A Game Desing and a Question about Fun with Skill Unbalnce

[123vtemp]

I've been thinking of a game design.

I came across a curious question while thinking about the main feature.

The main feature revolves around power.

Weather you "eco'd" or fought you would gain little advantage over the other.
For example: if players A, B and C are playing a 3 way the odd man out, in this case C gets more eco while A and B slug it out. A breaks off with B and starts to fight c who is massive, spamming from 10 labs.
A however has been in combat so his labs build units faster as a result, and his units tho fewer are more powerful. The two tho different are still on a somewhat balanced face off. The winner wins because of his skill in combat not because of numerical advantage.

Most often in war and many rts, the fights are rarely fair however the unbalance in this proposed style favors the more skilled player instead of the common greater initial imbalance. [which often favors a man in a conflict with a massive starting resource advantage).
Here the upside is the creation of a more level playing field than most, where the most interesting rts is created.

I see a huge flaw here; "How do you make being out classed still fun for the losing player?"
Would a skilled player be able to deny any hope of anther's enjoyment? Or could there be methods to ensure a fun game for all?

[123vtemp]

Some Thoughts About a Fun Game for a Losing Player... And Balance

I do not think eye candy is enough [tho some games seem to think so].
Finding a way to work in small victories that will not hand you the game but will hand you some sense of challenge seems like at least one good option.
An example would be that player Z attacks player Y to draw his attention away from his main attack so player Y cruses that little attempted disturbance but will lose a larger loss when player Z takes advantage of the opening he has created. Both get to have victories, one is simply more significant towards winning the game.
In a different situation player P could send 20 tank to force player Q to have to cope with that problem while player P builds his nuke. Player Q kills the tanks after a skirmish along one of his borders but loses a base to the nuke later on.
A concept that does not work well in TA: "How many assaults can I stand before I am broken?" because with the exponential eco a player can just sit him his but and wait to be massively more powerful. Such is not very fun at all, waiting for time to pass.
Perhaps this game concept would remove the need to "pass time" - the boring part of poor rts.

Does there have to be a player who is losing throughout most of the game because of a domino effect?
How do you not punish a player for a good move and still give the loser a hope?


Unit construction time was often more important in NOTA than metal.
As a result you could lose metal on an attack but gain a game advantage.
Using 350 metal to kill a lab was very profitable even tho you left the metal on their side, you still had a lab intact and the units built while they reclaimed the metal to build a lab to built units, which took them 3x as long as it did you to replace your units lost. This is rarely the case in mods such as BA where your advantage does little to out weigh other directs than aggression.

The defender may have still had fun because he had more to lose but managed not to lose it. he may now win the game because he still has some thing greater that was not killed.


Another way to balance those odd FFAs "the more trouble you cause"(fighting multiple players) the more powerful you can become. exponential growth tho intriguing warps balancing to mere jokes in little time.


Psychological warfare is surely the most beautiful (powerful) part of warfare. And it is the most unbalanced .

[Google_Frog]

Most often in war and many rts, the fights are rarely fair.

By fight I assume you mean individual skirmishes, the entire game 'fights' are very often fair.

By the sound of it you are thinking of a game where what the players do on a large (called strategic) scale does not affect their chance of winning individual battles. Why do the players have bases in the first place?

This sounds like RTT.

[KDR_11k]

In a last man standing FFA it's usually wise to stay out of the battle and conserve your resources.

[Gota]

Good players in an FFA don't slug it out while another ecos..
You could say that FFAs in general(in TA mods) are like that since they do not encourage constant assessment of your enemies enough(thus weaker players do tend to make the mistake of concentrating on one player).
You have to force yourself to reexamine the situation of you and your enemies and decide who to fight or damage next on your own,constantly,without any direct(noob friendly) encouragement.

What I would like to see is a mod for FFA where you have a time limit and once the time limit expires the player with highest score wins.
This would than open up FFA games and make them more about fighting efficiently than diplomacy(ATM the clunky console Diplomacy is key in FFA games).

