Game Theory Revisited: How to make your game fun


(sachewan) #1

Four years ago, I posted this in an effort to help Splash Damage ensure that ETQW and their future games would not need vast community modding before they are playable in a competition setting. The TDLR of it is to make map scripts and objectives specific to stopwatch mode that ensure a offensive bias, that way times are always set and full holds are a rarity instead of commonplace. Sadly, they didn’t listen.

It’s clear to me now that all of the above is irrelevant when your game has no Public/Non- competitive base. Both scenes feed off of eachother, and separating them both as if only one would appreciate a balanced game is foolish. Brink is a clear example of public server players abandoning it in droves (15,000 average prime time to 500 in a matter of 3-4 weeks) because the base gameplay on a public server simply wasn’t fun. Why was that?

(click)


THIS IS NOT FUN FOR EITHER TEAM

You should recognize what you see in those screenshots above, because the situation is very common. So common, in fact, that I just joined a few (of the last remaining) active servers randomly and was able to take them almost immediately. What you are seeing is the attacking team (or in some rare cases, the defending team) pushed back into their spawn by the opposition and being kept there with merciless gunfire, explosives, deployables, etc.

This is not fun. Not for the attackers, not for the defenders, and certainly not for any new player trying out your game. The attackers are literally stuck in a purgatory of dying over and over, blaming themselves, their teammates, the maps, and the game balance while they catch bullets repeatedly. The defenders might enjoy themselves for a few minutes until they realize that they are shooting down the same alleyway for 20 minutes just running down the clock.

The good news it that there is a solution. I don’t know if you have given up on Brink or working on another game, but either way I think these ideas would help your products immensely.

The Fix

The main draw for any multiplayer FPS is the public server experience. That is it’s bread and butter. That is what 99% of its playerbase will play and decide whether its worth investing time in or not. So that is what we will focus on. While the fix might at first sound extreme, I implore you to keep reading so I can explain my reasoning. Anyway, here it is: Get rid of Objective mode.

I know you guys cut your teeth on ET and Objective / Campaign mode was it’s main draw in the public setting. However, ET also had the problems that plagued ETQW and even still Brink today. A few organized people could jump on a public server of 20+ people and push the attackers all the way to spawn and basically ruin any fun for the rest of the people on that server. This is what happens in Brink all the time, although it doesn’t take an organized group of people, just slightly imbalanced teams.

The struggles you guys go through to keep this game balanced can be sidestepped completely. Look at the various map criticisms you’ll find on these forums and around the internet. You’ll find hate and praise for every single map in the game, because everyone is basing their impressions upon their own experiences. And every map has the capability to end up with the attackers in their spawn fighting to make it 10 feet out.

The mapping conundrum

It doesn’t matter how well you comb over your map trying to finely tune every individual hallway to ensure balance. It’s a lost cause. You will NEVER perfectly balance an ASYMMETTRICAL map. Nothing will ever be 50/50 on a map where both sides are completely different. 9 times out of 10, it’ll end up in favor of the defense, them having a natural positional advantage by virtue of being defenders and not having to travel far to the objective.

There is a reason that only 1 out of your 6 Stock maps for Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory maintained continued use in the competitive scene (Radar). The reason is that the competitive scene values offensively biased maps. But why would competition players want imbalance? The answer is because of the beautiful mode called Stopwatch.

Objective mode is predicated on the false assumption that both sides will have an equal chance to win. This is a fallacy. As I said above, no asymmetrical map, no matter how well made, will be perfectly even for both teams. Stopwatch sidesteps all of this. Stopwatch means both teams play the attacking phase, one sets a completion time and the other tries to beat that time. But Stopwatch also has its own requirements, such as offensively biased maps to ensure that times ARE set, and there is rarely a full hold. That is why Radar was the only one to see continued use in the competition stopwatch scene, while all the others (that you tried to balance for 50/50 objective / campaign) were dropped as soon as more offensively biased alternatives appeared.

