Design question: multiplayer: egoism vs pride and trust

[jannesiera]

Hey everyone. I have a game design question for anyone who is interested. I'll do my best explaining the question, but it's not an easy one.

My particular case, per illustration :

I'm designing a new game. It's an online multiplayer strategy game. Inspired by feudal Japan. There's a game world (a big island) with a number of villages. A few of them are "Capitals". They're towns with extra bonuses. The game world would be relatively small (100 - 200 towns), but you only need to capture all the capitals to "win" the game. Then the world will end and you have won. So it's a game where everyone will try to capture capitals.

Players who own one or more capitals will get a titel. They are leader of a "house". Other players will have the titel of "rebel".

But the only scenario I see is that all rebels around a capital will try to capture it. They will cooperate to destroy the leader of the house. Then there will be a new leader, which will be destroyed by his former friends. Because everyone wants to win (for what else would you play?).

But that's not the scenario I wish for. I wish some players do this. But some players would help their friend, which has captured the house. They will become his loyal followers. At least for a while.

Now is my question:

How can I create such a bond of loyalty, trust and pride in my game?

A lack of trust is not only the problem in this scenario, but also in other places. In other games. So please go further then my illustration and discuss about game design, loyalty and pride.

As usual, any input is welcome.

[Scion]

Hmm interesting ....

If your trying to represent a feudal relationship you could make it so that towns in the vicinity of a capital are automatically aligned with that capital....

Now to get players to respect this relationship you could do it in a number of ways...

provide a benifit to both the holder of the capital and the vassal holder of the town if they dont attack each other during a settling in period.....perhapes some sort of commerce bonus or military bonus...

Or alternatively you could give the holder of the capital a defence bonus against the vassals .... or the towns an attack negative against the new lord....

Those are the two simplest options i can think of....theres bound to be at least a handfull more.

There are no end of more complicated methods....you could try and represent a peasant loyalty and you only have a chance to take the city if the peasants are either favorable to you or unfavorable to their current lord.....

finally dont underestimate small groups abilities to work together for extended periods of time towards a shared goal,

[jannesiera]

provide a benifit to both the holder of the capital and the vassal holder of the town if they dont attack each other during a settling in period.....perhapes some sort of commerce bonus or military bonus...

Or alternatively you could give the holder of the capital a defence bonus against the vassals .... or the towns an attack negative against the new lord....

The commerce bonus is a good idea. I already thought of the military bonus though, but it would get the same effect. Rebels would only help each other to defeat the current lord. That wouldn't change if he gets a bonus. Maybe less people will be prepared to be involved, but that doesn't mean they will help the lord or be loyal to anyone.

These are good ideas, but I'm aiming at a deeper solution. When using these ideas people will do what's best for them, I mean, what makes them the most money. It's one way to do it, but I don't want to limit the possibilities in this discussion. Is there a solution on a more psychological level maybe? (I know, it's a though nut to crack...)

finally dont underestimate small groups abilities to work together for extended periods of time towards a shared goal

I will remember that.

[Nox]

To add to what Scion said
The thing by which I will try to lead players to do things is ladder.

If you want to promote cooperation I can see a separate Top assissting players (but better, themed name), Recently most helpful players
Also might be some points and earning a special titles

[lolninja]

You could make it so there are a number of different regions which have there own capital, and the villages have to play taxes to the capital in exchange for military assistance, for example a border village would need a garrison of of imperial troops, and the village owner would have also trained up there own army and hired mercenary from foreign lands.
So the owner of the city, or emperor would have to pick how much to tax his/her villages, the more they tax there villages means there would be more imperial troops defending the player, and the emperor can open trade negotiations with foreign country's, like the silk route.
But because the taxes are high the village owner could attempt a military coup d'état, in which all of there armies and a number of peasants can attempt to take over the capital and replace the emperor. If this fails then the emperor can basically wipe them out, this would be the only time the emperor could start war on his villages.
If the emperor has to low taxes he runs the risk of being easily over-thrown my his subjects, but also allows his villages to amass resources to possibly claim ownership of another empire, and become an demi-emperor.
Winning would occur when the emperor you are loyal to has complete ownership of the whole country, so for example if your emperor gave you low taxes allowing you to build an army to take another capital your loyalty would still be to your starting emperor, even though to the newly claimed empire your their emperor.

[Scion]

one possibility that occured to me is that you could try and engage your players in a number of small team building exercises....

quests or missions or tasks that can only be completted if they communicate with each other and work together to accomplish the task.

However ultimately you cannot force people to work together for the common good.....most people will eventually end up choosing to do what is best for themselves.especially in the online world where the anonymity makes it even easier to avoid having to deal directly with the consequences. I think all you can do is create conditions where working together is the advantagous course to take....and perhapes give the players a gentle shove in the right direction...

