Summary of gameplay in a minimum KS environment

[Kichae]

Not really @kichae, MMO by definition is defined by the player numbers and the game being online, Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) which was the original definition.

Again, in the industry, “MMO” heavily implies a persist world. That’s how it’s used by most designers and developers. You can use it however you want, but you need to specify that your usage differs from industry standard.

Plus, you should probably define a “large number”. It’s an arbitrary cutoff, but also low triple digits isn’t especially “massive”.

Also, while we’re digging through dictionaries (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/MMO):

MMO (plural MMOs)
(video games, initialism) A massively multiplayer online game. A computer game in which a large number of players can simultaneously interact in a persistent world.

Fair enough, although your assumption mostly depends on the current and maximum players allowed.

My assumption mostly depends on the idea that having an entire solar system for a handful of bases seems like a colossal waste of space, and also that the other bases aren’t immediately identifiable on sensors (because what is the point of having a small number of interest points separated by tens of millions of kms that everyone is immediately aware of from the very start? It adds nothing to the game, except a reason to split fleets and reduce the size of battles).

[Weps]

Resources would be reset for every battlescape.

I feel like there’s something I’m missing here, I was originally referring to this statement, but now I think I misunderstood the topic being addressed:

then as the game progresses as “tug of war”, less and less resources will be available in every match.

Assuming that the resources would not be reset after each battlescape-level match (in the case of a free roam - multiple active battlescapes model), then why would the overall resources diminish?

[manuchko]

What about offering some capability to built “star gates” to accelerate moves between planets far away…

[Red_Syns]

Because if every base is functional at the start of the match, then resource production is maximum at the beginning of the match. As the match progresses, bases get destroyed and resource production dwindles.

What if the planets had bases “under construction” that had impenetrable Unexplainium energy shields until they were completed? You could then unlock Battlescapes with bigger/more numerous bases/stations in the order they causes resource generation to grow, while removing any incentive to go sneak attack randomly.

Backstory would get back filled, of course.

[Lomsor]

I don’t like the idea of hard/unbreakable energy shields that can’t be flown trough. I find it a very unelegant solution.

As for resources there are many ways to balance it the way one would like. The problem Flavien mentioned isn’t just with a whole active Solar Systen but also when just looking at one Battlescape. If all Factories generate a flat ammount of resources the game will “flip” at some point and one team will dwindle.
To have a different effect one could have a curve on factory efficiency depending on ratio to remaining factories that could look however one would like.

[Skyentist]

You could have some sort of population mechanic that takes time to grow. Could also have some sort of terror bombing mechanic to reduce it by a percentage so protecting your developed bases are important.

[TARS]

Gameplay is probably the biggest challenge facing the devs at this point, because what use is all the rest of it, If the game is not captivating. I’d probably do a whole lot of research before trying to implement a specific idea.

Here’s what I think is necessary just from my perspective as a gamer:

• Short game rounds with a maximum length of 15 minutes
• Specific goals a team must achieve to secure the win
• A limited number of goals
• Tactical variations on how to achieve those goals
• The need to act as a team
• Rewards during the rounds an individual and the team can achieve

Maybe some of the classic game modes of first person shooters could be adapted to fit the game.

This is my personal spin on the gameplay the devs plan:

Game Mode: "prepare the laser"

Setup:

• 2 Teams
• Each team has one base and one factory
• Ships from the factory must reach the base and supply it
• The first base to be fully supplied, shoots its doom-weapon and wins the game (laser of the base obliterates the enemy factory, base and ships, ending the game round)

Goals:

• Secure the transport ships
• Secure the base
• Secure the factory
• Destroy the enemy transport ships
• Destroy the enemy base
• Destroy the enemy factory

Notes:

• Only use a bot to substitute a missing player (always maintain the same number of players for both teams). Defeating real players is satisfying, killing a bot on the other hand is boring.
• Never more than 2 teams, it reduces the complexity and keeps the game focused.
• Players can earn rewards during the rounds (“killing spree”, “great defender”, and so on), accompanied with a cool sound effect. Rewards are displayed for all players “Flavien has earned Great Defender”.
• Hide semi random perks at various places to make it worthwhile to travel to them (for example you could pick up ammunition in an asteroid belt, or an weapons unlock/upgrade).

[Wargrim]

There are nearly infinite ways to theorycraft and speculate about how to achive a good scaling solution to a massive multiplayer PVP battle system.

But i prefere to make a few points i consider important based on practical experience, provided by the two only games that i know off that have ever actually done a true PVP environment with hundreds of players in the same game instance - Planetside 1 and 2.

