glyphstrip FAQ button
Halo.bungie.org
glyphstrip
Frequently Asked Forum Questions
 Search the HBO News Archives

Any All Exact 
Search the Halo Updates DBs

Halo Halo2 
Search Older Posts on This Forum:
Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts


Responding (long; for everyone)
Posted By: XianDate: 2/3/00 11:59 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Hmmm... (DogFish)

> Well, if accomplishing the goal = winning, that might help
> motivate some. I admit, lots of gamers will find more appeal in
> spreading around lots of high explosives and watching the pretty
> kabooms they made than in actually thinking and working towards
> a common goal. These people are boring (after a point); maybe
> there could be a special kind of game for them - HaloRena or
> some such, and they could all hop in there and frag each other
> to bits while those who want team play can have that elsewhere.
> Or maybe I'm just getting frustrated :)

I agree it helps some, but goals alone aren't enough (TFC/Tribes demonstrate that). Why? Because killing the enemy has intrinsic value and rewards the player in a way that achieving a team goal cannot (typically, unless REALLY well crafted). Take Rainbow6 where the team goal is the same as the individual's (ie- kill all enemy)... however, if it was left at that, then there'd be Lone Wolf Cowboys and Ripped Rambos cutting through the enemy. But R6 ups the lethality and makes you pay when you die... so people team up or pay the consequences.

This is what I'm looking for... not the team goals, but the additional properties added that make those team goals more appealing.

> BTW, what do you consider to be "utilitarian"?

I define it as "seeking maximum personal pleasure while using maximum personal autonomy"... so, in R6, if you go alone you're likely to have an average game time of about 10 seconds in a 3-5min round, during which you *might* kill 2 tangos but are more likely to end up with zero. So, weighed against 5 full minutes of suspenseful gameplay with the promise of 1-2 kill average (higher depending on skill), you go with the team option, even if it cuts into your autonomy.

BUT, if in Halo, I can destroy 10 Covs alone in a jeep w/ an Assault Rifle... that weighs fairly well against being a driver/gunner of a jeep and taking out 20 Covs. Why? Because in the first case you still maintain TOTAL autonomy while still being able to get the same kill ratio as in a team. It's all about freedom. Now, I'm NOT saying that Halo will be like this, I'm saying it would be degenerative if it was (even if the kill ratio was like 7:20 because freedom is worth so much to the "utilitarian" player). Again, this can't simply be solved with team goals, other factors need to come into play and I'm asking people to enumerate them specifically.

> Get more players? I'm not saying Halo should become a job; it's
> a game after all, and games are for fun above all else. But
> point 1, the team goal, seems kind of crucial - it's more than
> an issue of level design, it's an issue of game philosophy. Will
> Halo be a team game? If it is, team players will do well, and
> grandstanders won't.

Sure. But your comments are terribly obvious without stating the specifics... which is what I'm looking for! You've suggested that Halo will only be fun if the players want to play in a team, but I'm aruging that a semi-rational selfish player can be guided into playing a team game (as R6 demonstrates)... so what are those guides? I DON'T think Halo will use (or even can or should) R6's implementation so I'm looking for Halo's solution.

> If Halo is not a team game, there'll be enough bullets, tanks,
> marines and whatnot for everyone to go around. No co-op = no
> personality conflicts.

But that suggests roving bands of independent ronin... barely a team. Sure it's a solution, but an unsatisfactory one, IMHO. Again, why would I (speaking as a selfish, independent player) reduce myself to the role of jeep gunner if I can do damage in my OWN jeep with my OWN AR/Grenade Launcher? (Now this is an easy issue to answer, but these are the answers I'm looking for!)

> If Halo is supposed to be a team game but plays like a solo game
> or vice versa, that's a cockup on Bungie's part.

Well, duh! ^_^ Which is why I'm asking, what can they do to make Cowboys into team players....

> Make it so that BATs don't work that way. Drive off in a BAT by
> yourself and you'll get pureed by Cov anti-tank weapons that
> could easily have been taken out by a Marine with a rocket
> launcher, or however else you want to balance it.

Actually, I WANT to know how to balance it! The way I see it, let's assume there are free respawns, but at a distance as a penalty... well, if I'm selfish, I'll hop in the first available vehicle and take off for the battle front. Even if I die, I get to fight autonomously and get to drive a cool vehicle... I'm not really penalizied. See what I mean?

