Community Question: Campaign Rewards and Unlocks

(tokamak) #121

Well I truly don’t. Adding a development tree to a shooter is not an artificial way of creating depth. Sure it could be handled poorly and create perverse incentives and everything but that’s not an objection inherent to a shooter with rpg-like qualities.

Character development is the base of RPG. RPG’s are usually purely cerebral games, even MMO’s have marginalised the cognitive aspect. This means that the entire genre is no more than a really elaborate Rock Paper Scissors game. RTS games and shooters have an enormous advantage here, regardless how strong the strategic side of the game is, there’s always the cognitive aspect that gets you by. These two sides work synergistic. A good aimer can out-aim a great tactician and a great tactician can out-think a good aimer. This creates an incredibly volatile mixture where players constantly having to asses which approach is the most appropriate.

ETQW is a game where it sometimes pays to reflect on the battle and adjust your thinking yet there are situations where it’s equally rewarding to toss away all stratagems and just brute-force your way through (often completely jeopardising everyone else’s mind-game as well). And most importantly, ETQW is a game where walking that balance is the most rewarding of all. Like a jazz musician working with a few key-notes and then improvising on the baseline whatever feels best and whatever produces the best sound.

I think that defining feature of ETQW can be enhanced by creating an even bigger polarity between the cerebral and the cognitive sides of the game. The permanent layer provides a map for development and allows the player to develop faster during the game enabling enough room to improvise on the side. Making permanent choices opens the way for making short-therm amendments during the game. And then, on top of that, kill streaks (similar system but totally not the same magnitute of rewards like in COD) to add chaos into the mix to shake things up.

(DarkangelUK) #122

What an absolute mess of half thought out ideas and biased thinking. Throw a little of everything together, mash up a vague concept of ‘depth’, fling in a pinch of false ego stroking and there we have it… nonsense. Your idea is on par with a chef combining what he believes to the be the best ingredients of all his favourite recipes and thinking that will create the best dish ever.

Nothing you suggested promotes character development, it all fails when you combine 3 elements… pub play + path of least resistance + ass hats. RPG’s work because it’s down to you and you alone, there is no team to think about or what position you want to play in that team. Pub teams are dynamic, and there is no situational, restricted path developed character that will ever be suit to that. For a dynamic team game you need a dynamic player, forced paths negate that completely rendering any development useless, because the next game you play is completely different. “Oh but this is all down to the player adapting la de da”, no it’s not, this is down to a restrictive system blaming the player for its shortcomings and disguising itself as depth “yes everything changed and the character you developed is useless in this scenario, but it’s up to you to adapt”… there’s your artificial depth. Brink tried this by not allowing you to see the team lineup before joining, or allowing you to switch character in game… we all know where that went and how players responded to it.

POLR also jumps in here where players will only go towards matches their character is best suited to, here I am repeating myself once again… no one wants to purposely be the underdog! RPG’s also promote this, if my items/magic/equips are geared towards Ice attacks and I have the route of ice caverns or lava, I’m going to go the route where I have the most advantage… a ‘tactician’ would never purposely put themselves in the weaker position, so please stop disguising it as ‘depth’ and saying the player just needs to adapt when it’s a bull**** system that put them there in the 1st place.

So back to my original point, no, you clearly don’t understand what so ever.

(tokamak) #123

If you could wipe the froth from your mouth for a moment then perhaps we could have a more sensible discussion. Things like

Nothing you suggested promotes character development,

Just don’t make any sense. We’re not talking about novel-writing here. I’m suggesting to implement it rather than ‘promote’ it. Character development is a mechanic rather than a value or a prestige.

Pub teams are dynamic, and there is no situational, restricted path developed character that will ever be suit to that.

Indeed, that’s the whole point. If everything suited everything then it would just be a zero-sum and could be discarded altogether. What this RPG element does is that it puts players into niche-roles within their team which means they’re favoured in certain situations and unfavoured in others. How extreme these advantages and disadvantages are depends on the extend in which they specialise.

The whole underdog thing becomes pretty tired. I’ve said enough of on that. I can summarise it with that as the campaign progresses the delay in your progress may be deeper but at the same time it also grows shorter because the campaign is drawing to an end. You’d only have to deal with severe power imbalances if you enter in a final phase of a final battle in the campaign and sitting through these 10-15 minutes isn’t too much asked.

