Game design: How do we prevent them from killing eachothers?
by Kyrah Abattoir · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 05/23/2010 (4:39 pm) · 8 replies
Give players an arena, and a gun and your game is going to turn very soon in a pixel based bloodbath, how do we prevent this?
It might sound silly to wonder how to prevent players from killing eachothers in an FPS game but it is more about making the perception of the player more intense to me. The more explosions and death around a player, the less "intense" it feels. In the end it becomes all dull, someone working in an airport hardly notice the noise of the planes on the tarmac anymore.
I'm trying here to explore a few possibilities, how to let players fight eachothers and give them the right tools to do it without lowering the game to a mindless slaughter. This is in the idea of making a social experiment more than a deathmatch game.
Dimensions of the game world: It's obvious that a smaller, more cramped game world will encourage frictions and fight amongst the players, so we can consider that a larger gameworld (doesn't necessarly means a larger area, but can also be: more rooms, floors and corners) will reduce the amount of frictions between players. However there is a drawback, a too large game world brings the risk of boring the player.
Weapons precision: Precise weapons give satisfaction to a skilled player but they also give him confidence which increase the chance of him picking the brutal solution to a problem. Making weapons more impredictable still makes them a valid tool for the use of force to solve a problem but will carry the consequence that the outcome of the conflict will not be as predictable. The drawback is that it also lower the difference between a veteran player and a newbie, new players also tend to be more impulsive while they are still learning how the game is working.
High death consequences: Turning the death into a more serious consequence to a player's failure can also encourage the player to avoid direct confrontation, the main drawback is that it's a punishment that only apply to the loser, we all have been frustrated one day or another when being killed by another player by surprise and nothing we could have done differently would have changed the outcome.
I'm not sure my article is complete, but i would like to add that, even if we add more things to do, weapons remain an easy way to be gratified in a game, and as long as the guns are available it will be really difficult to make players keep it in their holster.
I'm open to suggestions :)
It might sound silly to wonder how to prevent players from killing eachothers in an FPS game but it is more about making the perception of the player more intense to me. The more explosions and death around a player, the less "intense" it feels. In the end it becomes all dull, someone working in an airport hardly notice the noise of the planes on the tarmac anymore.
I'm trying here to explore a few possibilities, how to let players fight eachothers and give them the right tools to do it without lowering the game to a mindless slaughter. This is in the idea of making a social experiment more than a deathmatch game.
Dimensions of the game world: It's obvious that a smaller, more cramped game world will encourage frictions and fight amongst the players, so we can consider that a larger gameworld (doesn't necessarly means a larger area, but can also be: more rooms, floors and corners) will reduce the amount of frictions between players. However there is a drawback, a too large game world brings the risk of boring the player.
Weapons precision: Precise weapons give satisfaction to a skilled player but they also give him confidence which increase the chance of him picking the brutal solution to a problem. Making weapons more impredictable still makes them a valid tool for the use of force to solve a problem but will carry the consequence that the outcome of the conflict will not be as predictable. The drawback is that it also lower the difference between a veteran player and a newbie, new players also tend to be more impulsive while they are still learning how the game is working.
High death consequences: Turning the death into a more serious consequence to a player's failure can also encourage the player to avoid direct confrontation, the main drawback is that it's a punishment that only apply to the loser, we all have been frustrated one day or another when being killed by another player by surprise and nothing we could have done differently would have changed the outcome.
I'm not sure my article is complete, but i would like to add that, even if we add more things to do, weapons remain an easy way to be gratified in a game, and as long as the guns are available it will be really difficult to make players keep it in their holster.
I'm open to suggestions :)
About the author
3D artist, programmer, game designer, jack of all trades, master of none.
#2
Even if the holster option excist peoples simply walk around with their weapons out , and it doesn't take much to degenerate the game in a deathmatch fest.
That's precisely the kind of thing i want to prevent. Give the players the tools while at the same time discouraging them to actually use them.
Kinda following the quote "with great powers come great responsibilities"
05/24/2010 (12:42 pm)
Yes i know this style of games, i've been playing recently a simmilar game of deception called "trouble in terrorist town" which is a garry's mod gamemode where a small group of traitors try to wipe out the rest of the group, who try to pinpoint who the traitors are.Even if the holster option excist peoples simply walk around with their weapons out , and it doesn't take much to degenerate the game in a deathmatch fest.
That's precisely the kind of thing i want to prevent. Give the players the tools while at the same time discouraging them to actually use them.
Kinda following the quote "with great powers come great responsibilities"
#3
Also, people play games at a meta-level when it's over the internet: They think about things outside the game themselves. For example, a game like Witch Hunt couldn't work because if there's Renowned Awesome Player X in your game, everyone will vote to kill him first regardless of what side he's on. They just know he's a powerful player. I suggest in order for these games to work, you would have to abandon persistent handles, or at least mask them in game.
