Your Game's Strongest Player

[CygnusX]

I noticed an interesting phenomenon in my last game concerning the game's strongest player in PvP scenarios.  I thought I'd share.

Basically, in beta, I discovered that the person that gets on top early will stay on top given he/she frequently logs in and continues to make decent decisions.  I think everyone runs into this eventually.  This is a problem not only because it makes it impossible to climb the ladder (even by adding penalties for attacking down and bonuses for attacking up), but for new players, it can be difficult to find anybody that you're capable of attacking.

So, what methods does everyone implement to guard against this?  I have considered:

Adding NPC's.  This would provide a means of leveling independent of the PvP system and would be great for new players.  However, NPC's may detract too heavily from the PvP aspect of the game, and inappropriately cast the game as an RPG.  It may also lead to a sense of grinding which I want to avoid.  With this system, I have little experience.

An honor system that penalizes you for attacking below your rank.  This would accumulate over time, and would take away from your overall power the lower your honor went.  My problem with this is that it would force players to play a purely defensive game, or fall in power (as nobody can win attacking up until the person above them suffered enough from the honor debuff).  I prefer to have all player styles have equal chance of success. 

Paper-Rock-Scissors.  In this system, a player has 3 weapons at their disposal.  Lets say slash, pierce and crush (ie, sword, spear, club.  Could also be done through combat, spying, wizardry).  The player also has a defense against each of the 3 attacks independently.   So, the top player would either have to have well rounded defense (point spread amongst all defensive types) and thus be weak to a focused attacked against any one type.  Or, the top player would have to focus in one area of defense, and then be weak against the other two.

Group attacks - If players have hard attributes such as HP, it would be possible to have multiple people attack the top player in hopes of slowly reducing them to death.  This would be especially effective if Exp was lost upon death.  However, this system seems very prone to multiple account problems (or the 'I have a lot of friends' problem).

Are there any other methods I've missed?

[Nox]

Army upkeep - it's not really a solution, but in case of heavier army upkeep, noone can stay at top indefinitely and has to go down from time to time to gather resources (eco phase), thus making the game oscillate among these phases

[Chris]

CygnusX... you are playing a game that have the answers you asked for right now Coronation, advantage of maneuverability, overcrowding, much much much weaker opponent, combat exp gain, low score strategy... It hurts me you didn't listed any of these, it hurts

There are *tons* of solutions, most of them can be found in eurogames (type of boardgames). Althrough it might be impossible to understand without having a decent collection of these and playing them... Still you could try reading the rules for these games.

[CygnusX]

lol.   This is true.  Lords has many good systems, especially with the newbie problem.  I will also address these based on my perception of the game (this may not be correct, but this is how I currently see it):

Auto Generated lower accounts -  Spam the game with entry level accounts to provide pond scum for newbies to feed off of.  This fixes the entry level problem, but unlike the NPC resolution, makes it appear upon entry that the game is dead.  It is quite obvious when everyone your rank has 500k in their account that they're not playing.

Coronation - pick a person and serve under them as a Lord, or serve as their Lord.  This could give minor bonuses that influence the outcome of the game as well as drive more people to playing (also, there is an added fun factor).  However, I would hesitate to design a system that gives large bonuses for friends (or allow for unlimited friends that can each buff you) as the winner then becomes the player with the most friends.  This could drive as many people from the game as it creates, and doesn't truly resolve the topic issue.

Overcrowding - or some mechanic that prevents the top player from growing.  This is a great idea, but needs to be very cleverly designed.  Simply limiting the growth of the top player only narrows the gap, it does not allow for rank swap.  The best system I've seen is for a turn based starcraft type game.  If a player has millions of minerals, but forgot to build key supply depots, they quickly find themselves waiting for construction to complete before having the ability to advance.  In the mean time, they're stuck holding millions of minerals that an opponent could potentially steal.  This is a great mechanism by which the top player can fall.  In instant build games, I'm not quite sure how to implement this.

Exp Gains - Giving bonuses for attacking up and nerfs for attacking down helps narrow the gap, but does not result in rank swap.  This system make sense and seems like a good solution, but in my experience, does not solve the problem.  

Low Score Strategy - honestly Chris, I haven't figured this one out yet  

[Chris]

Auto Generated lower accounts -  Spam the game with entry level accounts to provide pond scum for newbies to feed off of.