> Remember the
> first time your Battleships in Warcraft started catching rockets
> from a sub you could've easily seen if you only had a Zeppelin
> to spot them... I think most people would get frustrated when
> their "bad" play wasn't rewarded and either quit
> playing Halo or start paying attention to some veterans and see
> what actually works.

Fine but how! I'm looking for play mechanics! You seem to be suggesting upped damage, so spit it out and say it! ^_^ I'm not looking for an argument so much as to ideas on how to MAKE "bad" plays bad!

> Then, there will be the idiots. The ones who shoot their
> teammates for kicks, always steal the jeep first thing and get
> it blown up right away. The ones who run into a formation of
> Covs slinging bullets and grenades because they aren't
> interested in strategy or tactics but in velocity and
> pyrotechnics.

Well, if you read my first post you'll see I've said it's a given that they cannot be foiled, really... but I'm talking about the utilitarian player, not the jerk.

> How does a game designer address style of play (or lack
> thereof)?

Actually, even they can be controlled. I mean, in R6, a jerk like that has his own resources so he doesn't affect the team. If goes nuts and dies, well then he dies in the first 10 seconds of the game and we don't have to deal with him for another 480+secs... jerks don't seriously degrade the gameplay in this case (unless friendly fire is on... well, then time too boot- but that's not really a gamedesign solution). So ingenious or elegant design choices CAN be a solution!

> We may end up with a lot of invitation-only clan-to-clan play if
> resource allocation is really strict. "You don't play
> smart, you don't play with us". I wish I could think of
> something better.

I do too... booting and invites are bad IMHO, but there is little else to do against llamas, I suppose.

> Making team play appeal to the selfish borders on oxymoronic,
> doesn't it? By definition, the selfish don't derive pleasure
> from team success, they derive it from personal indulgence.
> Please pardon my incoherence, or at least blame it on the hour
> :)

Not at all. For instance, we use legislation to make pollution illegal nationally (even if the pollution generated is insignificant or harms no one)... this way, everyone does the right thing because it benefits themselves in the end (cleaner environment and avoid punishment). Similarly, game rules can be imposed to make people looking out for themselves, do things for the greater good.

It's a good designer that can make a terrific game that people want to play as teams...

But it's a GREAT designer that can make a game that people want to play in teams even if they didn't want to in the first place- WITHOUT seriously restricting the gameplay.

It's a difficult thing to do, but it's possible... which is why I'm asking.

Message Index



Replies:

Fear of Death: Punishment & Reward...Xian 2/2/00 12:53 p.m.
     Re: Fear of Death: Punishment & Reward...DogFish 2/2/00 1:20 p.m.
           Hmmm...Xian 2/2/00 1:49 p.m.
                 Re: Hmmm...Regdren 2/2/00 3:31 p.m.
                       Re: Hmmm...Adam 2/2/00 10:35 p.m.
                             Well...Xian 2/2/00 10:54 p.m.
                                   Re: Well...Adam 2/3/00 12:24 a.m.
                                         Re: Well...phayd 2/4/00 8:53 a.m.
                                               Re: Well...o 2/4/00 11:51 p.m.
                                                     Re: Well...phayd 2/6/00 4:44 p.m.
                                                           I never mentioned this before, but...Stryker 2/6/00 5:37 p.m.
                                                                 Re: I never mentioned this before, but...phayd 2/7/00 4:28 p.m.
                 Re: Hmmm...Desio 2/2/00 3:31 p.m.
                 Re: Hmmm...DogFish 2/3/00 4:24 a.m.
                       Responding (long; for everyone)Xian 2/3/00 11:59 a.m.
           Re: Fear of Death: Punishment & Reward...Br'fin 2/2/00 1:50 p.m.
     Re: Fear of Death: Punishment & Reward...Ragnarok 2/2/00 6:00 p.m.
           Re: Fear of Death: Punishment & Reward...Giule 2/2/00 8:30 p.m.
           Re: Fear of Death: Punishment & Reward...mud 2/2/00 9:13 p.m.
                 Re: Fear of Death: Punishment & Reward...Ragnarok 2/3/00 10:13 a.m.
     limited lives theory + ramblingXZCion 2/2/00 8:45 p.m.
           Re: limited lives theory + ramblingRagnarok 2/2/00 9:27 p.m.



contact us

The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.