One thing you can always do is make it so that no player has enough power to kill all the players (ammunition, whatever).
Another thing is making players be forced to holster SOME times. For example, a safe time during the game in which players are allowed to converse without performing hostile actions.
Still another thing is making the game enforce itself: whipping out your pistol in a bar will get you shot by people not playing your poker game :) Either convince people to take it outside or finish the hand of cards.
05/24/2010 (12:57 pm)
People are anonymous and will act like dicks over the internet. Also, people play games at a meta-level when it's over the internet: They think about things outside the game themselves. For example, a game like Witch Hunt couldn't work because if there's Renowned Awesome Player X in your game, everyone will vote to kill him first regardless of what side he's on. They just know he's a powerful player. I suggest in order for these games to work, you would have to abandon persistent handles, or at least mask them in game.
One thing you can always do is make it so that no player has enough power to kill all the players (ammunition, whatever).
Another thing is making players be forced to holster SOME times. For example, a safe time during the game in which players are allowed to converse without performing hostile actions.
Still another thing is making the game enforce itself: whipping out your pistol in a bar will get you shot by people not playing your poker game :) Either convince people to take it outside or finish the hand of cards.
#4
in the game "the ship" there was a barrier between the player character in the game and the "nick" of the person playing (you also got a name assigned to your character at each game round, this was effective at preventing anybody to make a connection between the character they interact in the game and the player behind it.
Yes, for the holstering, the main issue is that meta game "rules" rise up, so instead of everybody holstering so that anybody not doing so is considered a threat, peoples do the opposite because they rather have their weapon ready to fire and a 'no gun out' policy is only keeping them safer if everybody abid to it.
On a smaller scale it's probably easier to enforce, if when entering a building weapon out the gang of players in it yell at the new comer "you have 3 seconds to get your weapon down or we shoot you" but that require cooperation of the players.
I wonder if the default coded state of a weapon (holstered/raised) affect the dominant attitude of the players toward what they consider to be the "standard"
An example, in most of the resident evil games you have to hold a button to get your weapon raised in firing position, and in the earlier games you couldn't move at all when doing this. In this case it's very clear for the player that he is not expected to have his weapon raised at all time.
Anonymous players act like dicks, yes definitely but that's because most games stakes are high for success and low for failure. They can basically get away with reckless behaviors.
05/24/2010 (3:01 pm)
That's the thing, finding ways to close meta game possibilities.in the game "the ship" there was a barrier between the player character in the game and the "nick" of the person playing (you also got a name assigned to your character at each game round, this was effective at preventing anybody to make a connection between the character they interact in the game and the player behind it.
Yes, for the holstering, the main issue is that meta game "rules" rise up, so instead of everybody holstering so that anybody not doing so is considered a threat, peoples do the opposite because they rather have their weapon ready to fire and a 'no gun out' policy is only keeping them safer if everybody abid to it.
On a smaller scale it's probably easier to enforce, if when entering a building weapon out the gang of players in it yell at the new comer "you have 3 seconds to get your weapon down or we shoot you" but that require cooperation of the players.
I wonder if the default coded state of a weapon (holstered/raised) affect the dominant attitude of the players toward what they consider to be the "standard"
An example, in most of the resident evil games you have to hold a button to get your weapon raised in firing position, and in the earlier games you couldn't move at all when doing this. In this case it's very clear for the player that he is not expected to have his weapon raised at all time.
Anonymous players act like dicks, yes definitely but that's because most games stakes are high for success and low for failure. They can basically get away with reckless behaviors.
#5
This isn't accurate. Confidence leads to finesse, not brutality (compare a kid hanging out in a gang who has to always prove himself to a kid who hangs out in a boxing gym or martial arts dojo, who is trained to restrain himself). Precision is a tool of simplicity: A sniper rifle is super-accurate, therefore the sniper isn't knocking a building down to get at the one or two enemy inside it. A mortar is less precise, and is thus used as an area of effect weapon, and its explosive load is increased in order to make up for its imprecision.
If we're talking PvP, then the mechanics of a game which allows for both violent and non-violent conflict must be given equal weight. A gun must be equal to a word in this sense. If you have players with guns, but no real options for non-violence which are implemented through the game mechanics, the players will opt to use the gun because you have hamstrung them into doing so.
Then why bother giving them the tools in the first place? The player will play with everything given to him, and many things not given to him. Games are about exploration and experimentation, and if you give them things to use, but then don't allow them to be used, you're actually better off if you had never given them to the player, because you've broken the game yourself.