- Point one: The overall population scaling problem.

• Planetside 2 has run for over 4 years now, Beta not even included, has a budget and developer head count you could only dream off, and never managed to find a good solution to player number fluctuation and its dynamics. And they tried quite a lot of ideas over all those years. Fact is, you have the weekend weekday cycle, timezones, daytime cycles, logging on and off based on open continents, different factions log on at different times, people leave losing fights and losing teams, and many more factors outside of the control of game developers or game systems.

Conclusion for Battlescape: You will not find a good solution cause it does not exist. You can mitigate these problems and scale within certain boundaries, but accept that you can not control the uncontrollable. Settle for a cheap to implement solution that does most of the job most of the time.

Define your boundaries. One upper boundary is how many players a server can handle. Another upper boundary is how many players can be in a single fight and it is still fun. In the case of PS2, the maximum enjoyable fight size is way smaller than all the players on a continent meeting in the same spot - performance breaks down long before that. The current AI-enabled fights in Battlescape indicate quite large fights can work, but will also break down somewhat before all possible players dump into the same spot.

The lower boundary is important - because you will end up losing players if the minimum to have fun is too high, and you will waste a lot of development resources if you try to make too small fights fun that are not the strongpoint and unique benefit of Battlescape.

I am tossing in a number here: 50 players on server. If we assume around 500 players max, that is scaling from 10 to 100 percent. It is significant because it starts at the higher end of typical PVP games, because it allows 2 teams with a mixed selection of spacecraft and most importantly, because if you can not fill one server with 50 people at all times, the game is dead already. The most important and difficult design task would be to ensure you get one server with 50 people, instead of 5 servers with 10 people. You as a player need to be able to abandon emptying servers and meet up with others on one that still has good fights, without being punished too hard for it.

[Wargrim]

- Point two: Scaling the number and size of individual fights.

You can not really scale individual fights. But you have control over the number of possible fights because you control how many points of interest can be attacked at each time.

• Planetside 1 and 2 had three main versions of the system that determines where you can actually attack something: 1. A very free one where you had hex-based territories and could attack each adjectant territory along all frontlines, 2. A lattice - link system where only mayor bases and Warpgates ( Continent entry/exit points ) were linked, 3. A lattice - link system where all bases were linked in a number of fixed “lanes” that you had to fight through in order to reach main bases and warpgates. PS1’s system to capture a continent was simple - take all bases. PS2 tried a large number of systems over time, all with upsides and downsides. None of the 3 systems scaled with player numbers. Instead, the number of open continents in PS2 is dependant on overall player numbers.

Takeaway relevant for battlescape: Too free means whack - a - mole gameplay, ghost-capping, players always running from losing fights and is generally not good for low populations. Works well though with high populations, as you can have multiple small, medium and a few large fights at once. Very limited points of interests means very predictable and repetitive fights, but some very big and sometimes fun ones. It means limited choices on where to fight, which can be ok for small player numbers but really sucks for large numbers. Railroading also heavily relies on terrain to not feel too forced and artificial - Battlefield’s Rush mode is an example that gets it right. But for a space game, it would feel VERY wrong. Imho, this needs to be avoided as much as possible. There needs to be a believable mechanic for limiting combat points of interest. Imho, this could be practical travel times as a “soft” barrier or strong AI defenses as a “hard” barrier - but just turning capture points on and off would be least preferable.

The real important bit is that i think that the number of valid combat locations must scale with player number. So that you always have a choice of where to fight, but are always able to actually find other players and not just play alone vs AI. ( Which you could still do in some locations if you wanted to, as the system will not force everyone into the same small number of fights. )

[Wargrim]

- Point three: Balancing attackers vs defenders.

I could tell you long stories of epic battles of PS2. But the takeaway is:

You have a really difficult balancing task here. Cause waiting for an attack that never comes sucks. Being the lone defender against huge attacker forces sucks. Having a huge attacker force sit around capping empty bases sucks. Having a huge defender force magically redeploy around the entire continent and sweeping the attackers away sucks.

You are dealing with an asysmetry of choice - attackers chose where the fight happens and when, an asymetry of time - defenders either have to sit around and wait or rush to a defense after the fight has started, and often an asymetry of means - there may be fixed spawns and/or defensive turrets / AI combatants at a base.