....

just occured to me now....part of the problem is getting players that dont know each other or have never played with each other before to work together....what if prior to assigning locations you tried to group players bassed on their friendships......for instance place members of the same guild all in the same area......and those that are new or have listed no affiliations can be spread out in the remaining spaces.....ofcourse im assuming here some sort of restart is used.

[jannesiera]

I like your idea about team building, Scion. I agree with your conclusion: "you cannot force people to work together for the common good." Only if they gain something...

But what you said before: "Don't underestimate small groups abilities to work together for extended periods of time towards a shared goal." is also right.

In my example I think it's best to prototype it. I guess we can't really predict. The fact I see different scenarios (revenge, loyalty, betrayal, stubbornness, ... ) makes it more interesting.

----

Putting members of the same guild all in the same area sounds troublesome to me. If you put them too close to each other they will have to start attacking their friends (or just die doing nothing). It will be harder to get to know new people. A scenario I try to avoid is too much cooperation. It's just that there has to be room for some single layer gameplay too. Though, that's only for this example. In other games this idea may work well.

In tribalwars, when people get killed, they get the choice to "spawn" between their guild (or "tribe").

Last but not least: real life friends and internet friends are somewhat different, IMHO. To me, it's different at least. It can be very, very, very col to spawn close to a real life friend. And though it can be "usefull" to spawn near some one of your guild, you want to meet new people too. How I see it:

 - spawning near real life friend = more replayability

 - spawning near internet friend = less replayability (in longer games, not in shorter games)

Offcourse this is not some sort of universal rule so it may go different in different games.

[JGadrow]

I think the real 'root' of the issue here is that the system enforces it as the only method of 'winning.' Also, I think you're going to have an abuse system here as it will take a LONG time for any single person to capture 100-200 towns.

Perhaps you should think about altering the goals of your game to include some cooperative goals. Maybe it's not just about controlling the capitals but gaining 'reputation' from the local villages as well? Maybe, instead of total control, a player wins if they control 10 capitals and have a high reputation score for each of their respective territories?

In this manner, the game changes from one of complete conquest to a mix of conquest and diplomacy. Maybe the system remembers those who rewarded the game's previous winner and gifts them with a special title that their account holder may use, or they get a 'leg up' on the competition with bonus starting resources or something to that effect. In this way, you will want a strong player that you support to win the game.

Also, it should be stated that if you go with the reward system, you should NOT reward the game's winner with anything but a cosmetic gift. A title or something of that nature. Rewarding them with something as suggested for their supporters in the previous paragraph gives them an advantage against their competition where they already, clearly, had an advantage in the previous game. And, besides, winning the game should be reward enough, right?

[jannesiera]

Also, I think you're going to have an abuse system here as it will take a LONG time for any single person to capture 100-200 towns.

I was thinking of 90 cities, 10 capitals. So a player does not need to capture 100 cities, but just 10. Obviously they will be spread on the map, but still they won't have to go so far as capturing ALL cities.

I think the real 'root' of the issue here is that the system enforces it as the only method of 'winning.'

Well, there's only one winner. When adding another victory condition the value of the current (capturing all capitals) would decrease enormously. I can't say what it is exactly, but it feels like it breaks everything. And scenarios where one player has 9 capitals but then still looses because someone else has reached another victory condition... They're not really fun.

Though we could have 2 victory conditions and 2 winners, which gives us much more freedom. Especially if one needs another. 2 people fighting side by side for victory... isn't that exactly what I want?

Then there's the solution of giving the "subordinate" of the winner a reward. This would be a title, the winner would also get a title. But this sounds kinda boring...

Perhaps you should think about altering the goals of your game to include some cooperative goals. Maybe it's not just about controlling the capitals but gaining 'reputation' from the local villages as well? Maybe, instead of total control, a player wins if they control 10 capitals and have a high reputation score for each of their respective territories?

How would that work? And how would that be cooperative? The way it sounds now: the person who owns all the capitals needs permission to win the game. But I guess that would be an incorrect interpretation?

In this manner, the game changes from one of complete conquest to a mix of conquest and diplomacy. Maybe the system remembers those who rewarded the game's previous winner and gifts them with a special title that their account holder may use, or they get a 'leg up' on the competition with bonus starting resources or something to that effect. In this way, you will want a strong player that you support to win the game.

A title would be indeed the reward of winning. A "leg up" sounds interesting, but I'm afraid that at the end of the game many players will start to go begging with the player who has most chance of winning.

Also, it should be stated that if you go with the reward system, you should NOT reward the game's winner with anything but a cosmetic gift. A title or something of that nature. Rewarding them with something as suggested for their supporters in the previous paragraph gives them an advantage against their competition where they already, clearly, had an advantage in the previous game. And, besides, winning the game should be reward enough, right?

I agree on this.

Thanks for all your useful input, JGadrow!