LOL. Indeed, I hesitate to delete inactive accounts too easly so new players have easy targets to feed of BTW, we had NPCs accounts, but not needed anymore.

Coronation - pick a person and serve under them as a Lord, or serve as their Lord.

Not that one, the coronation tech. That's the most sophisticated (in terms of hidden side effects) tech in the whole game. You actually start playing lords consciously once you fully understand the implication of its effects.

but does not result in rank swap

But you don't want to swap ranks. At least not too much and not always. If a new player joins the game and there is old one and both are equal skill the old one would stay on top. Otherwise the game is broken (actually there are a few short term exceptions but long term that's how it its and that's how it should be, for an ultimate solution there is one and only one solution which is reset).



The key to understanding the "strong player not always being on top" is the proper state of mind. You have to be making a game, a game that is reset and is a strategy. If you are making not a game but virtual world, that happen to be an RPG and is everlasting then you can not make it. Your mind would prohibit you. But even if you manage to do it, you should not. Everlasting RPG virtual worlds are about old and persistent players staying on the top. That's how it is and that's how it should be. That's why players play these "games" (or more accurate emerge in such worlds).

So, are you ready to at least think of your game as a strategy that will end and then start again from scratch without leaving anything from the past game (I wouldn't even use here the term "past round", a whole "new game" fits more here)? If yes, then you will be able to utilize the most powerful counter techniques to the problem.

The most powerful solution (except resets) comes from eurogames (again, as I always believe that these are the solution to the worlds problems of almost all kinds, feel free to ignore it ) and is called separation of power and score.

Example. You can build only 2 things soldier and monument. Each time you attack another player you get 1 score. Solder add +1 to combat, monument increases reward from combat by 1 score. Now think about it, how to win the game? If you have 10 monuments and win only 10% you are even to those who invested everything into soldiers. But assume you can win 30% of time with 10 monuments. Now you are getting 3 times more score than the most powerful player! You were forced to make a decision at some point, power or score. When you think about it, it has awesome implications. Old, skilled player will be less powerful than new players. Because new ones/casual would go for pure power. Casuals would enjoy the sheer power, the ability to obliterate old ones. Old ones will enjoy the final rank, the thing they outsmated casuals and got into the final ranking on top of them.
Of course the tiny problem is with score being displayed during the game and then the old ones would appear higher all the time. There are several solutions to this like displaying the rank by power during the game and by score at the end high score or by making the score delayed/partially hidden (like if monuments instead of adding more score would multiple already collected score at the end of the round). Another limitation is that there can not be combat casualities for this to work (or at least very tiny one).

[CygnusX]

My goal is not rank-swap of player 10000 to player 1.  Rather, I want turmoil between players 1-20, between 10-30, between 20-50, etc.  My frustration comes from a game I played years ago in which the #1 guy sat at the top spot, and nobody could shake him.  I got to #20 in that game, and no matter what I did, I failed.  Then in a game I made, I saw the same thing happened with its most powerful player.  Once he established a lead, nobody could touch him.  And if you are that person in the lead, it can become boring.  And going down in rank because you're bored due to never losing is not what I'm after.

What I am after is a situation in which the top player gets passed, and a player that has but a small chance gets a big win.  One of my favorite gaming moments that I'm sure everyone can relate to was in playing monopoly.  I had some small properties and was at the end of the game competing against a player with hotels on boardwalk.  If i had landed on boardwalk, I would have instantly lost.  But, after skipping over this property, my opponent landed twice on properties I owned, and due to no cash reserve (see hotels on boardwalk), had to start mortgaging his properties.  This is the type situation I wish to recreate.

I agree with your idea on resets.  Its not really a game unless everyone has to start anew at some point.  Otherwise, its just a SIM with game elements.  These are required, though the frequency of resets can be debated.  My goal is for both players that did well and did not do well to want to come back and try again.  This, for me, is the definition of success.

I dislike the pure separation of score and power.  But, conversely, if score = power, then the game will inherently suffer from unbeatable players.  My goal is to make a hybrid system.  One in which power is a large function of score, but smart choices (such as your momentum example) can give the player an edge.  The other half of this is to give players multiple options as to what constitutes power.  Roles such as Tank, Fighter, Mage and Theif all come to mind.  Each has a different style of being powerful.  Yet, no one system can claim to be superior.

