Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: So you guys want specifics on game design eh.. | |
| Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 11/13/09 11:50 p.m. |
In Response To: Re: So you guys want specifics on game design eh.. (Hawaiian Pig) : : No, I don't think we think that. I don't think that. What I think is that
: I can play chess, but I have no idea what the name of the opening is when I
Yes, and it frankly would make a lousy experience as an XBL-style game precisely because of its increased depth and higher skill ceiling. I skipped over it with just a line earlier in the thread because I didn't want to rehash it, but here goes. For matchmaking to function, the critical variable is population size. The things that affect this size are the number of concurrent players connected, the number of players in a given list, and the distribution of skill ranks. When any of those drop the potential player pool too low, bad things happen: delays, mismatches, and compromises on good connection quality that lead to drops. This is why there is no server browser. Left to their own devices, each server with its individual settings and decentralized controls becomes a playlist with a population equal to the number of players on the individual server. Variety of gametypes dries up; marginally popular maps and games dominate, minority ones wither on the vine. Raising the skill ceiling would have the predictable effect of spreading out the distribution curve of players across the skill ranks from 0 to 50. I'd love to see the current curve, but I think it is self evident that raising the skill ceiling would ultimately move the average and median skill levels down and reduce the size of the population in any arbitrary rank. This makes it more difficult for the system to make matches. More often it will resort to mismatches in order to create matches. Now if, for the sake of argument, these changes don't actually change the order of player ranks, from top to bottom, then the change might seem insignificant. After all, instead of a player being matched with someone 2-3 ranks higher he's being matched with one, say, 5-7 ranks higher-- but they are the same players. Except now, with the higher skill ceiling, those players are able to win more convincingly than before (all other things being equal) because the tweaked game-- more BR starts, less BR spread, perhaps timing-based techniques like BXR are allowed or even openly implemented, etc etc) allows for the higher-ranked, more-skilled players to open up the gap between themselves and other players. The skill distribution spreads out: the top ranks pull farther away, the median spreads out, the bottom drops off. The curve flattens, and the flatter the curve gets, the harder and harder it is for the system to get a match. The people at the top win more often. Everybody else does the same or less often, except now you wait longer for a match (unless they just tell the algorithm to give up and widen the match characteristics) and now when you do lose a match you lose it more convincingly. Doubtless the response to this will be that players will respond to the more challenging core game mechanics and will improve their play. The curve will recover except the median level of skill will be higher. Except this will not happen. It will not happen because the majority does not take your approach to playing the game. When it becomes more deterministic, when you lose half your games but get trounced in the half you do lose, many players will not be spurred to think longer, work harder, and get better, because they do not see Halo as their second job. They see it as fun and relaxation. The competitive aspect is secondary. : Would adding a compelling narrative and backstory to the two warring factions
: If there were a social element to party chatting during chess, would changing
: Perhaps due to lack of complexity in strategy (maybe: once wave 4 hits you
: It's here that I think designing with the higher level (again, the term is
: : I think this assumption is, in nearly every important respect, wrong. Just : I'm not sure why you're so vehemently against the sports metaphors. ( Part of
I'm not against sports metaphors per se. I'm against flawed implementations of them, some of which seem to be intentionally deceptive, like the b-ball shot clock reference, in which the change suggested (increasing the time on the shot clock) is absolutely the inverse of nearly every kind of change suggested to make Halo more competitive. : : If the requirements of the competitive gamer require core game mechanics
: Halo, to some extent, like chess strikes an admirable balance when you look
: That said, I do think this can be tweaked, and so does the developer. AR
: It's no surprise, then, to see that there's either considerable discontent
I'm unsure where the basis for your assertion is that "so does the developer". What I get from the above is: 1) BR starts allow for a higher skill ceiling
If the developer also believed things can and should be tweaked, I'd expect they'd be replacing AR starts en masse with BR starts. Is this what is happening? : : You just keep saying the same things. You admit that as the audience
: And you frustratingly insist that it's impossible and throw up your hands. I
: : Is it your assertion then that Halo, or perhaps merely ODST, is : I'll reiterate here: Halo strikes an interesting mix of the higher level
: I'm rambling, but do you not see how these concepts apply and can enrich the
I find it odd that I can read nearly everything GhaleonEB writes on the subject and agree with most of it, and you seem to agree with it also, but you disagree with me. One of us is misreading someplace. With specific regard to ODST and the firefight mode, I can't comment yet as my copy only arrives next week. : : The movie industry is making interactive movies? News to me. I thought