The key to achieving a good balance here is that every fight MUST tie into the bigger picture, and that resources and logistics MUST matter. That way, every player knows that a good, resource efficient attack or defense will always benefit the team more than brute-forcing a decision by suiciding a huge amount of ships and players into a fight. Nothing should ever be completely free! You will still need some sort of timer mechanic to allow defenders to show up and help any base under attack, but it could be natural, like the time it takes to defeat AI defense fighters, turrets, shields etc, instead of a completely artificial and unnatural capture counter. A good way to help attackers vs defenders scaling is to limit hard, game - created spawns ( bases/stations ) efficiency/capacity and emphasize the use of soft, player - created spawns ( Carriers ).

[Wargrim]

- Point four: Faction numbers.

In theory, 3 factions could enable the 2 weaker to unite against the stronger, leading to more balanced and fun fights. In reality, the 2 stronger ones always doubleteam the weak one for easy wins and resource gains.

There is no real benefit to having 3 factions when you know that all their gear is the same. More than 2 factions for Battlescape would only make sense at higher stretch goal levels that introduce the different nations, imho.

- Point five: Why we fight.

In a massive multiplayer PVP environment, the differentiation between the 3 main player types / motiviations for where and when to fight are even more visible/influential than in ordinary PVP games. Because everyone is on the same few servers, you do not have noob/pro/clan/whatever - servers, but everyone shares the same combat space with different motivations and goals.

The 3 main types, imho are the following. 1. Those who play for the win, and will do whatever they consider the most efficient way to achive the outcome that the game defines as victory. They do not care if it is the most fun way to play for them or the other players, or if it boost their stats and score, as long as it gets the job done it is what they do. 2. Those who play for fun. They will chose the fight that feels most fun for them, no matter if it advances the larger war effort or if it gives them good stats/score. 3. Those who play to optimize their stats/score, no matter if it is the most fun way to play or if it advances the overall war effort.

The further apart fun fights, stat boosting fights and war - winning fights are removed from each other, the more players will separate based on their preferences and start to hate on those with different preferences for being in the way of their goals and motivation for playing the game. Ideally, you want all 3 motivations to lead people into the same set of fights.

Dont ask me how to do this, it is really hard, but i can tell you what not to do: You need to avoid grindable statistics/scores that are not linked to the overall war effort, its resources and logistics.

- Point six: Artificial systems vs. Player defined dynamics.

Every game has both, obviously. But in terms of design, imho, you should always strive to give players the freedom and tools to use the positive potential of the chaos and complexity of a massive multiplayer PVP scenario, instead of focussing development resources on artificial, game-defined systems and measures to limit the player freedom to use the negative potential of the chaos and complexity of a massive multiplayer PVP scenario.

In other words, trolls will troll, griefers will grief, cheaters will cheat.

The strongest tool is the active effort of a community to make for a better game experience, and a policy of consequently banning offenders, instead of trying to prevent every thinkable offense that will happen anyways.

A community consensus will form over time what is considered hard but fair play and what is inacceptable. And player freedom will unlock the true potential of the game more than we can imagine today. The biggest mistake of any game designer is to believe that they make the rules in a released game. At best, they make the rules during development. But once handed over, players run the show, either with you or against you. I think the devs here understand that MUCH better than most other game development companies i have interacted with, and it is one of the reasons i have hope that they and Battlescape can prevail against all apparent odds.

[Sab1e]

There are a lot of good systems already in place, if just bare-bones versions. For example, it tells you where the battles are and how many ships are involved - a good way for you to choose your level of challenge.

[Skyentist]

I just want to say that’s an excellent take away from the lessons of PS1 and PS2. Thank you for laying them out. There’s clearly no obvious right answer and many wrong answers. I hope Inovae takes this into account and isn’t afraid to try different methods during Alpha/Beta.

Don’t be afraid to introduce something and then remove it because it didn’t work out. You have a unique game and to find what works may take risky ideas. It’s okay if they don’t work.

[TheCoach]

@Wargrim That’s a great writeup and I shall second what you said.

As for players leaving a loosing team you could try and create incentives to fight on a team that is loosing, maybe have leaderboards for the best pilots and pilot who play a loosing team get a bonus for the leaderboard points they score during that game.
Heck in the long run you could have an achievement system and if a player performs well enough in a loosing team they could unlock special skins for their ships etc.
The reason people leave a loosing team is because they decide it’s not worth the effort, if you can offer something for them sticking in there you can make that less of an obvious choice.

[NoEggs]

My proposal is that you use the act of finding players/bases as the pivotal mechanism for controlling these battlescapes.

In short players start with perhaps 3-5 resource gathering bases and another 10-15 small outposts they can spawn from. These bases are scattered on roughly one side of the solar system per team. Because of the size of the solarsystem, it is basically impossible to stumble upon any of these bases.

