Summary of gameplay in a minimum KS environment

[hrobertson]

Fair enough, although your assumption mostly depends on the current and maximum players allowed.
OK, then for two teams, keep an odd number of total available bases (like 5 or 7) with one bases allocated for each team. And randomize the available bases, so that each restart won’t feel the same.

I’m pretty sure that @Kichae’s point was that if the teams start with a bunch of unclaimed capture points between them, there will be a time at the beginning of the match when both teams work their way through those capture points until they eventually meet in the middle. Until that meeting in the middle, players won’t see players from the other team.

That’s assuming you meant for the capture points to be arranged in some sort of line…
— — — —

This being the case, you might as well start the match at that midpoint. This is what the tug-of war ‘chain’ of capture points does.

If however you meant for an arrangement more like this:
⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡
_{⪪ ⪫}
⁡⁡ ⁡⁡ ⁡ ⁡⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡ ⁡

In which case there isn’t the initial wait before meeting enemy players, but you do split the players across three separate fights. Avoiding splitting the players up is exactly what this whole discussion is about.

[cybercritic]

Or don’t, because PUBG/Fortnite aren’t considered MMOs by most people in the industry. They’re large arena combat FPS games. MMOs almost always have persistent worlds; it’s become a defining aspect of the supergenre.

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. Also from Google.

MMO
noun
an online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously.
"a well-made fantasy MMO"```

[Gorignack]

I tried making a middle ground for those scenarios.

Have a area where the primary battles will play out,
and another space where u require more finesse to play out.

Imagine needing to chart out the asteroid field from the destroyed planet to enable jumps towards the opposing teams planet influence sphere to start more battlescapes.

Will need to divert strike teams for scouting and hindering the other team from doing the same,
while u can’t take to much from the early battlescapes for danger of loosing those ones.

Makes it both a line and a split at the same time.

Any thoughts? :>

[Tjafaas]

If however you meant for an arrangement more like [parallel connexions instead of linear]

Indeed, that’s what I meant. I don’t see how any other configuration may exist in a solar system where all 5 bases are available.

Avoiding splitting the players up is exactly what this whole discussion is about.

I thought avoiding the “empty space” feeling was more of an issue here.

To address your point: splitting players is not by itself an issue, on the contrary! I don’t always want to follow a bus of players, I may want to sneak up and blow up reinforcements at the ennemy base entry (or at least divert some of them). That was one of my favorite strategy with my friends, on whatever FPS game we were playing: flanking and backstabbing capture points with little or no defense.
I expect this not to exist for a battlescape with a single base, but maybe it can be tested first.

Besides, with 5 bases and 100 players, that would be 20 players per base on average. Excluding the starting base, which could be more heavily defended and not immediately attacked, that leave us with 3 bases and 33 players on average. Not that bad.

And if you really want to congregate players, you can always invent some events. One of the base hit a rich resource node and is about to send more haulers for a limited period of time, for instance.

[mattk50]

Even the amount of space on one hundredth of one planet is far “too big” for any number of players… have you guys just forgotten that you’ve already solved this problem!!!

Full scale solar system being one battlescape, extend sensor ranges so that players near each major zone of combat can detect players in that range to effectively “lower” the real distance, and setup a jump drive system to make travel between major bodies in the solar system take only slightly longer than a trip between the furthest moons we have right now then just give the AI resource haulers you’re already planning to add jump drive capability. Assuming each station has its own resource/money count and the haulers are needed to transport those resources then that right there is already a system that naturally leads players to spawn (build ships) in stations with enough resources to do so, and the fronts would naturally shift between each major planet in the solar system.

This is something to be addressed with economy design to funnel players to “weak” targets from their “strong” bases and just scaling sensor capability up or down to however many isolated “information areas” you want there to be.

[DaveSanders]

This is why I was hoping the “Infinity - Search for Earth” would come out. I WANT a game where I can fly off and do my own thing without being disturbed too much. TBH, if Elite had the ability for players to build outposts or planet based stations, it would give me reason to play it and do some exploration to find a nice quiet corner of the galaxy and build, mine and take the long trip back to trade occasionally and buy more gear to upgrade my base.

[Red_Syns]

I don’t see how any other configuration may exist in a solar system where all 5 bases are available.

I might be misunderstanding, but it’s not just one base per planet/moon/etc. If the battlescape were, say, earth + moon, the could be several bases per continent plus the moon. I don’t think “surprise” tactics will be eliminated, just reduced in scale from “oh shit, I gotta get all the way across the solar system to get there” to “other side of the planet? Didn’t see that one coming”

[Sab1e]

Yeah, as I understand it, it’s looking like each Battlescape will be fundamentally what we have in the development version:

• A planet with some moons/rings (still a very large area!)
• A scattered network of ground factories and space stations to attack and defend.
• Basic concept, defeat the enemy outposts to conquer that planetary system.

What we are trying to do is help nail down and test exactly what gameplay works for this, and how it influences the wider progress of the war for the solar system.

[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.