[123vtemp]

The main hope with this posting was for input about:
"How you might make being skillfully out classed fun for the losing player?"

In a last man standing FFA it's usually wise to stay out of the battle and conserve your resources.

The game concept was to prevent this from having any advantage nor disadvantage. The player's combat leadership would be the only game deciding factors,

[Das Bruce]

Thr main hope with this posting was for input about:
"How you might make being skillfully out classed fun for the losing player?"

In a last man standing FFA it's usually wise to stay out of the battle and conserve your resources.

The game concept was to prevent this from having any advantage nor disadvantage. The player's combat leadership would be the only game deciding factors,

Real Time Tactics is what you appear to be talking about, as exemplified by Close Combat.

[123vtemp]

Yes RTT is the focus of the game play, or at least what will decide the winner. But the "player base building" is important. It creates an objective. You have a reason to field an army. You now also have created a "tough of war" [trying to position your opponent in a bad situation so you can capitalize on it, as he does the same].

Trophies behind the armies, or even multiple trophies that create invisible forces that affect positionings and movements of forces.

Game play is massively affected.

[JohannesH]

Some Thoughts About a Fun Game for a Losing Player... And Balance

I do not think eye candy is enough [tho some games seem to think so].
Finding a way to work in small victories that will not hand you the game but will hand you some sense of challenge seems like at least one good option.
An example would be that player Z attacks player Y to draw his attention away from his main attack so player Y cruses that little attempted disturbance but will lose a larger loss when player Z takes advantage of the opening he has created. Both get to have victories, one is simply more significant towards winning the game.
In a different situation player P could send 20 tank to force player Q to have to cope with that problem while player P builds his nuke. Player Q kills the tanks after a skirmish along one of his borders but loses a base to the nuke later on.
A concept that does not work well in TA: "How many assaults can I stand before I am broken?" because with the exponential eco a player can just sit him his but and wait to be massively more powerful. Such is not very fun at all, waiting for time to pass.
Perhaps this game concept would remove the need to "pass time" - the boring part of poor rts.

Does there have to be a player who is losing throughout most of the game because of a domino effect?
How do you not punish a player for a good move and still give the loser a hope?

Waiting for time to pass is great fun when you have something to pass the time with... That's the whole point in most rts's? Using your time (or resources, whatever way you wanna look at it) in the most efficient way, building units when that's the best thing, or expansion when you can't attack but can defend, and most importantly scouting constantly to see what advantages you have at different points and then understanding how to make the most of it. Of course if you're done a mistake and gotten behind you have to outplay your opponent somehow to get back even.

It doesnt matter so much if your economy grows exponentially or linearly or whatever - what matters is how it grows compared to your enemys economy.

[zwzsg]

What I would like to see is a mod for FFA where you have a time limit and once the time limit expires the player with highest score wins.
This would than open up FFA games and make them more about fighting efficiently than diplomacy

I'd like to create a game mode where the one who attacks gets an advantage. But just keeping track of a damage (or kill) score and a set limit is too artificial: Maybe the timer will ring whilst you're in the midst of a massive assault, making the players feel robbed of a proper ending. So instead of being declared winner after a set time, the casualty count should provide an ingame advantage. TA had a bit of this with the wreckage mechanic: The winner of an engagment gained control of the wreck field, to boost his economy with metal influx. Though, if you valiantly defended, dealing lots of damage, but still died to overwhelming number, the wrecks were not for you. So instead we'd need something like metal given to attacker with each shot, proportionnaly to damage dealt. With some protection against self attacking and other exploits. Or some other kind of bonus than M, I dunno.

How do you make being out classed still fun for the losing player?

Let's code a multiplayer dwarf fortress!

[yuritch]

...So instead we'd need something like metal given to attacker with each shot, proportionnaly to damage dealt.

