12 replies to this topic

[Strill]

I've played a lot of online games, and there's some games that get me really frustrated. Not because the game itself is bad, or because I've played poorly, but because my team was not interested in playing the game. "How could that be?" You ask. "Surely someone who logs in and joins a game is interested in playing it." Well unfortunately that's not the case. Sometimes the game is set up in such a way that what players find enjoyable, and what it takes to win are very different, and trying to get anyone to compromise is like herding cats. One of the biggest examples of this is the World of Warcraft battlegrounds. You see most people join battlegrounds because, predictably, they want to battle. Unfortunately World of Warcraft is set up in such a way that the most efficient way to win most of their battlegrounds is by not battling. Game types such as King of the Hill and Capture the Flag are won by heading straight to the goal, running from any enemy that gets in your way, and fighting only when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately the players often just want to kick back and kill dudes, and don't care about collecting flags. So if a player has the choice between claiming an undefended flag, gaining points for their team (which involves sitting around doing nothing), or joining a fight already in progress (and having fun), they'll very often just join the fight in progress and ignore the advantage they could've claimed towards their team's victory. I say this not out of spite or anger, but simple fact, and I have a 15 game 100% loss record in the Warsong Gulch Capture the Flag map to prove it.

Other poor game design decisions can also make the fun choice the wrong choice. For example, designing a character class such that it is integral to the success of the team, and simultaneously disproportionately unpopular. (i.e. medics when done poorly). Players end up fighting over who "has to" be the medic or other support character because it is too useful to ignore but too unpopular to find someone who will play it on their own. Even worse are games where contribution to the team is measured in such a way that support characters are never rewarded for their contribution, as is the case in games where kill:death ratio is the only way to be placed high on the scoreboard. In that case the player must willfully sacrifice their own rewards for the sake of victory, further widening the gap between good decisions and fun decisions.

With MWO attempting to make lighter mech classes more useful than they were in MW4, I would strongly encourage them to look at the roles they have designed for each mech and the victory conditions they have designed and ensure that there are no perverse incentives or conflicts of interest built into the game which would encourage players to undermine their own team's success, as there are in other games.

Edited by Strill, 03 November 2011 - 04:24 AM.

[Lasershark]

Many are the times someone announced quite boldly that the correct way to play Alterac Valley was to race past the enemy team, ignore all the objectives, and pile into the General's room. It's infuriating. There are at least 4 ways to play AV, and I remember how it was in 2006; this way was none of those ways. Alas, no more 48 hour long rounds. I'm not saying it's the proper way to play the round. I firmly believe Blizzard games are founded around the concept that there IS NO one proper way to play. I'm saying the 48 hour long wars were the fun way, and this new way with 0 PvP interaction is not fun. It's not even PvP.

There's a lesson in there somewhere. Not sure where. It's probably buried under that pile of dead battlemasters. Frost mage for life. I'm onna horse.

[Strill]

Lasershark, on 02 November 2011 - 10:49 PM, said:

Many are the times someone announced quite boldly that the correct way to play Alterac Valley was to race past the enemy team, ignore all the objectives, and pile into the General's room. It's infuriating. There are at least 4 ways to play AV, and I remember how it was in 2006; this way was none of those ways. Alas, no more 48 hour long rounds. I'm not saying it's the proper way to play the round. I firmly believe Blizzard games are founded around the concept that there IS NO one proper way to play. I'm saying the 48 hour long wars were the fun way, and this new way with 0 PvP interaction is not fun. It's not even PvP.

There's a lesson in there somewhere. Not sure where. It's probably buried under that pile of dead battlemasters. Frost mage for life. I'm onna horse.

Yup. The objectives are set up so PVP is something to be minimized in the ideal scenario, not to be encouraged. That's exactly what I mean when I say the fun choice is not the right choice.

The lesson seems obvious to me. It's that Alterac Valley has far greater rewards for teams who play gambits than for teams who play defensively, hence the defensive game features go unused. As someone who achieved exalted status with Alterac Valley a week after it was released, I'd say that the fun choice was never the right choice, even back when it originally came out. At first, Alterac Valley was simply an endless match of attrition with both sides throwing themselves at one another and completely ignoring the objectives. Now it's both sides throwing themselves at (some of) the objectives and completely ignoring one another. I say "some of" because less than half of the players actually help capture the objectives. The other half just follow along and engage in the exact same attrition fighting as before even when a single one of them could (and occasionally does) turn the tide of battle.

Alterac Valley has never been in a situation where the "fun" choice is the "right" choice. Even now with teams rushing straight to the enemy base, only a minority of players actually attempt to hold the objectives. It's just as much now an example of the perverse incentives I mentioned before as it ever was.

Edited by Strill, 03 November 2011 - 12:02 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

The battlefield games are not bad at rewarding teamwork actions. They could take a few lessons from that ... people who just want to see who is at the top of the scoreboard can get there through more than killing is you got assist point for damaging mechs and not killing. Points for mech killed if you are also putting them on the radar perhaps to give you rewards for being the scout and so forth.

Some people think this simply encourages people to spam whatever works to get points without truly understanding why that action is important though.

I tend to disagree though - if in game rewards are aligned with good gameplay then players quickly learn that playing as a etam is rewarding in mroe ways than one and will start to do it not just for poitns but because they can see the game winning benefits as well.

Those that play well and as a team no matter what will also not get penalised - they continue playing the way they love and the in game rewards may not mater as they create thier own satisfaction anyway.

[Strill]

Asmudius Heng, on 03 November 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

The battlefield games are not bad at rewarding teamwork actions. They could take a few lessons from that ... people who just want to see who is at the top of the scoreboard can get there through more than killing is you got assist point for damaging mechs and not killing. Points for mech killed if you are also putting them on the radar perhaps to give you rewards for being the scout and so forth.

Some people think this simply encourages people to spam whatever works to get points without truly understanding why that action is important though.

I tend to disagree though - if in game rewards are aligned with good gameplay then players quickly learn that playing as a etam is rewarding in mroe ways than one and will start to do it not just for poitns but because they can see the game winning benefits as well.

Those that play well and as a team no matter what will also not get penalised - they continue playing the way they love and the in game rewards may not mater as they create thier own satisfaction anyway.

You mention that aligning in-game rewards with good gameplay will fix things. Ironically, in-game rewards in WoW are aligned with BAD gameplay. For example, in WoW you are rewarded for killing enemy players, even though that is not the objective, and is very often detrimental to success. With the short respawn times, a single player who simply distracts two enemy team members away from objectives for just 15 seconds has accomplished the same end as if he had blown himself up and taken two enemies with him. The distracting player's contribution allows his team to outnumber their enemies elsewhere, putting his team closer to victory. Even if he dies, his team will still be better off, yet the two players who eventually kill him get rewarded by the game, and even worse, think they've contributed to their team!

Even then there's more to consider than just in-game rewards. There is entertainment as a reward. How enjoyable is the objective to begin with? In World of Warcraft, the objective is to sit on top of a flag for three (or more) minutes, even if no one else is there. That's really really boring, which is another big reason why perverse incentives are such a problem in WoW.

As for making sure individual contributions are rewarded, while assist points do help, the biggest problem is with rewarding support players. For example, the devs have stated that one of the main ways they plan to differentiate the game from other MechWarrior titles is through information warfare and electronic warfare. One might imagine an unarmed light mech devoted completely to scouting. How would that player be rewarded?

Edited by Strill, 03 November 2011 - 04:07 AM.

[Vance Diamond]

The fun choice is ALWAYS the right choice.

Want all other players to play your way? Make/join a clan of people who are like you and play with them. It's that easy, and you don't have to hamstring an entire game to make it better for just you.

Any game designed to force a certain playstyle is doomed to mediocrity and passing fancy in the minds of most gamers- save those who enjoy playing "the right way."

[Strill]

Vance Diamond, on 03 November 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:

The fun choice is ALWAYS the right choice.

Want all other players to play your way? Make/join a clan of people who are like you and play with them. It's that easy, and you don't have to hamstring an entire game to make it better for just you.

Any game designed to force a certain playstyle is doomed to mediocrity and passing fancy in the minds of most gamers- save those who enjoy playing "the right way."

When I say "the right choice" I mean "the choice which leads to victory". World of Warcraft is structured in such a way that boring decisions are often the most strategically sound, and strategic errors are rewarded. For example, in WoW, sitting around for 3 minutes will often help your team win, while fighting the enemy will often help your team lose. You seem to be taking the stance that "fun" is subjective, but I would strongly argue that most people find fighting the enemy significantly more fun than waiting around.

I don't want all other players to play "my way", I want them to play as a team and focus on the victory condition. Just basic fundamentals of any team-based game, yet some games do a spectacular job at discouraging players from these tenets.

Edited by Strill, 03 November 2011 - 04:20 AM.

[Hagan]

In my experience the only way the 'Fun Choice's' can be made is to have an active community giving feedback on issues and for the developers to actively engage with that community. Its a two way process, "Game Information -> Feedback -> Adjustment -> Feedback -> Further Tweaks -> Feedback" and so on. This can happen even before the Alpha and Beta builds are complete, as the developers can get an idea of what we expect, and they can fill us in bit by bit on what they are planning without revealing too much.

So far, I can see an active community wanting this game to succeed. Developers, over to you.

