gamedevlists-design

FW: [GD-Design] Off-line vs. on-line play and cheating

[Freeman, J. <jfr...@so...>]

From: Brian Hook
> Using the MUD paradigm, some aspects can obviously be considered
> solitary, e.g. crafting.  You could do that all off-line, but if given
> the choice, wouldn't you prefer to do it on-line so that you can see
> what's going on outside of your solitary activity.

Oh, I agree.  The online game is ultimately going to have an impact on the
offline game - I think this is desirable in the sense that you really don't
want the player to feel like these are two separate games anyway.

Just looking at it strictly from game-mechanic standpoint:

Like say, if you were to sit down to a blank page and start listing the game
mechanics, setting each game mechanic into a column for "online" or
"offline":

If you write "chat" as one of the things they do, then that goes in the
"online" column, because it can't be done offline.
 
> In my mind, off-line playing is only there if you don't have a choice in
> the matter, e.g. tying up a phone line or you're on a plane.

Ah, gotcha.  I was of the impression you wanted the offline play to be a
bigger part of the overall design.  If you just want *some* things to be
done offline, that makes it a lot easier.

> Using the MUD example again, if you couldn't log-in but all you wanted
> to do was craft, there's no reason (other than hacking/cheating concerns) 
> that you shouldn't be able to do that on a limited local server.

Right, and it's the hacking/cheating concerns that you want to address:  So
maybe crafting can be broken-down into a set of processes and again, you can
identify which ones fit into the offline column, which fit into the online
column.

Using EQ's crafting system as an example:

1. You decide what resources to use.
1a. You decide what to make (in EQ deciding which resources to use *is* the
"what to make" selection).
2. Click *combine*.
3. There's a skillcheck.
4. You either get a widget or
5. You fail and lose nothing or
6. You fail and lose some/all of the resources.

With that crafting system, the only thing you can really move offline is
step 1/1a.

But, you could do a more "offline friendly" crafting system.  Say, maybe
there's a design-phase to the crafting process like:

1. Decide what resources to use.
2. Decide what to make.
3. Decide how to make it (wicked sharp sword with low durability, or heavy
durable sword that isn't as sharp?)
3a. Some other fun/interesting choices about what properties you want it to
have.
4. Store your "design" and use it later, when you've logged in (at that
point, you gather the required resources, point your design at them, there's
a skillcheck (or not), and if you're successful then you get the thing).

> The other problem with the above is that you effectively write two
> games.  We went through this on Quake 2, where there was a huge amount
> of time devoted to writing the single-player portion, and then a huge
> amount of time writing the multiplayer portion, so it ended up being two
> games.  In fact, you'd often meet players who only played one or the
> other part.

Heh.  I thought that's what you wanted. :P

> > Yep, that's it.  Separate characters playing the same game.
> 
> Blech.  I've always disliked this, especially with advancement oriented
> games.  PSO did this as well.  You lose net access for a week, and you
> now have a Level 28 Super Warrior, and then you login and find that
> you're stuck with your Level 4 Wimpy Dude.  It feels like completely
> wasted effort.

Yah, I don't much like that either.
 
> That makes sense, and is a different approach than just separating it
> into two games.  Having them interleaved, but with the option of always
> playing on-line, makes sense.  It makes more sense if you have a linear
> story like Diablo's.

Yeah, I'd take that approach even if you *did* want to make two games that
people could play with a single avatar, as sort of a second-pass once the
core game(s) were designed.  To go back over and see "Ok, where can these
games fit together?"  And especially to integrate the games so that they
don't feel like two seperate games to the player (although, in my mind, they
really would be two separate games at a low level).

But if you're wanting the basic game experience to be Online, with just some
stuff to do offline, then I think I'd approach it on a more granular level:
Visit each game mechanic and see which aspects of it could be moved offline
- even if that requires redesigning the game element so that it *has* an
offline component, as with the crafting example above.

Even things like chat can be given an offline element - compose messages to
your friends offline, and when you connect they'll be delivered.

Or guild politics - voting for the Clan Master or granting titles to
guildmembers or sending (well, composing anyway) orders for your underlings,
and so on.

[GD-Design] Persistency and PvP

[Brian H. <bri...@py...>]

Sleepless night, so I thought I'd blather on this otherwise dead=
 mailing list.

Every successful persistent on-line game effectively sits on a=
 player-vs-environment (PvE) model with additional, optional=
 player-vs-player (PvP).  Ultima On-line is the closest I can=
 think of where there's prevalent PvP, however it can be ignored=
 if you choose (aside from the occasional PK) -- you don't have=
 to engage in PvP in order to advance, you can still advance in=
 other axes of gameplay (trade skills, socializing, PvE).

The popular games that provide PvP as their main source of=
 entertainment are not persistent.  Game play is limited to a=
 session, a level, or until some end-game scenario is reached. =
 This is true whether we're talking about a shooter with 10=
 minute levels or a turn based play-by-mail strategy game that=
 spans 30 days.  The point remains the same -- players are=
 competing until some fixed, known limit is reached and a winner=
 is declared.

This differentiation never dawned on me until very recently,=
 primarily because I never put much thought into it.

The reason for this is obvious now that I think about it --=
 persistent games that stress PvP will tend to favor players that=
 have been playing longer.  This is true in a PvE level treadmill=
 as well, but the difference is that in a PvP environment=
 stronger players are actually detrimental to the newer players=
 instead of somewhere between neutral and beneficial as you find=
 in PvE oriented games.

In a PvE game, with or without minor elements of PvP, the player=
 has one key ability going for them at all times -- the ability=
 to avoid conflict with other players.  They can do this by=
 pursuing the PvE aspect and, when necessary, logging out to=
 avoid the PvP elements.  When you're logged out of a PvE game,=
 you're not put in a position of "losing".

Contrast this with a persistent PvP game.  Either there is a=
 winning scenario, at which point your absence will be=
 detrimental to you or your team's chances, or there is no=
 winning scenario, at which point the PvP element feels rather,=
 well, pointless.  Do you artificially constrain things so that=
 all out victory is impossible so instead everyone is simply=
 jockeying for some kind of temporal superiority (similar to team=
 PvP in an RPG where they may try to capture an artifact or=
 stronghold for as long as possible).

For individual competition (i.e. not team based), this is even=
 worse -- what happens when you join the game late?  Do you rely=
 on social engineering such as guilds (effectively informal=
 teams) to protect you while you gain power?  Or are you just=
 screwed?

So based on my whopping hour of thought on this, I just don't see=
 any obvious or simple solutions to these problems.  The proposed=
 solutions I've seen in various interviews are cumbersome hacks=
 that don't address the core problem, instead they try to fix the=
 symptoms.  For example, a massively multiplayer RTS that=
 "turtles" logged out players can prevent some of the obvious=
 problems, but it sure doesn't actually make the game any better=
 for casual players or latecomers.

I guess there's a real good reason why we've yet to see a popular=
 persistent on-line game that supports PvP as its core experience=
 (or have I overlooked something?).

Anyway, no real point, just typing up some thoughts while I try=
 to get a better grasp on some of these issues.

-Hook