That sounds very much like experience system we already have, only the effects of high XP should be more noticeable.

[zwzsg]

Well, XP is tied to the unit, I was more thinking about a bonus for the team.

[JohannesH]

But attacking does give you an advantage in pretty much any game? Playing aggressively is so much easier than defending well.

[zwzsg]

But attacking does give you an advantage in pretty much any game?

Not in FFA.

[Pxtl]

But attacking does give you an advantage in pretty much any game?

Not in FFA.

This is why a good FFA game is one that involves an objective other than "kill everybody else" like KOTH or something.

[zwzsg]

Hence this thread and the ideas within?

Isn't King of The Hill about keeping the hill for a given amount of time? I don't like that sort of timer to game end, feels too artificial. I'd prefer something like in Fibre, where controlling the center of the map let you control a powerful artefact. Is KOTH still fun for the losers when one player has fortified the hill and already spend 90% of the needed time there?

[Pxtl]

Didn't say it was a perfect solution, just a workable one. The problem is that KOTH is still generally being bolted onto games with (1) hard to defend home-bases and (2) massively growing economies. This means that you can often ignore the KOTH objective and play the conventional gameplay mode... and also TA-derived games often involve defending massive territories, so porcing a KOTH spot is pretty simple.

If I wanted a good FFA game, I'd go in the opposite direction - something more like Gundam with a fixed-income economy, or even go one further and have very low cap so that players hit the cap quickly. Give the players an impregnable home-base so that they're never *eliminated* from the game. Then focus on objective-oriented play.

For example, I've often thought about making a Gundam mutator that lets you build mines using the Spring metalmap. Instead of harvesting metal, they harvest victory points. The victory point is tied to the mine, so if that mine is destroyed its accumulated victory points are lost.

First player to 10,000 victory points wins. But still, the best strategy would probably be to eliminate the other players - probably you'd want to add some sort of defensive buff like letting each player have some super-defense unit restricted to their start-position.

[CarRepairer]

I see a huge flaw here; "How do you make being out classed still fun for the losing player?"
Would a skilled player be able to deny any hope of anther's enjoyment? Or could there be methods to ensure a fun game for all?

This is a very interesting question. Being that I'm not a very good player, I've found that the game must be enjoyable to play whether you are winning or losing. This is crucial. And believe it or not, perfect balance and game mechanics come second to this fact.

Interesting graphics, cool units with animations and background atmosphere make you feel like the game is more alive. The player participates in a battle where he feels connected and feels anxiety and excitement about the units he controls and keeping them alive. Being closer to the losing end can in fact be even more enjoyable than seeing victory at times because you get to experience a challenge right until the end.

Even when the game is all but lost, the William Wallace "they may take our lives" moment kicks in and you can enjoy fighting to the death and take down as much of the enemy as you can. You may have lost the overall war but you can still relish a few minor victories as your base is overrun by an onslaught of superior enemy forces.

Think about it. It's not chess, it's a video game. It can be pleasing to all the senses whether you win or lose.

[SanadaUjiosan]

Even when the game is all but lost, the William Wallace "they may take our lives" moment kicks in and you can enjoy fighting to the death and take down as much of the enemy as you can. You may have lost the overall war but you can still relish a few minor victories as your base is overrun by an onslaught of superior enemy forces.

Think about it. It's not chess, it's a video game. It can be pleasing to all the senses whether you win or lose.

With BA being a blaring exception, I usually have to embrace this philosophy to have fun. Several games of Starcraft and Age of Empires have ended that way for me... gallantly holding out hope in the corner, hiding behind burning walls and taking out any jerk archers or Hydralisks that got too close before the inevitable end.

[KaiserJ]

ive always thought that in FFA games especially it would be cool if defeated opponents were somehow amalgamated into the conquering force... like, if i kill x player, i have the option after to invite him into comshare mode (and subsequently boot him if he became a problem)