Playing time

[Nox]

Hi,
I was wondering how you decide on average playing time per day etc. this is something I don't know what to build on...

* too low... what's the point of playing when you don't really actually play it and we can expect player to be willing to spend time if he like it
* too high - we can't expect everyone to stick there whole day and by that hindering one of the possible PBBG's advantages

It is true most games I played required quite low playtime, usually around 10-20min a day (sometimes seemed to little);another like 0.5-2hrs every 3 days

There was another aspect and that was level of need to check if attacked etc., in the last mentioned the demand was almost 60/24/7 (one of reasons I often quit it though)

When I play some game I actually "hang around" inside, refreshing a lot when I can't do anything game-wise (no turns / resources / everythings queued...), but maybe there's difference 'cause it doesn't require attention and concentration

This may be fixed with non-core game possibilities (minigames etc.) but it's rather partial patch then solution

Many of my recent gamedesign sketches featured non-instant combat which brings out many issues time one (quite intensively) included

I might just copy this from games I know and not care about it, but...I'd rather appreciate ideas/tips
Thanks!

[JGadrow]

This is a question dealing with target audience. Are you trying to target professionals? Professionals generally have disposable income (which can help profitability of your game) however, they often have a limited amount of time. So, for them to play a game, they'd need to be able to play for short periods of time.

Are you targeting teenagers? Teenagers usually have plenty of time (not to mention a healthy interest in gaming) but usually have little in the way of income.

Figure out your target audience and then solicit information from some of them about what they would feel is an acceptable amount of play time. Personally, I lean towards games with a minimal amount of play time when it comes to BBGs. If I want to play a game for a long time, it's going to be a distributed one in most cases.

Wonder why I've been silent lately? Notice it corresponds with the release of Starcraft 2? lol

[shoespeak]

On one of the BBGs that I play, a player recently asked a similar question to this, asking everyone else how effective they were at using up the in game energy. The responses were kind of surprising to me; some players do in fact spend as little as 20 minutes a day, but others are on the game for 8-9 hours or more.  So the average really depends on the type of player, how much time they have (is it a weekend?), and how far their character has progressed.

I don't really think the game needs to or can limit the amount of time players spend on the servers...I mean yes at some point you will need to limit activity to keep the game balanced. However I think you can get creative and allow for players to spend as little or as much time as they want playing. As a simple example, another game I play allows you to fish for either 1 fish or up to 25...so if you have plenty of time its best to fish for a single fish multiple times (higher gains) but if you need to go to work, hit all 25 at once. Some other games I have played use multiple energy systems that are related but allow players to spend more or less time playing and remain mostly equal. Of course some people will be better at PVP or gathering resources (depending on how they have spent their time), but pound for pound the characters are worth the same since being the best PVPer == being the best at resources.

[Nox]

Thanks for responses

@JGadrow hmm, true. By professionals I assume you mean working/employed people, right (due to limited time, for "game" professionals I'd assume they would have time)? As for income... I'd probably say these are also less willing to pay while younger people I'd assume they'd be willing to spend more but don't have that much

But the target audience, 'm gonna have to meditate on that

Enjoy SC2, I haven't decided yet

@shoespeak
How does the energy system works?
Not just balance, but I'm also afraid if I'd have enough of content, though I remember walking through game even when I didn't have anything to do there

I was thinking that some main things will be limited (round-based) but with side activities to do all the time (for special points or something)...

[JGadrow]

@JGadrow hmm, true. By professionals I assume you mean working/employed people, right (due to limited time, for "game" professionals I'd assume they would have time)? As for income... I'd probably say these are also less willing to pay while younger people I'd assume they'd be willing to spend more but don't have that much

Sorry, by "professional" I meant - for example - doctors, lawyers, office managers, chief financial officers, etc. Basically, people in suits who make a ton of money. They're usually pretty free with that money too because it's all about ratios and convenience.

If you ask someone making $300 / hour to spend $5 to remove advertisements and get some bonuses or whatever the business strategy for your game is, they consider that well worth the investment. Why? Because to their income level, $5 is trivial. Now, take someone making only $10 / hour and ask them for that same $5 and they'd be less likely to spend it.

Of course, there are always exceptions. For instance, the doctor who is still paying off school debts or maybe a malpractice suit. And also teenagers usually make very little income but, on the other hand, they also have very minimal - or even non-existent - cost of living. Therefore, they're likely to spend money because there's less chance for a negative impact for them.

Just food for thought.

[Chris]

what's the point of playing when you don't really actually play it and we can expect player to be willing to spend time if he like it

That's evil. You can force players to play longer if you see some benefit like they pay more or that they will stick to the game longer or they will click on ads more, etc. But for no reason? I fail to see a logic behind "they should play longer because they are supposed to"

The ideal game would let players play as little as they want and as much as they want (can not be done perfectly, but still you can stretch the spectrum quite a bit with proper design).