(DarkangelUK) #124

Oh sir doesn’t like it when he’s put in his place.

Just don’t make any sense. We’re not talking about novel-writing here. I’m suggesting to implement it rather than ‘promote’ it. Character development is a mechanic rather than a value or a prestige.

There should always be value in something you’re spending time dedicating towards, if there’s no value then what’s the point of it? Oh yes, to fake depth.

Indeed, that’s the whole point. If everything suited everything then it would just be a zero-sum and could be discarded altogether. What this RPG element does is that it puts players into niche-roles within their team which means they’re favoured in certain situations and unfavoured in others. How extreme these advantages and disadvantages are depends on the extend in which they specialise.

You obviously didn’t read what I had to say in my last post, this system actively discourages what a drop-in shooter should be about. This reply alone makes me think you actually understand less than I originally thought.

The whole underdog thing becomes pretty tired. I’ve said enough of on that. I can summarise it with that as the campaign progresses the delay in your progress may be deeper but at the same time it also grows shorter because the campaign is drawing to an end. You’d only have to deal with severe power imbalances if you enter in a final phase of a final battle in the campaign and sitting through these 10-15 minutes isn’t too much asked.

10-15 mins of being steam rolled because a crap system put you at a disadvantage is long enough without having to go through it time and time again, that’s what happens with a dynamic system… dynamic scenarios happen. You throw fixed paths at a dynamic system and you cause guaranteed negative scenarios, but that’s just more fake depth. It’s not like those ‘severe power imbalances’ will ever reduce or go away, you created a system that actively generates them and can never be avoided no matter how much time you dedicate because a fixed path allows them to happen.

(tokamak) #125

You’re inflating the problem to absurd levels. If this is the price of adding in long-therm consequences in a game then so be it. The same problem occurs in arcade shooters where you’re entering into a match highly behind on bodycount.

There should always be value in something you’re spending time dedicating towards, if there’s no value then what’s the point of it? Oh yes, to fake depth.

I honestly don’t know what you’re on about here.

(DarkangelUK) #126

“If it’s broken then so be it”

(tokamak) #127

A full W:ET campaign lasted three whole hours and people were still hooked. I’d argue that it’s precisely because of the the long therm implications of their choices that it made it so addicting. Not for ego or vacuous rank rewards, but because you were working on your ow project, your own plan which is an enormous drive for people.

So yeah a price worth paying. Of course it’s only an “issue” if you could call it that, for the campaign layer and not the two other ones, the permanent layer and the killstreaks.

The easier it is for people to drop in, the easier it is for them to drop out.

(DarkangelUK) #128

There are many reasons why people were hooked on W:ET, to think that it’s precisely due to one aspect that ‘coincidently’ nourishes your POV is naive and ignorant, but nice try. (btw not being a dick here, but it’s ‘term’ not ‘therm’, I know you’d rather know the correct spelling).

I’d argue that a forced ‘underdog’ scenario would cause more people to drop out. Being able to adapt with their own merits rather than having to put up with forced handicaps is a reason to stay, being put in a hopeless situation is a reason to leave, which will always happen with that type of system.

I think you need to play Firefall. It has open world PVE for character development, grinding, resource gathering, working on loadouts, finding weapons to manufacture etc. You then have PvP where you play in team based vs shootouts with your stylized character. Many comments I’ve seen are “when I see beefy assault guy I just leave, it’s hopeless”. It’s a great example of who plays most has the most, though partially reconciled by the fact you can change loadout/frames while in the match. Personally I stick mostly to PvE, there are plenty of team/class based shooters that do it far better. Sounds like it’s exactly what you want.

(tokamak) #129

Definitely. And indeed, I get term and therm constantly mixed up, cheers. W:ET’s success may or may not partially attributed to the long-term play. But it definitely shows that it certainly doesn’t hurt a shooter either.

I’d argue that a forced ‘underdog’ scenario would cause more people to drop out. Being able to adapt with their own merits rather than having to put up with forced handicaps is a reason to stay, being put in a hopeless situation is a reason to leave, which will always happen with that type of system.

Alright, I think we best leave it at this as I simply have nothing more to say on this.