[Chris]

What I am after is a situation in which the top player gets passed, and a player that has but a small chance gets a big win.  One of my favorite gaming moments that I'm sure everyone can relate to was in playing monopoly.  I had some small properties and was at the end of the game competing against a player with hotels on boardwalk.  If i had landed on boardwalk, I would have instantly lost.  But, after skipping over this property, my opponent landed twice on properties I owned, and due to no cash reserve (see hotels on boardwalk), had to start mortgaging his properties.  This is the type situation I wish to recreate.

So make it that after playing months you get one bad roll and you fall? I like it, solves a lot of problems, only if these annoying players would understand that losing completely randomly and without their fault and without the chance to prevent it is realistic and fair and not an indication of a broken game

Each has a different style of being powerful.

Huh? Isn't "powerful" strictly numeric value made of number of players you can pwn?

[CygnusX]

I wouldn't say it came down to one bad roll.  That's like saying an entire soccer match was determined by a single penalty kick.  Or a game of football was decided by what happened in overtime.  Rather, in this game, 2 players made it to the end, and the underdog came out the winner.  I consider this to be an ideal mechanic simply because the person with less was given a chance (though small) at victory.

Powerful is not a strictly numeric value.  You should know this from samuraiMMORPG   A player with a higher level can lose to a player of a lower level if he gets drawn into the wrong type of attack.  The higher level player can have more skill points, and thus more 'power', but can still lose. 

[Delifisek]

I think eve online finds the solution. Limit the things and give options to generate multiple strategies, other wise better players / clans are doom of the game eko system...

[BaRRaKID]

I'm finding this topic rather interesting, since this a problem that I also wanted to avoid in my game.
First thing that got me thinking on this was a article I read (can't find the link atm) about game battles that stated that winner of a battle should be first the player who has the best tactic, second the one with the best "tech" (experience, special items, skills, etc), and third the one with the bigger army.
This means that in a battle between two players, the one with the best tactic should always win (off course I'm not considering edged cases like first vs last, but battles between players at more or less the same skill level). If neither of the tactics gives one player an advantage over the other then the one with the best "tech" should win. And ff they've approximately the same tech, then the one with the biggest army wins.
So with this in mind, how do we allow a player to have a better tactic than another?
One solution could be to have each player choose between one of three "classes" (not classes in the typical rpg/mmo sense, but more like anything that categorizes the players armies into three distinct groups) each annulling the other like in rock-paper-scissors. This means that if the top player chooses the rock class, lower ranked players that have the paper class should be able to defeat him, even if they have a smaller army and lower tech. If you also add the ability for players to change classes under certain conditions (like once a month or any other constrain that applies to your game) you'll have a game the adapts itself so that the player on top is never the same. If the top player has rock, then everyone that wants to beat him will choose paper, which means that eventually a paper player will get on top, or that paper will be the most used class, which then means that people will want to change to scissors since they either want to beat the top player or have more targets, which eventually will make scissors the most used class, which will make players want to change to rock again, and so on. withthis you will get a rotative rank which seems to be the ideal option to avoid always having the same player on the top.

[Nox]

EDIT: I mistook "tactic" for "skill"

I partially agree, but this is imho tricky to put like this - unless you give the player information (or options to obtain information) to base his choice on, you basicly make the tactic only luck-based/guessing feature.
But here are some tips to improve it http://www.sirlin.net/articles/designing-yomi.html or more http://www.sirlin.net/article-archive/

On top of that ... I'm not sure the design you read can be applied universally, without taking target audience into account
-------

Then ... one might ask why to we actually want to limit someone when he plays our game well. We could make it so the better you play, you're not stronger but enjoy it better (more options), but then we would limit content for others (actually, I consider using this in a smaller measure).

*** Maybe we could give other players means to learn from the strong player to pull themselves up. Instead of punishing the player that plays well.

Of course there should be enough space for the better players to progress anyway.

[Chris]

that winner of a battle should be first the player who has the best tactic, second the one with the best "tech" (experience, special items, skills, etc), and third the one with the bigger army.

