Should team be essential to victory?

[Chris]

Should players be forced to form alliances/teams in order to win the game? Or should we make teams meaningless so you can win the same way no matter if you are in team or not. Take a note there is no option for "something in the middle", this is because a potencial edge given by team benefit would render victory for a solo player impossible assuming equal skills and effort.

I'm not talking about solo player being obliterated or being unable to play. Only that solo player could not be able to beat an equally skilled player that is in an alliance or reach a very high rank on the score table (max lower high/medium rank).


NOTE: This has nothing to do with winning combat, we are talking about the overall chances of "winning the game" or progressing in the game faster.

[Shrapnel]

I said no that being on a team should not be essential, but I think it's ok if it is required.  In some games I think it's pretty impossible to make it so a solo player can win unless you don't allow alliances like in a nation building type game.  How the heck would a solo player win with his meager one army against the multiple armies of a large alliance?  Would be nice if he could, but not sure how you could make it possible.

[Chris]

Well, that's basicly the question. Should we allow alliances that give decent bonuses and therefore are essential to victory or do we make no alliances or make them give no bonuses and let solo players win.

Which one to choose? :-)

[Nox]

Since we talk about single distinct fight I voted for no...  what 'm currently leaning towards is that team can help you with recovery, maybe picking targets and other various off-combat matters, but equal chances in certain fight

I indend also to introduce some e.g. character's recovery function for players not in team, with different mechanism, maybe a bit weaker.
(of course with fixing things like - enter team, get recovery, leave team, use recovery function, enter team again...)

If not, it should at least be that way at the beginning, since it's not easy to find some group if you don't know anyone - at least for me it was. In a game I played it was also the way that to get to non-low-level alliance you needed to have some previous results and experience, otherwise they wouldn't accept you. And low-level alliances were often bad in cooperation, so it wasn't any better

Some people does not have to be really communicative (which is not rare among geeks, right ehm) and still enjoy bbg, that way it would be compulsory for player to get to team, otherwise be (almost) constantly losing...


However... when I think about it that way might not be the best actually since the off-combat help might allow player to fight more and get ahead anyway ~ winning battle, losing war :/ ... maybe give lone player similar but different options so the effectivity is same but options a bit different...and teams for socializing then

I think you already mentioned players of your game(s?) always form alliances even if it doesn't have any in-game benefit, so I don't think it would hurt

[Chris]

No, we are not talking about winning a single combat. We are talking about "winning the game" in a very broad sense. Can you win the game alone or not?

what 'm currently leaning towards is that team can help you with recovery, maybe picking targets and other various off-combat matters, but equal chances in certain fight

Is recovery important enough? If yes you have forced teamplay. If not you have meaningless alliances.

Some people does not have to be really communicative (which is not rare among geeks, right ehm) and still enjoy bbg, that way it would be compulsory for player to get to team, otherwise be (almost) constantly losing...

Correct, such player would be unable to win the game (alhrough they could still be palying (probably) and struggling or just getting lower rank/standing).

maybe give lone player similar but different options so the effectivity is same but options a bit different...and teams for socializing then

= no meaningful game affecting alliances.

I think you already mentioned players of your game(s?) always form alliances even if it doesn't have any in-game benefit, so I don't think it would hurt

Yes, I have purely social alliances in my games (well, except for sharing knowledge of targets and better organisation of finding trade partners, but this can still be done at 100% equal efficency when alone).

[jannesiera]

I find this question rather impossible to answer without knowing more about the game.

[Chris]

I find this question rather impossible to answer without knowing more about the game.

The question is what kind of game to make, or what kind of game you would like to play, or what kind of game you personally find superior.

This is not an "absolute" question, both types of games can be excellent. But if you had a gun put to your head and asked to choose one, which would it be (feel free to provide different answers as a designer and as a player)?

[pixlepix]

What about making it so that small teams of 2-3 people are best, some mechanics promoting communications between a designated group.

[dsheroh]

This seems an awful lot like a variation of the "forced grouping" debate in the MMO world.  On the one hand, you have the MMO devs who want players to group because, if they don't, then what's the point of the game being multiplayer?  On the other, you have players who don't want to waste limited play time on looking for a group to join or waiting for group members to get ready for the next activity.

My take, then, is that grouping should always be optional.  Players should be able to succeed (for some definitions of "success") in the game regardless of whether they choose to join a team or go it alone, although it's only natural that some things will be easier when you've got friends to help you with them.  You shouldn't try to force players into one specific play style without a damn good reason.

[Chris]

The responses made me wonder, most of you didn't get the concept of "winning the game", or didn't care? It took me a lot of explaining along the way that this is about winning the game, no winning a fight or something else.

For me, as hardcore strategy games player, the concept is obvious and natural. The game is to be won (well, that's not the only reason, and not for everyone, but at least I assumed that 50% of players would acknowledge that reason). Therefore, if alliance features give like 5-10% more score than solo the game is forced teamplay. You have to join an alliance in such game and there are no questions asked. Right?

But most of you, or even all, do not think this way. Or such way of thinking was not yours first choice. I get an impression, that most of you would accept "losing the game by 10%" just because you are not in an alliance. That you would accept unfairness (meaning by features that benefit others more than you) in a game, as long as it is not too visible or do not prevent you from playing or not turn you into pushower everyone can kill at whim or do not bar you from achieving some kind of success or progress.

Am I correct here? (except for dsheroh, I know he does not acknowledge winning a game as an important reason )

[dsheroh]

Am I correct here? (except for dsheroh, I know he does not acknowledge winning a game as an important reason )

Not quite correct, actually...    When talking about persistent games (which I tend to assume as the default, although I probably shouldn't), I don't acknowledge "winning" as being a meaningful concept.  A persistent game (as I define the concept, at least) never ends, therefore there can never be a "winner" unless you define winning in such a fashion that it's non-exclusive.  (e.g., If you "win" by hitting the level cap, then all players who put in enough hours will, eventually, be "winners".)

Which takes us right back to janne's reply that the question can't be answered without knowing more about the game.  If it's a typical endless PBBG, then there isn't a winner in the first place and my earlier response applies.  If it's the old Avalon Hill Diplomacy, then you can't win on a team (only one player can win), but temporary alliances and cooperation with other players are essential and someone who goes it alone will be eaten alive.  If it's a football game (either kind of "football") with each player only controlling a single athlete, then forced team play is absolutely appropriate, since one man can't take to the field alone.  If it's Battle for Wesnoth, then a solo player might be able to beat an opposing alliance if he's very careful and very lucky, but it would be exceptionally difficult; he should still be allowed to try, suicidal though it may be.  And so on.

[pixlepix]

Quite a few 'persistant' browser games do end, eventually. Just take a look at travian. It ends, though each round takes a year.