I think you need to play Firefall. It has open world PVE for character development, grinding, resource gathering, working on loadouts, finding weapons to manufacture etc. You then have PvP where you play in team based vs shootouts with your stylized character. Many comments I’ve seen are “when I see beefy assault guy I just leave, it’s hopeless”. It’s a great example of who plays most has the most, though partially reconciled by the fact you can change loadout/frames while in the match. Personally I stick mostly to PvE, there are plenty of team/class based shooters that do it far better. Sounds like it’s exactly what you want.

This is the same issue as with the Brink challenges. Disconnecting the reward distribution from the multiplayer actions is a bad thing. The way you gather your resources and build yourself all need to happen within a multiplayer environment. The whole essence of multiplayer is to come out ahead of your opponent, this can be done by working hard on yourself but it’s equally important to sabotage and obstruct his advancements. When the progression is reserved to PvE just about half the gameplay drops away.

Granted, this is the same issue with permanent rewards, that’s why I think permanent rewards need to be modifiers for the way you grow within the context of the campaign rather than direct upgrades.

(SockDog) #130

I agree with DA here so I won’t repeat what he’s already saying perfectly. Just a couple of points though.

What you’re failing to recognise is that players don’t have simultaneous access to all classes and abilities. The flexibility is there to swap with a minor penalty (respawn) but there is no super player that can do everything. Beyond swapping abilities, weapons, classes etc in game the rest comes down to the actual player to assess where they can best fit and how their skill enable them to do that.

In an extreme example you could take a step back and consider a team comprised of “newbs” and another of “pro” players. Their skills are vastly different and it would clearly imbalance a server. What you’re proposing is to implement a system that would do this via code.

You may enter behind on bodycount but the core game remains enjoyable. Don’t mix the goal (top kills) with the experience (killing). As SD games are less about the kills and more about the contribution to the team, entering a match behind the curve will always make you feel disadvantaged.

(tokamak) #131

I fully recognise that. And I consider it a good thing.

The flexibility is there to swap with a minor penalty (respawn) but there is no super player that can do everything. Beyond swapping abilities, weapons, classes etc in game the rest comes down to the actual player to assess where they can best fit and how their skill enable them to do that.

The basic tools are always there for a player. If he’s good at it then he can get by with it. The upgrades rarely take much more skill to use. They open new possibilities but most of the time they make the basic job easier.

In an extreme example you could take a step back and consider a team comprised of “newbs” and another of “pro” players. Their skills are vastly different and it would clearly imbalance a server. What you’re proposing is to implement a system that would do this via code.

Could you elaborate on this? What makes you think I want one side to be inherently disadvantaged?

(DarkangelUK) #132

To clarify, Firefall PvP also gives resources as well as XP for playing, and weapons/frames/modules etc. are bought with those resources… think of it as an interactive UI by visiting vendors and purchasing stuff from them. You aren’t forced to play PvE to get stuff, you can PvP till your hearts content.

(tokamak) #133

Alright, I just don’t think PvE should be a factor at all. Only when PvE can be influenced by both sides it becomes interesting, like the old Alterac Valley in WoW.

(SockDog) #134

I was referring to existing games (ETQW for example), your argument seems to be that everyone has access to everything and so the experience in “simplistic”. This is not true, they have the ability to adapt (as pointed out, a necessity given the multiplayer pub nature of the game) but the adaption is not so free as to grant each player all the tools all of the time.

The basic tools are always there for a player. If he’s good at it then he can get by with it. The upgrades rarely take much more skill to use. They open new possibilities but most of the time they make the basic job easier.

As I said about Brink. If the upgrades have little impact, why include them and give people the impression that they must stick with their chosen build even if it’s to the detriment of the team? As I said before, all those builds and abilities then need to be balanced in the maps to give them some value and distinction, the only way to do this is to remove value from the core player or a player without the ability despite any skills they may have within the game. It’s both a cheap means to remove skill while giving the impression of it and also a blatant contradiction that it adds depth but doesn’t add depth.

Could you elaborate on this? What makes you think I want one side to be inherently disadvantaged?

It’s a simplified example to illustrate how random team composition can impact the quality of the game. What you’re proposing is that as well as a skill barrier (which could be dealt with to some degree by matchmaking) you’d also want to add a second random balance to the game by implementing character builds that may or may not be appropriate for the map AND the team you’re playing on.

(tokamak) #135

Which is too low a cost when we’re talking about anything other than the basic tools to get the job done.

As I said about Brink. If the upgrades have little impact, why include them

They can have enormous impact! They’re just not a necessity.