As a player I disagree. I spent hours building my army composition on strategic level, pumped a lot into reasearch and made careful decisions by analysing enemy weak points using my spies network. And after all this I should lose with my superior army that *I* made using *my* effort and superior strategic level brains because the other player can position the stupid archer unit on the tactical battlefield screen better? I don't want play tactical games with some lame captain directing each lame squadron, if I wanted to play these I would play RTS. I want to play strategic games where I'm the ruler of a whole nation and the key to victory is how I assign my limited resources not how I move these lowly units on battlefield, I have my generals for this.
(Disclaimer - other players might think otherwise )

The point is, tactic and strategy are mutually exclusive (to some extend). You need to decide which one you make. And personally I fell that RTS are much more suited for tactical level play that turn based.

[CygnusX]

It is fundamental that lower ranked players be allow to attack and defeat higher ranked opponents.  The mechanisms for this aside, this simple mechanic must be included and it must be effective.

A key thing to remember is that many people are drawn to games because it allows them to lose in a safe environment.  It is almost desired/expected for a top tier player to lose on occasion.  Without loss, there is no perceived challenge, which makes a game boring.  The key here is for the loss to be logical (not sheer random chance) and for the explanation to be available. 

Perception is key.  It is easy to design fair math, but it is difficult to code fair perception.  Always consider a players perception and not just the math behind the events.

[BaRRaKID]

I think that the main idea of this guideline is that a player should never win the battle just because he has a bigger army, or the best skills/items/whatever. Tactic here can mean for example having the right units to counter your opponents units, as in the example I've given if your opponent has "rock units" the tactic is using "paper units" to defeat him, and even if you have a smaller army and lower techs you should be able to win the battle because you have the stronger tactic (I probably mean strategy, but I always get the two words mixed).
If both the players have "rock units" then, following this guideline, the one with the highest tech level should win because his tech level will make his army stronger.
If they both have rock units, and about the same tech level, then the one with the bigger army should win.

[gnoh]

It is fundamental that lower ranked players be allow to attack and defeat higher ranked opponents.  The mechanisms for this aside, this simple mechanic must be included and it must be effective.

That is counter intuitive,  and playing into the hands of would be multis if all they have to do is have a bunch of low levels to wreak people that have been nurturing there account for a long time,  A much better solution would be one that higher ranked players have little to no reward for attacking much weaker targets.

Imagine playing for a while and then getting beaten up by some upstart who started 3 days ago and landed near to you, that's a sure fire way to piss off your long term active player base, and you're moving away from the feeling of progress, all these techs,buildings/whatever your game runs on really counts for nothing.

A key thing to remember is that many people are drawn to games because it allows them to lose in a safe environment.  It is almost desired/expected for a top tier player to lose on occasion.  Without loss, there is no perceived challenge, which makes a game boring.  The key here is for the loss to be logical (not sheer random chance) and for the explanation to be available. 

Players don't like to loose, especially if the odds are high for winning.   

[CygnusX]

@gnoh  tldnr;?

[Chris]

If both the players have "rock units" then, following this guideline, the one with the highest tech level should win because his tech level will make his army stronger. If they both have rock units, and about the same tech level, then the one with the bigger army should win.

In normal games, yes. In massive multiplayer there are infinite targets weak to your setup and infinite enemies that have perfect setup against you. It just make it so when you attack you always win (you choose vulnerable ones) and when you defend you always lose (because only those perfect against your setup attack you).


I feel in this topic there are too many "tricks". You build a game on strong math foundations, when you have bigger army you win, you don't give too much to random chance but base it on what player built during the game. Tricks like heavy randomness, impressions, players perception, counterintuitive battle outcomes are the second layer, an addition. You hand select some of them and carefully implement, as exception and with care, not as the basis of the game.

[BaRRaKID]

I feel in this topic there are too many "tricks". You build a game on strong math foundations, when you have bigger army you win, you don't give too much to random chance but base it on what player built during the game. Tricks like heavy randomness, impressions, players perception, counterintuitive battle outcomes are the second layer, an addition. You hand select some of them and carefully implement, as exception and with care, not as the basis of the game.