Players then must erect sensor towers in space to attempt to detect these bases. The sensor towers detect anything within a certain sized bubble (enemy players, bases, AI ships) and relay that information to the entire team. Having sensor towers equates to control over the ‘map’ by being able to see the movements of your enemy within a certain bubble. Sensor towers cost resources and can be harassed and destroyed by the other team.

Teams would slowly expand, building sensor towers outwards to search for likely enemy base locations and to search for enemy sensor towers to harass. Destroying enemy bases, and outposts denies them spawn locations and resources, and destroying sensor towers denies them vision.

From there everything is just details such as:

• Having multiple sizes of sensor tower, the larger ones providing a larger detection area but costing more resources and requiring a larger ship to transport. Larger sensor emplacements also come with more guns/defenses.

• Having different detection levels for different sizes of ships. EX: a sensor tower might be able to large enemy ships X KM away, enemy sensor towers at 2X KM away, but smaller interceptors and recon ships might be detected 0.5X KM away (on some sort of sliding scale based on ship/emplacement size).

• Player ships also have their own sensor bubble range (though much smaller than sensor towers). Smaller recon ships might be able to slip by enemy sensor towers (outside of their detection range) and find the position enemy ships without being detected in turn.

• Having resource production ramp up as the game goes on, making it easier to place sensor towers and detect enemy bases leading to larger and larger confrontation until all the main bases of one team are destroyed.

Overall I think the most desired outcome is to have a game that moves through stages and offers a variety of gameplay:

1. Recon/hunting stage

2. Skirmish and harassment

3. Huge climactic space battle(s)

4. Resolution and consolidation

Using a sensor tower/map control method ties allows for a game to progress through those stages.

• First players seek each other out, building towers and flying recon ships around in search of emplacements.

• Next, players attempt to destroy obvious or discovered assets and harass the enemy towers to prevent enemy expansion. At the same time others on the team must defend their established assets and towers

• Finally, a large enemy base is discovered and one team masses to attack the base. The enemy team must respond and a huge climactic space battle ensues. Assuming the base is destroyed, the teams return to skirmishing and hunting until another large base is discovered. Perhaps there is some mechanic which allows the victorious team to establish their own resource gathering at the destroyed base, etc.

This continues until all the main bases of one team are destroyed.

I think using this method will preserve what much of the playerbase is interested in and give a little something for everybody. Those who want to go solo or small gang hunting around the solar system can fly recon, spotting out enemy towers and harassing support ships. Those who want to build/expand can hop in transport ships to ferry out sensor towers and turret emplacements - others can escort those transport/support ships to prevent them from being harassed. Those who want bigger battles can join in on larger attack fleets to harass larger assets. Then eventually everyone participates in an gigantic space battle around an large base.

There are many more ideas that can tie into this such as how to divide players and allow them to communicate (IE: recon fleet, defense fleet, assault fleet) but that is all ancillary. Also, I haven’t read through the previous comments in detail yet so something like this might have been mentioned already - my apologies.

[hrobertson]

Player-built stuff was a stretch goal which was not reached, therefore building sensor towers/satellites isn’t likely.

Even if that wasn’t the case, I think your proposal has some issues, not least it doesn’t encourage the server population into close proximity to increase player-player interaction.

[Crayfish]

I feel a bit misled by the title of the thread. There is no summary of the gameplay here.

How will battles be won, what are the victory conditions?
How will resources be distributed to teams?
How can resource distribution be disrupted?
If there is no base capture (only destruction) do all factories automatically start as owned by a faction?
As there are multiple locations that new ships can be spawned, which receives the resources from any given factory?
If a base gets destroyed do the resources in it get lost?
Do resources on route to a destroyed base get redirected?
How can a losing team fight back?
Will it get easier to win as the other teams get weaker even though that would be bad for gameplay?
How will having three factions make the gameplay better?

It seems quite late to only just be starting on all this.

[hrobertson]

It seems quite late to only just be starting on all this.

This point has been made many times.

https://forums.inovaestudios.com/t/weekly-update-102/

[Crayfish]

This point has been made many times.

I don’t think it has been discussed enough. Having a thread which drafts the actual gameplay design would be incredibly useful to INovae. With the combined experience of gaming within this community major pitfalls could be avoided by discussing the game design in advance. This isn’t even happening in the dev only access forum which was set up partially with that goal in mind.

[hrobertson]

I completely agree.

https://forums.inovaestudios.com/t/gameplay-design-details/5110

I would quote the numerous times I’ve said this but I’m on mobile at the moment.