It’s a simplified example to illustrate how random team composition can impact the quality of the game. What you’re proposing is that as well as a skill barrier (which could be dealt with to some degree by matchmaking) you’d also want to add a second random balance to the game by implementing character builds that may or may not be appropriate for the map AND the team you’re playing on.

The permanent build only consists modifiers. Indirect upgrades. Players are free to venture outside it if they see gaps appearing in their team, especially at the start it would be wise to try and anticipate which direction each player is set to head.

(SockDog) #136

And the answer is to impose limitations on the game and players, running the risk of a series of imbalances and detrimental attitudes to gain what? Some lofty feeling that you’re playing a more intellectual ‘shoot you in the face’ kind of game?

That’s not to say I agree with the existing system as being ‘low cost’, it’s far from it. Placing diversity within the game, accessible at all times allows the design to impose an ever shifting battle field and a wider diversity of skills. What you’re asking for is ‘rock, paper, scissors’ where you only ever play ‘rock’ and if the rest of your team are rocks then well you’re just not trying hard enough. It’s a total fail of a design for a pub heavy multiplayer game.

They can have enormous impact! They’re just not a necessity.

Anything that impacts the game is going to have knock on effects in the design and also the players (not positive ones). You can’t have your cake and eat it here, saying something has value and then also saying it costs nothing to remove it isn’t being at all honest.

The permanent build only consists modifiers. Indirect upgrades. Players are free to venture outside it if they see gaps appearing in their team, especially at the start it would be wise to try and anticipate which direction each player is set to head.

Sure they’re free but what you seem to blissfully leave out is whether that is going to happen. You’re falling into the trap of expecting players to play the way you design rather than design around the way players play. This is exactly what DA has been saying in this thread. You’re going to ask people to invest in something and then throw away that investment. You’re expecting a level of communication that simply doesn’t exist on a pub match. You’re placing players into a situation where their character may have zero impact and possibly up against a team than has exactly the right composition.

And please, don’t duck that one by pointing at the developer and saying they need to do it right. They simply don’t need to do it. It’s this continued need to add value to the 1 point = 1 kill, it’s a concept that is corrupted and it drives ever more convoluted attempts to keep it relevant.

This is why I keep saying, do something different. If you need to give visual and auditory kudos to players base it off something else (as I’ve said before, have the people you’re playing with dish out some sort of recognition, they should be called, IMO, “GGs”). If you need to have a progressive growth tree, base it off the performance of the team not the individuals, throw out XP and rate the teams performance in the background. If you must stimulate the players to make your game seem cool include porn, random heavy guitar riffs or just a classic “holy ****”.

(Rinimand) #137

Any way you want it, my grandest hope is that unlocks, whether permanent, campaign or game length must allow one to truly personalize and differentiate style. Its no use having unlocks where the choice is either so limited or so obvious that everyone ends up unlocking the same things. Allow a recon person to have enough options to really focus on reconnaissance vs sneaking ws sniping.a
Allow a medic to fo us on buffing vs life saving vs supplying. Allow a soldier to focus on demolition vs weapons vs ammo. Feeling personale ownership of your avatar andbeing able to truly customize what they can do to your style of play is what brings meaning and fu. to gameplay.

(shirosae) #138

Query: What happens when one team is composed entirely of people who have trully customised their avatar to be a medic, and they’re facing off against a team that has a balanced composition? What happens when your team’s only medic has specialised in buffing and what you really need is life saving?

Answer: The specialised player(s) either performs the role they need to perform badly by doing the task without the specialisations to aid it, or they pigheadedly stick to their specialisations and ignore the needs of the situation. Neither of these situations is good, except in a pre-planned competition environment, where team composition and spreading of abilities becomes a meta-game.

(tokamak) #139

An entire team of medics, uhm, geez, that could NEVER work

//youtu.be/ZUuxlIwtOZs

(BioSnark) #140

We weren’t just being medics, since medic is the best GDF combat class. Keep in mind that that was the alternative idea to simply rebalancing teams following an extremely poor strogg performance.

External specialization, player ability and preference, is fine. In-game specialization is also fine. Class, weapon, vehicle and deployable choice is in-game specialization. However, if that in-game specialization prohibits or penalizes player adaptation during a match, it will harm pub gameplay as shirosae said. See MMORPG class-based shooter Global Agenda for an example of harmful static class specialization in public games.