I completely disagree with you on this except for the part about randomness, since I believe that a combat system should be predictable and easy to understand, and that randomness in this case usually leads to player frustration since can they never really know what the outcome of the battle will be.
In my opinion basing your combat system primarily on numbers (or amount of units) leads usually to boring games. I think that smarter players should be given an advantage over those that just have too much free time and that create armies without much thinking or planning.
What I want to do is reward good strategy, and by my experience players enjoy games more if they make them feel smart. When you create a battle system that allows a player to outsmart the other it will most certainly lead to a much more interesting game.

For example you've probably played Angry Birds, or at least heard about the game. There are two ways in which you can play the game, either you use all your birds more or less randomly and eventually kill all the pigs, or you try to use just one bird an throw her at that exact place the creates the chain reaction that kills the pigs. The difference is that the less birds you use (or in other words the smarter you are) the more points you get since each bird that you don't use gives you a 10000 points bonus, so in effect the game is rewarding smarter players.
The result is the most downloaded game on both the Apple and Android markets, with over 20million downloads, 7million of which are of the paid version

[JGadrow]

I'm going to agree with Barrakid's last post. The "bigger army always wins" tactic is a great way to create a system that places certain people on top and keeps them there with a minimal amount of effort. In essence, it does exactly what the OP was trying to avoid. The exception is, of course, if you place a cap on the army size. If the size is capped, then even a new player can eventually reach that cap and be a contender.

[Chris]

And once again I have forgotten that majority of browser games are mindless army growth feasts rewarding people with abundance of time Yes, right, in such games strategy is broken and for them tactic is better. But what I meant is you should not fix broken strategy by introducing powerfull tactic that make strategy irrelevant. This is wrong solution since the problem is in strategy part, not tactical part. Fix the strategic army building part first, so it is not mindless and reward skills. And then, once it is fixed, you cad add a good nice tactical battle that could turn the tables in some cases (but not as the most important or the only important factor) to spice things up.

What I want to do is reward good strategy, and by my experience players enjoy games more if they make them feel smart. When you create a battle system that allows a player to outsmart the other it will most certainly lead to a much more interesting game.

This is not rewarding good strategy, but rewarding good tactic. With this you punish good strategists and reward good tacticians

[saljutin]

strategy - gain 100 people per day (BASIC, cannot be upgraded), train them each day to certain area
tactic - choose what % of units deploy on battlefield (archers,horsemen,swordman)
priceless - watch people find "hole" in every single flaw you made and see them rage when you nerf it

[Chris]

priceless - watch people find "hole" in every single flaw you made and see them rage when you nerf it

LOL, how true

[AcidicOne]

A game I used to play ages ago used this technique to reward and at a certain point even punish individuals who grew to great in power.

Every 3 months we where able to reincarnate (start over from lvl 1) the purpose for this was a exponential level bank, we stopped receiving stat points at lvl 50 in 4 area's. each lvl over 50 went into our "bank points" Now this System had 2 parts, each fight we took part in had a Power rating cap, your total stat points for each player had a power rating ie 240 stat points = 3 PR, and 250 = PR 4 and so on. So if your battlefield had a max power rating of say 50 you could only fit 12 PR 4 players inside, only leaving 2PR left to be filled. Now this worked with reincarnation because every 3 months we gained more and more stat points which made a lot of the long term players "fat" as we called them, meaning the battles then became more like 15 vs 8 because the higher players took up more room. we had and still to this day do have(last i checked) 1 player who has played since beta, his PR is so high he has to rush to get into battle before the guild's take over control over entrance into battles because otherwise he wont be allowed in because he takes up sooo much of the PR. granted his units mow down the average and even a lot of the higher up players just from the sheer amount of stat points he has but a well organized group easily take's advantage as he can only be in at most 2 places on the battle field at time unit wise, but can only truly pay attention to 1 place at a time.

So because of the whole "fat players" the community then had to rethink our builds, was it worth adding 1 extra stat point to our stats if it ment going up in PR rating? (only stat points applied counted towards our PR, leaving alot of us with unused points because the amount of stat points gained was not worth the extra PR rating)And some took it even farther and would do stat setup's specifically around the "impact units" ie the hard hitters, or damage taking units, with no regard to any other units, giving them low PR and ideal setups for the unit types.

[pixlepix]

The best thing to counter this is casualties. Other then that, try to stay away from direct limit on somethings(ie, you can attack as often as you want,  but you suffer temporary casualties.