But how does this help the public server scene?

This helps the public server scene because times being set is far more exciting and enjoyable than full holds and being spawn camped for 20 minutes, for both sides. This is an area where something born of the competition scene would help improve the public server scene greatly. It’s an impossible job you guys have trying to balance your maps for a 50/50 rate, but it would be very easy to explicitly balance maps for offensive bias. In fact, most of the work could probably be done with spawn timers alone. You could use a dynamic spawn timer system that constantly changes in favor of the offense as the map timer counts on, first starting with 20/30 and every 5 minutes or so reducing the attackers by 5 OR increasing the defense. Ideally, your maps should so greatly favor the offense that a full hold is something rarely seen, so rare in fact that it happening should automatically trigger a team shuffle because the team balance is obviously stacked.

My proposed ‘Pub Mode’ is simple: Stopwatch Standard, Extremely Offensively biased maps. It’s important for a game’s public scene that even though every match will have winners and losers, the losers are still able have some fun. That is why bigger games like Battlefield and Counter-Strike maintain strong public scenes to this day. Even on a losing team, you can still have fun. In Brink right now, the losing team rarely has fun because it ends in frustration. Sometimes you are pinned in your spawn, other times you are the only person trying to do the objective and cursing your teammates for not covering you while you try to repair the crane. The end result is people dropping from the game because they play games to have fun and there are funner alternatives. However, if ‘Pub Mode’ was standard, everyone would get that feeling of doing something critical and being part of a team, because every match would have a team winning or getting close to winning. Not hitting a wall and being stuck in a stalemate as it happens now.

I think I can predict what the opposition to this idea would be from the Splash Damage crew. The main fear would be that Stopwatch is ‘too complicated’ for some average joe new player who just installs your game. Which is probably the thought process that leads Stopwatch to be the ‘secondary’ mode as it is, only used on a small percentage of servers and in competition. However I think you guys have seen just how much you can be punished for assuming your playerbase is dumber than it actually is. Look at the massive backlash to things in Brink that were put in for a ‘dumbed down’ audience (one button does everything). Don’t underestimate your customers. It would literally take a 10 second video to explain the mechanics of Stopwatch to a laymen (Set a time, Hold the time -> Hold as long as you can, Beat the enemy’s time). Another plus of this ‘Pub Mode’ is that if teams are greatly unbalanced, the rounds will go quick instead of lasting a full 20 minutes as player after player drops from the match because it isn’t fun anymore. This will keep people in the game since a new round is right around the corner, and thus a new chance for victory. It would also help to have some ‘protections’, like say if a 2:00 minute or less time is set, automatic team shuffle. Or if a full hold is accomplished, automatic team shuffle.

I can’t stress enough how critical it is to the ‘Pub Mode’ that the maps are extremely offensively biased. It shouldn’t be in question if a team is going to make it to the end of the map, it should be a given. Games will be so much more intense when the defense is constantly on the backfoot, always scrambling to setup a defense while the offense marches on towards the goal. And then the teams swap and they get to have their revenge and take it to the line as well.

So there’s my idea. I really hope you listen as I think these changes can greatly improve the public server experience in this game and your future ones (assuming they are similar to ET gameplay). Thanks for reading this far.


(wolfnemesis75) #2

Not to blow your mind completely, but an argument could be made to the opposite and one that would reap far more reward potentially: MOSTLY Co-op Campaign. Less focus on multiplayer. Expand the Campaign into what some call a “proper” single-player experience by having a Traditional experience with easier settings. Tons of levels, maps and customization with an expanded Campaign=more popular game. Then create separate maps for multiplayer some symmetrical, some asymmetrical.

Competitive scene is not what is holding back Brink, despite popular opinion to the contrary on this forum. Tack on a multiplayer similar to the one we have with streamlined modes and don’t sell it in marketing as a multiplayer-first game. Hammer home the point that: We are trying to make a campaign to rival Portal, Bioshock, and then say we’ll also offer some unique multiplayer modes (similar to the one current) that is focused on Co-op and a couple of modes where offense and defense are weighted. Streamline the modes so its not the core of the game, the campaign is.

An argument could also be made, that the strength of Brink needs to be the setting, customization, unlocks, and some Badges, Medals, unlockable rewards, story and unique gameplay first, and then add some elements of Versus, but continue to make it focused on the Team Co-op experience so that the game is more 60/40 in favor of Campaign. Add a Lobby/Party System. Don’t lock body types at all. Make a “Ranked” multiplayer leaderboard for Stopwatch and base it on Total Team Experience earned divided by 5 (5v5) and one for Stopwatch (8v8). Don’t like sharing Exp with scrubs, too bad. (Give a bonus for being the Objective class and completing Objectives.) Most experience, the higher your rank on the leaderboard.

Go back in time: Current Brink+Expanded Campaign+More customization+more unlocks+Lobby/Party System=More popular game.

Bang=More popular game. :slight_smile:


(sachewan) #3

The thing is the coop that is in Brink it isn’t very fun in Brink even when you are playing with friends. It is a simple botmatch that tries to emulate a real multiplayer game and that’s why it comes off as shoddy. Brink was clearly made in a way that left it with very limited assets as far as game content goes (even with a really long development time), and they tried to get around this by marketing it as something it wasn’t. Check out this trailer they released in 2009 that presents the game to be somewhat more like a traditional single player experience with setpieces, story, character interactions, etc. This was a total illusion and when people bought the game and started up campaign only to see its simply botmatch that was a large part of the initial backlash upon this game’s release.

Brink would have to be a totally different game from the ground up to take it in that direction. It’s a competitive multiplayer game that the devs tried to market as something it’s not (a single player and coop experience). My suggestions are for how to make the gameplay it actually has more appealing to people.

Competitive scene is not what is holding back Brink, despite popular opinion to the contrary on this forum. Tack on a multiplayer similar to the one we have with streamlined modes and don’t sell it in marketing as a multiplayer-first game. Hammer home the point that: We are trying to make a campaign to rival Portal, Bioshock, and then say we’ll also offer some unique multiplayer modes (similar to the one current) that is focused on Co-op and a couple of modes where offense and defense are weighted. Streamline the modes so its not the core of the game, the campaign is.

I completely agree that the competitive scene isn’t what is ‘holding back’ Brink. I don’t get the vibe that people have that majority opinion either. When a game is as broken as Brink and bleeds players at such an alarming rate, competition scenes should be the last thing on anyone’s mind. The game needs to have normal players first before a competition scene can organically form, but it also doesn’t help that Brink lacked simple features from other games like first person spec and demo recording.


(SinDonor) #4

On the flip side, I enjoyed playing through both sides of Brink’s “Campaign” mode. I had a lot more fun than the recent CoD or Halo games’ SP modes.


(burawura) #5

Great post, but I think OP meant objective mode instead of campaign mode…?


(sachewan) #6

Corrected, thanks. I’m still used to calling it Campaign from ET.


(captainofscience) #7

see as splash damage made a big deal about the focus on accessible multiplayer i noticed a large lack of any split-screen/system link. i see this as something that could possibly be done with a title update of sorts. me loving a great singleplayer campaign would have loved to to do the (i will admit, lack-luster) campaign with a friend. i would have found it a great selling point for console players, being able to sit with a friend and really play strategically and do objectives as a team.
i have noticed other threads posting preposterous ideas for splash damage to add. What splash should do is add more guns, a higher level cap (30-35 maybe), smarter bots, and at least system-link if they cant also do split screen.


(lobster) #8

I just bought the game three days ago and those screenshots look awfully familiar. A lot of the games end in this fashion and it’s sad because this game has a ton of potential.


(Zarel) #9

I nod to this. Always, I’d rather have botmatch than a 5-8 hour, linear campaign.


(EnderWiggin.DA.) #10

OP makes some good points. I don’t think the default settings should be as offensively biased as stopwatch, but I would almost immediately add 5 seconds to the defensive spawn times if I could.

I do kind of like the idea of the variable spawn timers to a point. That or smarter dynamic team balancing between maps as I suggested in a previous post. I’d much rather play a close round.

Lastly, SD should test their maps with under the following conditions:

  1. well matched teams
  2. stacked good team (offensive) versus a bad team (defense).
    3)bad team (offense) versus a stacked good team (defense).

#1 This map should not end in a full hold at the first objective. I would argue offense should win at least 70% of the time in objective mode when the teams are balanced, not 50%.
#2 The bad team should not be able to hold the good team. At release, Reactor and resort were examples of where a bad team could hold off good teams. Hell, on reactor, I think they still can.
#3 At no point should the map allow the offense to be spawn raped. Yes, the bad offense should lose, but the map is not fun if a team can be completely spawn raped. Games are supposed to be FUN, especially in the pub mode.


(RabidAnubis) #11

[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;367605]Not to blow your mind completely, but an argument could be made to the opposite and one that would reap far more reward potentially: MOSTLY Co-op Campaign. Less focus on multiplayer. Expand the Campaign into what some call a “proper” single-player experience by having a Traditional experience with easier settings. Tons of levels, maps and customization with an expanded Campaign=more popular game. Then create separate maps for multiplayer some symmetrical, some asymmetrical.

Competitive scene is not what is holding back Brink, despite popular opinion to the contrary on this forum. Tack on a multiplayer similar to the one we have with streamlined modes and don’t sell it in marketing as a multiplayer-first game. Hammer home the point that: We are trying to make a campaign to rival Portal, Bioshock, and then say we’ll also offer some unique multiplayer modes (similar to the one current) that is focused on Co-op and a couple of modes where offense and defense are weighted. Streamline the modes so its not the core of the game, the campaign is.

An argument could also be made, that the strength of Brink needs to be the setting, customization, unlocks, and some Badges, Medals, unlockable rewards, story and unique gameplay first, and then add some elements of Versus, but continue to make it focused on the Team Co-op experience so that the game is more 60/40 in favor of Campaign. Add a Lobby/Party System. Don’t lock body types at all. Make a “Ranked” multiplayer leaderboard for Stopwatch and base it on Total Team Experience earned divided by 5 (5v5) and one for Stopwatch (8v8). Don’t like sharing Exp with scrubs, too bad. (Give a bonus for being the Objective class and completing Objectives.) Most experience, the higher your rank on the leaderboard.

Go back in time: Current Brink+Expanded Campaign+More customization+more unlocks+Lobby/Party System=More popular game.

Bang=More popular game. :)[/QUOTE]

I do agree that Brink needed a more standardized campaign. You still get your class and all, but when people say “Brink tried to move away from a standard campaign”, the reason why the “standard” is there is because it works. Would you feel connected to a character in a book or movie that respawned? I don’t think so.


(RabidAnubis) #12

It wouldn’t be totally linear. You could Switch between classes and body types, letting you play from different perspectives.


(Zarel) #13

Well, okay. It’s not that I’m against linear games given they could be great (eg. Bioshock, Portal). My trouble with such game mode is that no matter how golden the narrative, no matter how emotionally gripping the story may be. It’s clear, they are only built to be played for two-three times. And often I get this impression where in campaigns that have the stronger narrative/story tends to be less replayable.

I’m not against linear campaign, because it shows how videogames, as a medium, can be an effective tool for a new kind of storytelling(interactive narrative). But I’m against linear campaign for it’s weakness; Like a book or like a movie, the more you replay a story/narrative driven game, the less interesting, the more predictable it actually becomes. And I find it bad since the point of videogames is not to be watched, or heard. The actual point of videogames is interaction.

Hmmm…For me, I think it would be okay if they’d add a solid linear campaign for the narrative. But oh god please. As a guy who plays BF2,Q3A,UT,CS:S,XIII,ZDOOM for it’s “pretend multiplayer”, please keep the bots. :slight_smile:


(neg0ne) #14

The OP makes some good points.

Balance is really an issue !! This seperates a good and fun game from a frustrating experience.

But i think there are much easier ways to get more balanced games:

  • rework some maps ( probably lots of work): Give alternative routes to be opened by Operatives / Eng / or Soldj. Or some sneaky ways for the lights to get into the back of defenders

  • Dynamic Spawntime:
    Lets say you have 20 Min. to do an Objective. If the Objective isn´t done lets say 50% after 15 min. the defending team gets extra spawn time so that the atackers get another chance. ( This doesn´t solve the the balance issue if the atacking team is overpowered - seen this many times: atackers just run through ). I´m not a friend of reducing spawntime for ofensive cos that takes away some cruical teamplay elements … means: nobody waits for medics and the team looses even with zero spawntime.

- Vote for XP-Shuffle / random Shuffle:
In an unbalanced game with mostly mature players you can expect everybody to have fun ( remember: CLOSE GAME = FUN GAME ) and be willing to shuffle for a better overall game experience. Fireteams must be shuffled as one so friends can stick together.

Still there will be some kiddies ( the same kiddies that type something stupid and immature like “Pwned” after an completely unbalanced match) that won´t vote for a shuffle but the serversetting could be like 75% yes-votes = shuffle.

@ OP : i like stopwatch the most of all gamemodes but i don´t think it would work out to set stopwatch as the default mode.


(Smoochy) #15

should they just have stopwatch then? would that fix the issue? i personally prefer it as i can attack/defend alternately. i dont really like defending as its less fun and much easier. i prefer the challenge of attacking. i will often swap to the attacking side unless im playing with mates.

to be honest i rarely see locks downs on pubs now. attacking has been made easier and even on CC i rarely see it now.


(.Chris.) #16

Stopwatch requires both teams to be playing for the duration of both rounds for it to be a meaningful playing experience, having people dropping out and connecting through the match as is the case with public servers isn’t ideal.


(Smokeskin) #17

I fully agree with OP, but the easiest fix would be for more server admins to just switch to stopwatch.


(wolfnemesis75) #18

Downside to Stopwatch is the length of time it takes to complete both sides. There has to be some kind of Huge Dangling Carrot to entice people to play this mode AND stick around for both sides! It is the ideal mode of Brink but is not accessible enough. There needs to be some insane leveling bonus for completing both sides of a Stopwatch match. Like a 10,000 EXP bonus PLUS what you get in the match. A big bonus for winning and a bonus even for losing, like half of the winners prize for coming up short. You know what I mean?

Make it so people are like, “You know you get the most EXP in Stopwatch and can level up a character in no time in that mode!” “Let’s go play Stopwatch then. Why are we wasting our time in these other modes!” You know what I mean?

Or have some Stopwatch specific Uber Unlockable that you ONLY can get from serious Stopwatch matches. Just a badass outfit or gun you ONLY get by playing Stopwatch. :slight_smile:

Like some demented Track Suit. With flames on it and Nation Specific customization. Only way to get it is by playing Stopwatch. U.S.A insignia on the outfit. British Flag. Etc. An all black suit with white stripes like a Nascar Driver for the Security. And Nation Specific symbols. That’d do it. :slight_smile:

I like this idea so much I may make a new thread. Should I? Or is it a dumb idea? :slight_smile:


(Ix LP xI) #19

Change the way it is played, then.

Make the game randomly choose 3 objectives on three different maps (doesn’t have to be the first objective on the map) and get people to vote for the one they prefer. Then, both sides compete to get the best time on that specific objective.

For example, one game could be the repair objective on refuel, then the next game it could be the demolition objective on reactor, then it goes to the escort objective on aquarium, etc.


(sanDIOkan) #20

there is still people that answer to wolfnemesis?
he just trolls…