: Hah, nope, but the video game industry is. :) : : Honestly, beyond this point I had extreme difficulty in extracting what it
: This is really unfortunate, as the aim of the post was to attempt to
I did. I reread it several times. I was honestly able to extract very little from it that was not very theoretical, and what I did extract, I could not apply to Halo, campaign or multiplayer. I found this odd given the subject of the thread. These are not "specifics on game design" to my mind. They were very armchair design, game theory ideas about what kinds of general concepts are good to embody in a game. Most of them I have no quarrel with, but like all things, it is a question of degree. It's not a question of whether complexity is an absolute good. The question is, how much of it is enough? Your arguments don't seem to admit the possibility of an upward threshold for complexity and skill ceiling-- a point beyond which only the most skilled players have fun. It seems to me reasonable to assume that such a threshold exists. In that case perhaps my argument is unfair in that I am asking you to prove a negative-- to prove that such a threshold does not exist. I hope the above bit about matchmaking and skill ceiling does demonstrate exactly that idea-- that at a certain point the skill ceiling becomes so high that only those near the top are having the kind of experience they can call fun. The rest are having a kind of experience that, with sufficient input of work and improvement, would eventually lead to fun. That is not the same thing. : : Your (ahem) 'casual' dismissal speaks volumes. : The volume it was intended to speak was to say: Come on guys, this should be
It is not. You proceed from the false assumption that we share a set of assumptions. What I think Wu and I have been trying to get through is that idea-- that our conclusions differ because our premises are so very, very different. Your only response to that seems to be that it'd be better for us if we shared your premises. We disagree. : : I think where the accusations come in is where it is assumed that better : Do I think they're right? Wu is right, that was a typo. That first right should've been a wrong. I think they made some of the best decisions they
Very gracious of you! I'm glad we have your permission to enjoy playing casual Halo, even if it does offend your sensibilities :) I still feel, and have attempted to
On the contrary. In my experience, the lower the skill levels in a given population-- or, more specifically, the broader the range in skill levels-- the more compromises are made in pursuit of having fun. Touch football instead of tackle. No fouling out. Pickup hockey without offsides. Pay-for-play leagues with no slap shots, and no checking. Differing positions for three point lines. No shot clock. Half-court games when you don't have enough players. Playing tennis on two bounces. Mercy rules. Every day on every playground the strict rules laid down by professional organizations are compromised so that they don't get in the way of fun, particularly when a social group of widely varying skill levels participate in a context where social interaction is prioritized over the accurate representation of skill-- where the point is not determining who the best is, but just having fun. : The difference between sports and Halo, here, is that we must constantly
Exactly. And when the single court contains pros and amateurs, the appropriate response is to take the amateur rules and use them-- not the pro rules. That is, in fact, what happens. I've played pickup hockey with NHL players in informal settings, and they don't insist on everybody following NHL rules during those games because it will help everybody improve. They chill out and have fun like everybody else. (Okay one guy did break the slapshot rule just once, but he just lost his head for a second.) : That said, I made these concessions and continued to play Halo. Why? I
It is kind of condescending to phrase it that way. Secondly, if you continue to insist that the game really can and should be changed as you suggest, that tends to give the lie to the idea that you've made a concession. It's like the choice between engaging Iran or employing trade sanctions. You aren't really agreeing with us, you're just staying engaged so you can push your point of view :) : Of course, these concessions are similar to how the lore junkie in me would
The M6D was obviously fashioned from pure Unobtainium which can now no longer be obtained. : a goatrope is a cool guy. cool guy can be broken down further. guy is a
I guess cool doesn't mean cool anymore. It was bound to happen, I guess. With all the words for things that used to be bad becoming good (sick, ill, wicked) I suppose it was inevitable. : : Let's put it this way. With regards to multiplayer, replayability for some : Agreed with that. : : If this is the case, increasing the skill ceiling only increases the : Should this not, by definition of the matchmaking system, place them at a
I think I addressed this up top. Yes, they will win as much as they lose. When they lose, they'll be getting schmucked because the higher skill ceiling allows for it. This will likely lead some players to quit. There are players who also consider themselves 'competitive' who dislike matchmaking specifically because it does not allow them to cater their gameplay time to exclusively arrange for lopsided victories against weak competition. They want server browsers. What will the ones who feel like that do when not only are they losing as often as they win, but losing badly and being humiliated? I haven't even gone into the potential impact of increased margins of victory on trash-talking and other antisocial behaviors. I shudder to do so, frankly. : We're still cool right? What does that mean again? :)
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |