Economy vs Assault (has this been done before?)

[Bhazor]

For me multiplayer ruins creativity in this kind of thing by preventing any kind of time compression.

A management game with any depth or semblance of realism takes weeks of ingame time for anything to happen. What is the action player supposed to do for that time?

[MoLAoS]

In the sense that making life difficult for the designers in charge of balancing the game is a creative endeavor.

If that's the case, then forum trolling should warrant a federal arts grant.

Being perfectly balanced and having to be constantly rebalanced as the meta changes ruins creativity because not only is so much time spent on balance but so many ideas don't even get tried because balance. Singleplayer games are always much better because the designer has freedom to try out new stuff and put in features just to be cool.

[gundato]

Being perfectly balanced and having to be constantly rebalanced as the meta changes ruins creativity because not only is so much time spent on balance but so many ideas don't even get tried because balance. Singleplayer games are always much better because the designer has freedom to try out new stuff and put in features just to be cool.

And you are also restricted by what is feasible to pull off with AI and what people will enjoy.

There are constraints for all kinds of game design. That is why not everyone is a "game designer". It isn't about having an idea. It is about having that idea and implementing it under the constraints of the medium.

[MoLAoS]

And you are also restricted by what is feasible to pull off with AI and what people will enjoy.

There are constraints for all kinds of game design. That is why not everyone is a "game designer". It isn't about having an idea. It is about having that idea and implementing it under the constraints of the medium.

Which medium, computer science or competitive multiplayer? I am fine with the limitations of the former, I dislike the limitations of the latter.

Guess what Gundato, people have fun doing different things.

[gundato]

Which medium, computer science or competitive multiplayer? I am fine with the limitations of the former, I dislike the limitations of the latter.

Guess what Gundato, people have fun doing different things.

Okay?

Fine, if you are going to nitpick on that:

What is feasible to pull off within a given interface?
What is feasible to pull off while maintaining a narrative?
What is feasible to etc in the etc hole?

Like I said, there are restrictions no matter what.

[MoLAoS]

You are the one derailing. Yes there are always restrictions but the industry is obsessed with making the same games over and over and shoe horning multiplayer into it. Ruining the variety.

[gundato]

You are the one derailing. Yes there are always restrictions but the industry is obsessed with making the same games over and over and shoe horning multiplayer into it. Ruining the variety.

It is a natural progression from the laughable statement that multiplayer kills creativity.

What you are complaining about isn't a restriction due to multiplayer. It is due to marketing. All those Dungeon Keeper clones on KS are SP-oriented, but they are "making the same games over and over"

As far as creativity that only really WORKS in multiplayer:
The Ship. Basically half murder mystery, half murder. Works because of humans
Assassins' Creed (with friends): Insanely fun where EVERYONE is a potential threat who can pop out of the woodwork to murder the crap out of you
Splinter Cell PT and CT's multiplayer: SOme of the greatest MP ever made
Dark Souls :p

What you seem to be complaining about instead is the lack of variety over all. And you are right, almost every game is Call of Duty in terms of multiplayer these days. Of course, just as many are Call of Duty in terms of Singleplayer too, which doesn't help. And that was LONG before MP became the selling point of the series (around Modern Warfare, since the first two were strong SP games, and so was Medal of Honor before it).

[Heliocentric]

A management game with any depth or semblance of realism takes weeks of ingame time for anything to happen. What is the action player supposed to do for that time?

Considering Majesty as a template and then extrapolating that to a MMO, consider this. Players growing Kingdoms, hiring action players to tame the wilds or maybe sabotage other kingdoms. Make sure your towns giant rat population doesn't get wiped out, it's important for tourism.

[gundato]

Hmm. I know there have been MMOs built around hierarchies, but have there really been any yet where players work for other players in almost a feudal manner? Some players are lords, some players are adventurers/knights/whatever?

Could actually work out pretty well. A player can either join a hierarchy or be a lone adventurer. And then just use the existing guild-models to handle who can be a lord and the like.

[LTK]

Is the idea to have an economy management game where you are also continually being undermined by infiltrators and stuff? Because that sounds really interesting. It seems like an extreme form of asymmetry in that your enemy doesn't have nearly as much power or resources as you do, but instead relies on stealth and disruption to achieve their goals. Kind of like playing as the Nazis in Saboteur. Alternatively, you could be playing a Cold War simulator. I think there's a lot of potential for war games that do not involve any open conflict.

If you wanted to get really topical, and go on really thin ice, you could make a game about managing an economy in the Syrian civil war, but of course that would never happen.

[sinister agent]

Settlers combat works purely on an economic model heavily supported by extremely restrictive maps and built-in rules about noncombatants because anybody worth their salt would immediately use a tiny raiding force to hamstring your economy rather than meet you head-on.

The original settlers handled this best, I'd say. You could only ever attack military targets (although you could lose some spare settlers if the warehouse they were in caught fire), but capturing such a target would capture the territory around it, burning down any other enemy buildings. A precision strike to capture the guardhouse next to a key bit of infrastructure was one of the key combat tactics of the game, though combat was ultimately just an expression of your economy/infrastructure. I never cared as much for the sequels, but totally lost interest in the series when it gave direct control of soldiers. Defeated the whole point of the game for me.

I suppose you could build something the OP was talking about based on a Settlers model, though, crossed with something like Stronghold. One player building a town and defending it, with no access/purpose for money, instead converting key resources directly into defences/weapons, while the other player must build up a different settlement that cannot produce weapons, but can produce gold, use it to buy soldiers which can assault the enemy.

I think it could be done, and you could have the players doing similar things so there wouldn't be the issue of two of you playing completely different games, and balancing would be easier, but you'd simply have access to different features.

[arathain]

I don't see the limitation of making something playably balanced as being a creativity issue at all. Creators thrive on self-imposed limits. Without trying to trot out the tired examples too much Shakespeare wrote entirely in iambic pentameter, and had to write long monologues to cover costume changes, while making giving the cheap seats the laughs and thrills they wanted, and he produced great stuff.

I'm not the biggest multiplayer gamer in the world, but my time facing off against my fellow man have shown me games bursting to the seams with imagination in theme and mechanics, and opponents willing to use those mechanics in unexpected ways, to my alternating delight and frustration.

I just watched a cast of a Dota 2 match in which the caster was playing Phantom Lancer, whose trick is that his attacks and spells produce temporary clones of himself (who then have a chance of producing more clones). The player would be able to use his clone army to push a lane while he himself went off to the jungle to farm. The enemy would find it very hard to tell if the player was in the lane with his clones. Brilliant mechanic. So much potential for clever play.

I played Dawn of War 2 multi for a good long while, not because I was ever very good, but because Relic are such imaginative creators. Animation, sound, and unit and ability design made the game a joy to play, which kept me coming back even when I was losing.

Single player and multiplayer games bring out creative expression in different forms, but I just have never seen the evidence that one is hampered creativity-wise over the other.

[MoLAoS]

You guys keep pumping the moba thing... I was talking about RTS games. MOBAs don't even have economies or armies or anything this thread is about.

[Nalano]

It is a natural progression from the laughable statement that multiplayer kills creativity.

If I may:

The technological progression of war is predicated on discovering and/or developing weapons or techniques that are unbeatable. Unbalanced. The point of war is to kill your enemies in a manner in which they cannot offer retaliation.

The point of a competitive videogame is to provide an environment where both sides have an equal chance of winning. The job of the designers of the game is then to destroy any insurmountable advantage, for its continued use will eventually kill the game.

The competitive player's goal is to win. As such, competitive players will always seek to discover and/or develop weapons or techniques to provide an insurmountable advantage over their adversaries. Competitive players work counter-purpose to the goal of the game developers, and counter-purpose to the extended life of their game.

If "creativity" means "finding every method short of cheating (or at least until they officially call what I do cheating) as a way of making sure I win," then yes, competitive players are creative. But that's not a particularly constructive creativity.

[Heliocentric]

The point of a competitive
videogame is to provide an
environment where both sides have
an equal chance of winning

OBJECTION, INSUBSTANTUATED ASSUMPTION!

Why, must chances be even, especially in violently asymmetric games. What about underdog gambits which are inherently less 'good' but provide a constant diversification of play structure. That unbalance can provide its own peaks and troughs of achievement.
Not every competitive game is a grasp at becoming a "pro gaming" tweaked to oblivion.

References: Hidden Source, Dark Souls,

[b0rsuk]

All those Dungeon Keeper clones on KS are SP-oriented, but they are "making the same games over and over"

LIES!

@b0rsuk: Your first two points are ones that I - and the folks who worked on DK2 that I have spoken to - agree with...

1. To me personally, MP - or more specifically, the sandbox-like gameplay - is most important. Every other mode is based around this sandbox, so we need to get it right before even moving on to doing a campaign, etc. The problem you are describing is what we call 'Defender Advantage' and you are right in saying that it broke MP in DK2. Some (but by no means all) of the things we are doing to fix this:
- Blood (an energy-like resource) has replaced Mana is designed around limiting how much you can influence the physical world in a short space of time, meaning that your ability to abuse the defender advantage is severely diminished
- Later on in the game, there are going to be multiple ways of getting through fortified walls
- There are many, many more incentives to actually go out and explore and control parts of the map, making not-turtling a viable option

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/foru...l=1#post223372
This has been said by the War of the Overworld lead designer. MP/sandbox most important to him. He clearly prioritizes it over campaign.

[tomeoftom]

Oh MAN I miss Hidden: Source. I disagree, though - that's not a competitive game in the traditional sense.
"Balance" in this type of game refers to an aethestic balance - ie the situation that leads to the most fun and/or intensity being experienced. For instance, if you gave the Hidden a huge stock of pipe bombs it really would make it less fun to play from both sides.

[QuantaCat]

Did not know that, thats very interesting.

I vote to ignore all that certain people have said, generalising about multiplayer and/or game design; instead, we should focus on games that already have this mechanic, or that are in development with it.

Personally, I think Towns could be something similar to that, though I fear the inherent 2D/3D engine might not support it. (but it could become a roguelike with townbuilding, I guess that describes Dwarf Fortress quite well)

[gundato]

OBJECTION, INSUBSTANTUATED ASSUMPTION!

Why, must chances be even, especially in violently asymmetric games. What about underdog gambits which are inherently less 'good' but provide a constant diversification of play structure. That unbalance can provide its own peaks and troughs of achievement.
Not every competitive game is a grasp at becoming a "pro gaming" tweaked to oblivion.

References: Hidden Source, Dark Souls,

Pretty much.

Take ThieveryUT and its spiritual successor: Splinter Cell PT and CT's multiplayer.

Summary: One side are the stealthy thieves/spies. The other side are the heavily armed guards/guards. Stealthers need to complete objectives. Guards need to kill stealthers before they do so.

Those games were HEAVILY skewed toward defense. If you went patrolling, you were probably gonna get murdered. If you camped the objective and worked as a team, it was almost impossible to lose on most maps. But people on both sides had a LOT of fun.

[MoLAoS]

Some people, don't understand, the words, competitive multiplayer. Faith in, humanity diminished.