the shield and then toast them point blank with the plasma. I don't know how he did it, he was a freak.)
So, ideally, what would be the best system for a team-based game? What would be the best objectives? Is CTF counter-productive to this, or is it the epitome of a team game?
Personally, I think it'd be awesome to see something like Team Rabbit for T2. HL2 could do this awesomely. There'd be a number of classes, each with a specific purpose:
<ul><li>Runners: No guns, but can jump, sprint, and is the only player that can carry the ball.</li><li>Kickers: Can spike the ball long distances, and carrys a long-range stun gun, with a neglegeable, but stacking effect to slow a carrier down.</li><li>Linebackers: Slow, very little mobility, but the only player that can damage or kill another player. Has a laser that does damage ramped on dimishing returns unless augmented by another laser (Think UT2003 Link Gun) or stacked with a stun-gun.</li><li>Goalie: Can use Grav-Gun to gently push the ball from a distance, can send other players flying at close range. Moves slowly, and cannot leave the goal-box.</li></ul>
Each style of play would be miles away from others. Compare the Linebacker to the Runner. Teamwork is required, you need a mix of all of them to make the game a success.
The best thing about this is that you could mix up the team make-up so much that competitive play would be a constant evolution of strategy. Do you have 5 runners and a goalie for a fast kill? Do you take 2 Linebackers to defend? Do you forsake a goalie for 3 Linebackers, with 3 Kickers going ballistic with the ball? The game has so many factors that it'd take a long time for the 'best' strategy to be reached, and even then the most balanced team is still mediocre at most aspects.
Legionnaired: What exactly are classes but different roles in a game? They just simplify it by giving people simplified load outs and it makes the game easier to balance.
Your idea for a game sounds great imo (although I think it should be a flag instead of a ball just for traditions sake <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) but the problem is the same for any online game. If you can't reach over and hit someone then you can't guarentee they will actually fill the role they are supposed to. Thats why so many games have overlapping abilities for their classes. Even simple team based objectives are often ignored unless you have the promise of individual 'points' which is why so many disliked the canalzone maps for TFC. There just wasn't enough people who cared about doing the goal so they'd all just go sniper or soldier(I personally loved going scout <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) and if they helped the team while they were killing then cool.
Tribes 2 is a more complex game which allows you to decide what loadout you want but in the end you still pick a selection of weapons that will suit the role you plan to play and then you stick to that. Classes are easier in that regard too because you can see exactly what roles need filling in the game without having to ask anyone, again vital for most public servers.
Hmm, I see your point. I guess by the time I got seriously into Tribes, there wasn't exactly a whole lot of newbies around.
I think the problem with FPS is the main point of the game: to kill. If we introduce more objectives other than killing, people can focus on those skills and competition will be split. Like in NS, the gorge's role is usually to build RTs, hives and chambers, while the skulk can ambush, hunt RTs or parasite marines. So that's why I believe different objectives results in a better game for skilled and casual gamers.
And sky, nobody said CS, the game itself isn't balanced. The entire thread is about the problem of skill unbalances in offline and online multiplayer games. On one hand, we don't want new players being frustrated enough to quit the game. Likewise, we don't want to see our hard earned skill being wasted.
I think that a possible nerf system could be introduced, where better players are nerfed. Though nerfed, the pro players would receive medals or icons that represent how "nerfed" they really are, so they would feel some sort of achievement. Too many games make this an option that most people pass up. I'd like a game with this as the main mode, in full effect.
I do think that NS is balanced though, a good fade or JP can deal damage according to skill, sometimes incredible amounts. On the other hand there is many passive skills, like in CO that lend themselves to easy use, such as mines, cloaking, and welding. A newbie can get any one of these and have a decent time doing something alot of people just dont care to do.
In classic, it is harder for a newbie to break in as a marine, since most comms will give guns to the good players, and most newbies dont comm, there is some imbalance. This is helped when some players just go around building, or even better when they follow a more experienced player, actually helping the one their following, and learning the map and all. For aliens its a little easier because no matter what, your res is your res. No one can deny you an upgrade, building, or enhancement. If you want to camp around and go onos a few minutes into the game, you can, and if you want to work behind the frontline as a builder gorge, theres that opportunity too.
I think there is 2 concepts we are adressing though, and CS is a good example of the types. One is Team vs. Team balance, in CS the Ts and CTs are relitively balanced, having many simmilar or same weapons, this is the kind of balance NS<i>most likely</i> lacks. The other type of balance is balance between newbies and vetrans, CS is HORRIBLE at this, experienced players dominate every game and new players dominate the bottom of the scoreboard, which often encourages camping, auto-shotgun, autosnipe, and other weapons, which arent inherantly inbalanced, but can be for a newer player who starts owning a bunch of unlucky vets with SMGs. NS shines in this second type of balance, there will always be some disparity between players, but aside from isolating different players from each other (Halo 2) there is little that can be done to combat this. I would say that given the many options for strategies in NS, both combat and classic, smart newbies will be able to hold their own.