The biggest problem with most games is not that they use up too low/much time, it's that they have bad time profile. The most time consuming games tend to be... the slowest games at the begining. When you login first, you click build building X and... that's it, you have no options left only waiting for its completion While when the game progress you will be getting more and more/bases/cities/kingdoms and the time requirement will increase and increase. Such games do not appeal to any target, since the time requirement is not consistent. The high time lovers will hate it at the start, the low time lovers will hate it at the end. This does not mean that players do not play such game, but that's another story

Actually, I think you could toss a coin to decide how much time the game uses up. But then follow that route consequently. Also, high time games will have a swarm of bots (actually, most people won't be able to play them seriously without any automated script, since everyone needs to sleep sooner or later ) you need to be prepared for this.

Don't forget that people not only play the game but also socialize, this has flexible time requirement Strong communication features private messages/shoutbox/chat/forum are a must. After a while there will be not so small portion of the playerbase that login just to talk.

[Nox]

Thanks both

@Chris
What I meant by the sentence is that I can't understand when someone designed the average play time per day to be 5minute-ish, then it's questionable if player is actually playing it at all...and if the game's good, than it's waste of potential; if not than it doesn't matter anyway

Thanks for the spend-time curve thing, didn't occur to me

True with socializing, that's surely a must for a bbg

I was going for round-based so that's the source of this...

It's also connected with balance. There's a question - Provide unlimited reward for player that spends whole days and nights playing your game or rather limit it to bring time consumption in line? (something DSheroh spoke about recently)
I know it's a question of target audience + there might be other balancing means other than time limitation, but if they ultimately limit the reward.... em, still the alternative (other than time-limit) might be better, hmm...

What I've been strongly considering is this -> playing that affects how strong player is is limited by turns, but player will have a few activities unrelated to turns which will improve some special stats (fame, titles etc.) (and the socializing on top of that)

[Chris]

What I meant by the sentence is that I can't understand when someone designed the average play time per day to be 5minute-ish, then it's questionable if player is actually playing it at all...and if the game's good, than it's waste of potential; if not than it doesn't matter anyway

Actually, I designed Lords to be 5min a day (could go down to 3min if player is in a hurry ), I even put it on banners "You need 5 minutes to play it" That's one of the main selling points. I evaluate each new feature for additional fun vs additional time used and mercilessly cut those that have bad ratio.

What you overlook is that players will play it for years. Plus they will be spending time socializing from time to time (which up the time total). Also, they will play it when not in front of computer (you need to think about strategy, what to do next, which route to go, etc).

It's also connected with balance. There's a question - Provide unlimited reward for player that spends whole days and nights playing your game or rather limit it to bring time consumption in line? (something DSheroh spoke about recently)
I know it's a question of target audience + there might be other balancing means other than time limitation, but if they ultimately limit the reward.... em, still the alternative (other than time-limit) might be better, hmm...

You need to choose, Dsheroh or me, you can't have us both as players

Ultimately, it is your personal preference as a designer. You will find players for it whichever route you go.

[Nox]

I guess I just have to choose - shoespeak would give them whole day, you're off in 5 minutes

Thanks for input all, surely helped

Also, they will play it when not in front of computer (you need to think about strategy, what to do next, which route to go, etc).

Good point, I really like this aspect

[dbest]

The games that I play online are mostly sports based simulations, not the more common strategy, rpg style of games. There are players who spend a lot of time on these games. Most of them are students but about 10%-30% represent the working class.

For a few of the players, 5 mins in a day is sufficient, to check squad and set the orders for the next fixture. For most of them, they break down each skill set and how it affects the game and how it affects the wages, etc. They will analyse each fixture and find out what went wrong, what went right, etc.  There are tools that can be used in MS Excel to perform further offline analysis too. So I assume that an average addict would spend 2 hours per day on such games.

I think the type of game-play would play a huge role in determining the need for spending time on the game. If results of fights or battles are random or straight-forward, then players do not have much to think about.

[Nox]

Thanks.
Do the time spent in a game affect stats of player's character(s) in that game?

I always aim for some strategy and tactics so I hope this won't be the case.

[dbest]

Thanks.
Do the time spent in a game affect stats of player's character(s) in that game?

Not at all, the stats of the characters are updated once a week only via a training update.

[shoespeak]

@shoespeak
How does the energy system works?
Not just balance, but I'm also afraid if I'd have enough of content, though I remember walking through game even when I didn't have anything to do there

I was thinking that some main things will be limited (round-based) but with side activities to do all the time (for special points or something)...

Well, one example is to have a "rest" bar that fills up only when the player is not online and goes down when they are actively playing. When the "rest" is full, players get 2x experience/gold/loot. From 1/3 to 2/3 it is regular exp, and when the bar is less then 1/3 the players only get half exp/loot. This idea works better in some games then others, but I think the basic thought can be adapted to pretty much any game where the player accumulates stuff. It bascially encourages players to play as long as they want but doesn't really punish those who can only spend a few minutes a day.

(Sorry for the late response. I read the other replies...not too much to add )

[Nox]

Not at all, the stats of the characters are updated once a week only via a training update.

Yea, than it's possible to have player to play as much as he like

Well, one example is to have a "rest" bar that fills up only when the player is not online and goes down when they are actively playing. When the "rest" is full, players get 2x experience/gold/loot. From 1/3 to 2/3 it is regular exp, and when the bar is less then 1/3 the players only get half exp/loot. This idea works better in some games then others, but I think the basic thought can be adapted to pretty much any game where the player accumulates stuff. It bascially encourages players to play as long as they want but doesn't really punish those who can only spend a few minutes a day.

