Designing Game Goal

[Delifisek]

Hell there,

I'm busy with designing space 4x mmo for long time...

After some of that, some of this.

I starting to getting pieces together...

And now a big question ahead...

What is the best way (or at least good way) to find or determine who is winning...

Current commercial examples of my genre (ogame, xwars) was using interesting method.

When you build ships, defences, buildings or researcing new techologies your point increases.

When you lost ships, defences, you lose points.

And I believe that model was flawed... Later or sooner, entire game strategy becomes spending much as possible and saving fleets much as possible.

I believe that will kill the game...

SO ?

I want to find better solution for defining winners.

Please share your ideas

Regards...

[saljutin]

more information about what player(s) can do would be useful...

so you can give "score" to player when they are one step closer to reach ultimate goal
one idea is to give points for destroyed ships OR if you have some "unique" resource - number of that resource gathered

[Chris]

My favourite topic

Quick fixes:
- fleet do not add to the score
- only max fleet capabilities add to the score (you need to build shipyards which limit your fleet size, only shipyards add to the score not fleet)
- max size of the fleet you ever reached adds to the score, not current fleet
- fleet is never destroyed, instead it gets "damaged" status and needs to be repaired

But I do not recommend these fixes. It is a waste of the score system potencial, you can use it much better. But for this more details about the rest of the game would be needed.

Questions:
- do you have rounds/eras/ages?
- do you have mechanics to prevent strong players from destroying weaker ones? (can be nicely done via score system)
- what players get from attacking others?

Later or sooner, entire game strategy becomes spending much as possible and saving fleets much as possible.

I don't think it is connected to score. Fleet combat avoidance tendency in Ogame is caused by the resource gain from fleet debris, no matter how you would change score system it wouldn't reduce it (unless you start giving negative score for destroying enemy ).

[Delifisek]

Thanks for replays...

Design based on real time,

One server with multilingual ability with supported real real time player free daemon process...

Time to time (6 to 12 months) content upgrades, (new tech, systems, concepts)

I plan absolute noob protection. And player gets stronger staying noob protection was preventing his growth. So ? if player wants grow have to go wilderness.

Game has standart things. attack players, get res, build buildings, ships, defences.

And I want to some kind of Feudal connection between players/alliances.

For example, Having largest alliance/kingdom is good for game goal ?

[Chris]

I plan absolute noob protection. And player gets stronger staying noob protection was preventing his growth. So ? if player wants grow have to go wilderness.

Game has standart things. attack players, get res, build buildings, ships, defences.

Unless you explain it I doubt anyone will be able to give you any meaningful answer. "Standard things" can mean everything and anything (do players steal resources (how much, can the opther player save it?) or gather debris from destroyed fleet or the resources are generated from thin air but the defeated player do not lose them?).

For example, Having largest alliance/kingdom is good for game goal ?

If you went for "standard" system like Travian and Ogame the purpose of alliance is already determined (to intercept incoming fleets when other alliance member is offline). This question is confusing...


Example of basic description (Lords)

Combat system:
- your economy provide gold each hour
- you have attack turns (+1 per hour), when you attack you steal gold of enemy and earn glory and experience
- player can prevent gold being stolen by banking it (percentage of gold is lost in the process, not the optimal solution) or by spending it or by investing in high defensive forces so the attack fail
- score is determined by various buildings & technologies (bought via gold) and by glory & experience (earned via attacks)
- new players are protected by score difference (if you attack lower score player you get less and less)

Game assets (score providing assets marked with *):
- population (given daily), determine max army size and gold production
* palaces & technologies, part of the score, provide plenty of very powerful bonuses
* experience, part of the score, increases combat power of your troops
* glory, part of the score
- buildings, various bonuses
- general, increases combat power
- diamonds, currency that can not be stolen (there is a fee for exchange of gold into diamonds)

Strategic considerations/implications:
- players want military power and score
- the key is to keep low score for as long as possible (due to the high score penalty if alttacking lower score target) at the end of a round they want to go on a score rampage (usually done via buying of palaces and technologies using saved diamonds)
- glory is extremely important for a final score since it can not be bought, but glory is bad during game (it boosts your score which means more score difference penalty)
- experience can be earned via attacks and bough (progressive expense) also it increases score and increases combat power. This make it a very powerful asset during the game.
- general is the best combat asset that do not increase score (very important, you can boost your combat power without increasing score penalty)
- some technologies provide a choice of military power vs final score, you can not have both
- the final winners, while having strong military, are never those with strongest military (if you go for 100% pure military power you lose the game in the end due to lack of glory component in the score)

[Delifisek]

Chirs, Thanks for reply... It was very helpfull to think...

First of all, I'm trying to create much richer environment. For example. In my game, every system and planet different each other... There where no same system, or no same planets (of course there where planets have classifications). So ? I want to players search and explore this systems.

Also I had backend daemon. That means I can have NPC's.  NPC pirates may attack your ships. Or police punish you to attacking weak player. You just name it..

Another thing is multi point navigation. That means to travelling different systems you have to pass some systems. And maybe there where an ambush (and I still working on it. I'm not sure how can I balance this).

Player evolution come with training very similar concept used in EVE Online...

I want to develop a fleet limit. I don't want to see overcrowded fleets which people very afraid to loose. I wan't to see lots of clashing mini fleets. And I want to develop some elements to give chance to weaker to win... There where fleet maintenance which costs money and time. Also ships are invidual elements which has different options/upgrades/elements. I want to see millenium falcons. Unique ships which players proud to be owned. I had very detailed ship design options. Even I'm very serious about designing ship parts (weapons/engines/radars/armors/shields). I want to see Shipbuilders in my universe which does not care other than ship design...

Also I plan having planet is very, very hard on my game. Let say colonizing a planet costs too much. 3 months of collective work of 200 member alliance may colonize one planet... Instead of the planets, players my have orbital stations which orbits planets...

Let say, you had a orbital station of Tau-ceti system. Also there where other stations or colonized planets in this system. Unlike other stations. Your station are co - operated with pirates, they sold their pirated resources to you and get repair and money etc...

In Ogame design universe is chaotic. Everyone attacks everyone is so easly no punisment for predators. And those players kills the entire game. When they found succesfull way to exploit game. Environment just blowed... I want to build different kind of enviroment which supports for growing and prevents destruction and open to competition.

I had many things in my mind. My problem is how can rank players in this environment...

Regards

[Marek]

It might help to ask the question: what reward does a player get for scoring the most points?

In browser games, usually it's just being at the top of the list. It's recognition, and satisfaction that you're the best.

So, if you can't decide on what scoring system to use for a top list, why not make several top lists? That way, players can specialize in different areas, such as fleet, economy, territory, etc. You create a score and a top list for each of these areas. This way, there's more than one way to win, and players will be able to experiment with many different strategies.

[Chris]

Delifisek, much better, now I can make from it some formula


score = ( number of orbital stations (station worth x2 if on system with a friendly (alliance) colonized worlds) + number of pirates protection pact (only systems where you have 3 or more stations count OR 5 trading depots on colonized worlds) + current value of trading posts (x2 if trading post is on a friendly colonized planet) )  *  (potencial fleet limit + technology level)  *  (1+bonus score)

bonus score = 0.2 if selected galactic senator + 0.1 if selected governor of a system (most planets colonized in a system) + 0.01 for each trade monopoly (each planet where you have most valued trading posts)


But still many questions are unanswered. Do you have rounds? How combat works? What player gets from attacking? How weak players are protected?

I also find it dangerous that you mixed Ogame and Eve and some RPGish elements. It would be extremely difficult to make a playable game out of it (too many unique/untested elements). I thought at first you were trying to make an Ogame without many of its problems...

It might help to ask the question: what reward does a player get for scoring the most points?

In browser games, usually it's just being at the top of the list. It's recognition, and satisfaction that you're the best.

So, if you can't decide on what scoring system to use for a top list, why not make several top lists? That way, players can specialize in different areas, such as fleet, economy, territory, etc. You create a score and a top list for each of these areas. This way, there's more than one way to win, and players will be able to experiment with many different strategies.

That's why I *love* rounds. There is score board at the end that is preserved forever and ever (well, at least until the game goes down . Everyone knows instantly what is the point of the game - to get a nice score in a round so you can brag in next one how great you are

[Delifisek]

Hello Chris,

My design was Real time. There where no turns. It was single universe, multi lingual, it uses very heavy js. Plus embedded into Simple Machines Forum. When you register the game (or forum) you can access every where with single logon.

And I want to get rid of the pointing model. How can you Point Regan or Stalin. ?

There where no weak protection. Some systems are green zone , players can't attack each others... Until player wants to go outside, no one will touch him.

I had prototyped combat engine, which evaluates each ship as inviduals. Able to handle ship speed, turning raito and firing range, arch, shield and armor. Ships can detect targets for own class. Can repair and regen shields after rounds. Ships can lock multiple targets (based on free weapons) or multi ships locks one target. Also you can capture enemy ships under some circumstances (for example if ship below %10, crew was eject etc) But it was still unreliable and needs tons of ship parts upgrades fixing balancing works. There where lots of things to improve... Also I'm  planning to line up strategy. Something like in Heroes combat system. Also I want put Escape routine to one of the player can escape (after dropping the cargo ?)

Well players get resources from attacking if they attack mining wessels. Money, resources even ships from orbital stations. Destroying or capturing stations are still consideration.

There where many options ideas, some of are in code some of are in mind. Maybe some of them will not be implemented. Or new ideas will emerge to design. I do not know.

My main problem is, how to rank player without pointing formula. Very alpha is coming (not so soon) and I want to desing a ranking system to attract players...

What about this.

Battles won / lost
Generated damage / taken damage
How many times win agains stronger / lost agains weaker
Explored systems.
Howmuch sacked / lost to players.

And similar kind of archievment records.

[Chris]

And I want to get rid of the pointing model. How can you Point Regan or Stalin. ?

Well, I could do it You can even point colours (get several players to vote and the colour with the most points wins), or rate them by saturation, hue or select several screenshots from games and count pixels, the colour with most pixels (similar colours with up to 10% difference in RGB values add 50% of their score to the other similar colour score) is the winner.

There where no weak protection. Some systems are green zone , players can't attack each others... Until player wants to go outside, no one will touch him.

If you have no rounds this is irrelevant. After enough time the game is online even if you spend 1 year in green zone you won't get enough strength to survive in normal zone because other players got so far stronger already.  Also, if you get +1 economy in green and +2 economy in normal zone after some time the exit from green would be impossible since older players would accumulate so much strength you will be instantly killed no matter how much you prepared in green zone. No PvP zones work well in RPGs, but not in strategies.

My main problem is, how to rank player without pointing formula.

It's not that this is impossible, it's just that this is illogical. Ranking means displaying player names in a certain order, for computer to display in a specific order you have to convert it into numbers. You can try to hide it as "colours" or "animal icons" but in the end you need to convert this to numbers/points. Ranking without numeric representation (not necessarily displayed as numeric) also called "points" is defying its internal logic

I think best would work what nano described. Toss together some random stats as several separate rankings.