[Asmudius Heng]

Strill, on 03 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

You mention that aligning in-game rewards with good gameplay will fix things. Ironically, in-game rewards in WoW are aligned with BAD gameplay. For example, in WoW you are rewarded for killing enemy players, even though that is not the objective, and is very often detrimental to success. With the short respawn times, a single player who simply distracts two enemy team members away from objectives for just 15 seconds has accomplished the same end as if he had blown himself up and taken two enemies with him. The distracting player's contribution allows his team to outnumber their enemies elsewhere, putting his team closer to victory. Even if he dies, his team will still be better off, yet the two players who eventually kill him get rewarded by the game, and even worse, think they've contributed to their team!

Good point. I should state no system will ever be perfect as there are things that a system cannot give any sort of validation and reward for even when it is well deserved. I do not advocate that the game should validate and reward players all the time, or that it is the only part of creating a better expeience at all - just one component

This is also where community comes in. Something WE have to work on. When someoen does somethign selfless to help you or for the win - TELL THEM that was good work. Convesly, when someone is being a crappy unhelpful player, do nto cuss them out as they will not respond well to this. Engage them in chat in a more friendly manner and you might lead them to better thinking.

Quote

Even then there's more to consider than just in-game rewards. There is entertainment as a reward. How enjoyable is the objective to begin with? In World of Warcraft, the objective is to sit on top of a flag for three (or more) minutes, even if no one else is there. That's really really boring, which is another big reason why perverse incentives are such a problem in WoW.

Oh you are spot on there. This can be overcome with good game design in some cases. Defnding a point behind enemy lines will never be done even if it is crucial. However, the use of a commander who can be more dynamic in commanding where to go and why brings more purpose.

again, the attitude of the individual is variable and requires human interaction to change not just designed way to steer in the right direction.

Quote

As for making sure individual contributions are rewarded, while assist points do help, the biggest problem is with rewarding support players. For example, the devs have stated that one of the main ways they plan to differentiate the game from other MechWarrior titles is through information warfare and electronic warfare. One might imagine an unarmed light mech devoted completely to scouting. How would that player be rewarded?

If the scout got opints for every mech killed that was on his sensors because he was providing data to his team and should be rewarded you could gain addition poitns without even doing much except your role. Perhaps the scout calls in arty strike from a commander - they might share the points from damage. If theer are capturable points then scouts would be likely ones to do some behind the lines capturing and get additional points that way ... lots of options but it depends on how the game types are going to be setup.

The old system that they lower your weight the more points you earned against bigger mechs in MW4 might also help light mechs.

Good points though man - its late here so forgive me if i am rambling

[Strill]

Asmudius Heng, on 03 November 2011 - 04:28 AM, said:

However, the use of a commander who can be more dynamic in commanding where to go and why brings more purpose.

I strongly suspect that this game may be inspired by Savage: The Battle for Newerth. In this game, one player is chosen as the commander and plays the game in an RTS format. The other players are units and receive rewards for obeying the commanders orders. Many of the things they've described so far, including an overhead map, airstrikes, and intel being relayed to the commander specifically rather than the whole team suggest something along these lines.

[Inappropriate849]

There are several proven ways to encourage teamplay. Battlefield series, as mentioned, is a good example, although BF3 is a huge step backwards.

MAG for PS3 has even more extensive teamplay mechanics, with four-tier command structure (grunt, squad leader, platoon leader, officer-in-charge). Platoon leaders can assign orders to individual players in their platoon, who get points for attacking/defending the target. OiCs can assign orders to platoon leaders. They also have additional perks (air strikes, sensor sweeps) that they can use. Everything is done without voicecomms (although they help of course) and with a controller, so a PC implementation would be even easier. The system works extremely well even in PuGs, and is the gold standard of teamplay as far as FPSs go.

The key is to align the point system to rewarding teamplay over kills or K/D ratio. In fact, just reporting K/D ratio itself encourages deathmatch-style gameplay.

Edited by CaptainSodom, 03 November 2011 - 04:43 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

I am totally divided about this idea actually. I love the idea of a commander, but should it be a fighting commander or an RTS comander.

In BF2 you could be both. Most good commanders stayed back on base and hid out of the way then went into the map screen and commanded ... but in a random match most got bored or annoyed no one was following orders so just went out and fought anyway.

In organised games the comander was always an RTS commander though.

So for pickup games I wonder if a commander wouldbe in a mech and also doing command stuff or off field ... i just dont know what would work better.

BF2 also had squad leaders who had limited command abilities ... i kinda like this too having lance leaders who would get thier orders from the commander to lead the lance and command them on a more micro level ... anyway rambling again

[Lasershark]

A Raven has very limited weaponry. What it does have is a Guardian ECM keeping you off enemy sensors and a Beagle probe keeping your opponent onscreen at long range. Keeping your team in range of the ECM while pinging an incoming lance visible on your probe sounds pretty valuable to me. I don't know how you'd measure and rate the proper usage of these items, but if it could be done, it would make a decent scout as important as the baddest Daishi in the galaxy.