(Sorry for the late response. I read the other replies...not too much to add )

Thanks... 'm actually considering some energy system now

No problem at all

[Chris]

Well, one example is to have a "rest" bar that fills up only when the player is not online and goes down when they are actively playing. When the "rest" is full, players get 2x experience/gold/loot.

This is a bad concept since it promotes NOT playing the game. It makes players hesitate to login multiple times a day.

I like the concept that players can play very quickly, but punishing those who play too much is weird

[JGadrow]

This is a bad concept since it promotes NOT playing the game. It makes players hesitate to login multiple times a day.

I like the concept that players can play very quickly, but punishing those who play too much is weird

Actually, this idea comes (I'm pretty sure) from WoW. But, I'm not sure they understood why this was done in WoW. Basically, it provides a way for casual players to catch up to the more hardcore players.

The trick is that, sure, you can earn double experience for a while if you stay logged out for a long duration. However, if you're actively out adventuring, you could have earned that "bonus" experience 10 times over again. So, hard-core players still receive the brunt of the bonus, but at least casual players aren't at as much of a disadvantage.

[dsheroh]

Basically, it provides a way for casual players to catch up to the more hardcore players.

The trick is that, sure, you can earn double experience for a while if you stay logged out for a long duration. However, if you're actively out adventuring, you could have earned that "bonus" experience 10 times over again. So, hard-core players still receive the brunt of the bonus, but at least casual players aren't at as much of a disadvantage.

And then you've got players like me:  The alt-oholics.  When I was into WoW, I played as much as most hardcore players, but I had a dozen alts and would play each one until the XP bonus ran out, then switch to another alt.  Granted, I never leveled any of them higher than low-40s[1], but I was able to play as much as I wanted while always getting XP at the higher rate.


[1] I have no interest in PvP, so I feel no need to make a point of hitting the level cap.

[JGadrow]

lol I'm the same, except I must have played much longer than you. The very first thing I did upon hitting my server was make a character for each class in the game (I had 1 slot left which I filled with a death knight as soon as it became available to me).

I now have the following:
Mage - 80
Paladin - 75
Priest - 67
Death Knight - 65
Rogue - 62
Shaman - 50
Warlock - 46
Druid - 46
Warrior - 45
Hunter - 45

I was levelling all of them concurrently until my GF started to pass me up with her char. Then I picked my highest-level char to play with her. I subsequently learned of heirloom gear and decided to go ahead and cap my mage so I could get heirlooms for my other chars to level them faster. I only have 1 set left to purchase.

Of course, I just cancelled my subscription (expires in about 3 weeks) because I'm spending my time playing SC2 now. lol

[dsheroh]

lol I'm the same, except I must have played much longer than you.

Most likely, yes.  From memory, I played WoW for about a year before getting tired of it and going back to City of Heroes[1].  It was far enough back that level cap was at 60 and I seem to recall having been there when "rested experience" was added to the game, but I could just be imagining that, since I also seem to recall having read that it was in the game at launch.

The very first thing I did upon hitting my server was make a character for each class in the game (I had 1 slot left which I filled with a death knight as soon as it became available to me).

I tend to make the characters one at a time and try to work out a rotation among them so that they're not all the same level at the same time.  It never seems to work.  (I swear that, 90% of the time, the majority of my CoH characters are in the mid-20s...)

Of course, I just cancelled my subscription (expires in about 3 weeks) because I'm spending my time playing SC2 now. lol

SC2?  The only thing that comes to mind is Star Control 2, but somehow I doubt you're talking vintage games.

Although, OTOH, I missed the CoH: Going Rogue launch earlier this week because I was too busy playing Daggerfall to care, so it's definitely possible...


[1] CoH was my first (non-MUD) MMORPG and I keep going back to it whenever I get bored with another MMO.  The only others that I've gone back to after leaving were Auto Assault (which I got a free beta key for because I was a long-time CoH subscriber at the right time) and Tabula Rasa (which I got free beta and retail keys for because I was subscribed to Auto Assault when it shut down).  So it's all connected.  And, incidentally, I also got a free Aion collector's-edition key because I was subscribed to Tabula Rasa when it shut down, but it's still unused due to my lack of gaming PC lately.

I do occasionally wonder what this says about my taste in MMOs.

[JGadrow]

lol Star Control! I haven't thought about those games in a long time! But, no, I meant Starcraft 2. Starcraft was my favorite game of all time and ever since they let word of the sequel I had been dying to play it.

Essentially, it's still the same game. It has shinier graphics and they replaced some of the units with new ones but, all in all, I love the changes that they've made. And the single-player campaign is awesome. While I do enjoy multi-player sometimes, I really loved the storyline of SC and the one in SC2 was no disappointment.

Of course, Blizzard is evil though because they also chose to reveal that they're working on Diablo 3 too. But, at least I have SC2 to play until that one comes out. When they were both in dev at the same time, it was just pure evil having to wait.