[JGadrow]

Basically, by giving a strong reward (bonus resources in the next round, etc.) some players may actually be incensed to not really 'win' the game, but to support someone who does win. However, I thought of a better 'flavor' for the reputation system:

Player must capture 50% of all capitals and have each territory composed of at least 50% supporters.

Have there be 3 states of player aggression: 'enemy,' 'ally,' or 'supporter.' Basically, everyone defauts to enemy. However, you may ally yourself with another player to treat their forces as non-hostile. Alliances must be accepted by both parties to be enforced. Supporter can be seen as the declaration for a player to support another player's right to conquer (or hold) the capital city. Supporter can be declared by anyone and is automatically accepted by the other player. If a player who is supported by another player (we'll call the supporting player a vassal) 'attacks' a region held by a vassal, the vassal's forces evacuate the region and begin moving towards the closest region owned by the vassal. Anyone currently occupying a capital cannot declare themselves a supporter of another lord.

The problem with a system such as this is it becomes possible to prevent the game from ending if a group of players in a territory decide to band together to actively prevent anyone from winning the game. There are a few solutions to this problem. Obviously, a game administrator could declare their support for them if they notice this sort of behavior, however, that is probably a little extreme and requires time and energy. Another solution would be to make support also a variable system. A vassal 'supports' the lord if they declare their support or if the lord (or their supporters) is able to conquer and hold each region within the territory owned by the rebel lord for a specified period of time. Effectively, in this situation, the lord has quashed the rebellion. This means that the city may not be liberated by any means or the lord must conquer and hold it again, resetting the timer. This would be a difficult thing to do which means most would try to use diplomatic means to gain support. However, it would still be possible to achieve victory through other means.

Not a perfect system, there's still lots left to work out, but I think it gives a starting point at least...

[Scion]

I think its possible to create multiple victory conditions without reducing the impact of the overall winner.

Adding a number of leader boards for various stats creates multiple races within a race....and if you chose the stats carefully so that they are independant of each other (ie if your top of one it doesnt mean youll be top of another) this opens the game up and ecourages multiple playing styles as people compete to be top of whatever leader board suits their game style.

I for instance rarely ever play to be the overall winner of a PBBG....Im too much of a realist and know that the amount of time i have to devote to playing it will probably mean that i cant compete with those that have plenty of time. What i often do though is look for a specialisation or alternative strategy/playing style and try to excell in that. (with mixed success)

... BTW ive seen a support/alliegence system similar to whats described put to good use. players would join groups and groups could support other groups....a taxation system automatically funneled funds from supporters to lords...the arrangement being that the lord was supposed to provide leadership and protection.....support could be removed at any point.....the player that had the most support over all had a special title...and recieved additional funds...

Still It doesnt make sense to focus on building a complicated support and alliegence system if your building a standard expand and conquor type game.

I wonder are you looking for an environment where most of the people who were playing at the start are still playing at the end or do you expect to eliminate players as the game goes on?

... New idea just occured to me too.... have you taken a look at ikarium<sp> you could try something similar.. restrict players to a small area first......around each capital have an area that includes several cities...and at the start of the game the players inside that area first have to get to a state where they all support a single lord who contols the capital before they as a group can set about subjugating other areas....then they have the choice to either try and take on those that already have full control...or to get involved in areas where no control has yet been asserted..perhapes supplying weapons or additional troops to one of the antogonists in return for promised support....perhapes they can only see areas directly neighbouring them. This rewards player groups that can compromise on a leader quickly.........then within player groups you could have a heirarchy system so that infighting within the group is not ruled out.

[raines80]

I think I am a bit late on replying to this topic, but I have a few suggestions.

First:

One of my favorite online games is Battledawn. They force people to work together because they have made it an alliance game. Individuals gain rank, but in the end it is the rank of the alliance that counts. This ensures that diplomacy is a very big player in the eras. There are treaties and backstabbing happening constantly over the 3 month era.

Second:

I actually like the idea of a city that is never under one rule through out the game, but I see where you are comming from. My idea is to give the leader of the city bonus abilities. Have a contract system in place as well. Basicaly, the new leader of the city can establish contracts with rebels. In the contract he agrees to pay them X number of supplies for X number of time. At the end of the contract the terms would have to be re-negotiated. Durring the contract the rebel may attack the leader, but with a MAJOR handicap. The rebel will also be branned traitor from then on if they lose the battle.

[shoespeak]

Perhaps you could create a way to align players with their personal ideologies. I'm sure there was politicking going on in feudal japan...why not bring this into your game? Ask them a question, and based on the response, "move" them closer to player they are similar to. Let the house leaders be involved in a committee or judgeship where their decisions on either real in game issues (a flood, player is assassinated, etc) or fictitious issues (stories in a newspaper or something) are broadcast to the peasants.

[jannesiera]

@Shoespeak

I like that idea, but don't think it's that easy. There's some good food for thought in your post, now I got to make it concrete, solid idea.