And that's also part of the meta-game (which cannot be stopped, by the way, since it occurs in the minds of the players even if they can't communicate- though, they'll find ways to do that as well).
I agree that there can be more non-violent games out there, but I think that going about it by giving the players weapons and then restricting their usage arbitrarily as part of the game mechanic is not the best design. Non-lethal solutions to problems should be employed (look at Splinter Cell, where entire levels consisted of just avoiding or knocking people out).
05/24/2010 (9:27 pm)
Quote: Precise weapons give satisfaction to a skilled player but they also give him confidence which increase the chance of him picking the brutal solution to a problem.
This isn't accurate. Confidence leads to finesse, not brutality (compare a kid hanging out in a gang who has to always prove himself to a kid who hangs out in a boxing gym or martial arts dojo, who is trained to restrain himself). Precision is a tool of simplicity: A sniper rifle is super-accurate, therefore the sniper isn't knocking a building down to get at the one or two enemy inside it. A mortar is less precise, and is thus used as an area of effect weapon, and its explosive load is increased in order to make up for its imprecision.
Quote:even if we add more things to do, weapons remain an easy way to be gratified in a game, and as long as the guns are available it will be really difficult to make players keep it in their holster.
If we're talking PvP, then the mechanics of a game which allows for both violent and non-violent conflict must be given equal weight. A gun must be equal to a word in this sense. If you have players with guns, but no real options for non-violence which are implemented through the game mechanics, the players will opt to use the gun because you have hamstrung them into doing so.
Quote: Give the players the tools while at the same time discouraging them to actually use them.
Then why bother giving them the tools in the first place? The player will play with everything given to him, and many things not given to him. Games are about exploration and experimentation, and if you give them things to use, but then don't allow them to be used, you're actually better off if you had never given them to the player, because you've broken the game yourself.
Quote:On a smaller scale it's probably easier to enforce, if when entering a building weapon out the gang of players in it yell at the new comer "you have 3 seconds to get your weapon down or we shoot you" but that require cooperation of the players.
And that's also part of the meta-game (which cannot be stopped, by the way, since it occurs in the minds of the players even if they can't communicate- though, they'll find ways to do that as well).
I agree that there can be more non-violent games out there, but I think that going about it by giving the players weapons and then restricting their usage arbitrarily as part of the game mechanic is not the best design. Non-lethal solutions to problems should be employed (look at Splinter Cell, where entire levels consisted of just avoiding or knocking people out).
#6
You can't force people to value others enjoyment over your own. You're either a nice guy on the internet or you're not. Anything used to limit people's choices (random aiming, high death consequences) will frustrate people and make them not want to play the game.
One thing that would be worth exploring is having your account/character offer to expose something important to people who want to play with you. For example if you want to play with strangers, you have to give up something (for example, access to your private stash). Then everyone has reasons to follow the rules because there's something at stake for everyone, not just winning the game. Then perhaps after the game, all the players have to vote on if they agree with the results of the game - If you don't agree, you lose a little bit of money, but if you agree, the winner gets money.
Each time you don't get your victory de-valued by a certain player, you're more likely to play with them and have more fun and roleplay more, metagame less.
By the same token, If you simply agreed with the results but didn't like playing with that person, you're free to not play with them anymore (like in Monopoly: I won't play with sore losers/winners.)
05/25/2010 (5:24 pm)
Also, the concept of the modern video game is one in which you play against people you don't know. Therefore, my enjoyment is the only thing that matters. If I play monopoly with family, friends, girlfriend etc., their fun is just as important as mine, so I'm more likely to make fun silly decisions (Boardwalk for Mediterranean? Sure... I'm KING OF THE SLUMS) and just play by player enforced rules.You can't force people to value others enjoyment over your own. You're either a nice guy on the internet or you're not. Anything used to limit people's choices (random aiming, high death consequences) will frustrate people and make them not want to play the game.
One thing that would be worth exploring is having your account/character offer to expose something important to people who want to play with you. For example if you want to play with strangers, you have to give up something (for example, access to your private stash). Then everyone has reasons to follow the rules because there's something at stake for everyone, not just winning the game. Then perhaps after the game, all the players have to vote on if they agree with the results of the game - If you don't agree, you lose a little bit of money, but if you agree, the winner gets money.
Each time you don't get your victory de-valued by a certain player, you're more likely to play with them and have more fun and roleplay more, metagame less.
By the same token, If you simply agreed with the results but didn't like playing with that person, you're free to not play with them anymore (like in Monopoly: I won't play with sore losers/winners.)
#7
Ted> the thing is that i am trying to balance things, i wat to give my players very powerful tools to affect the game world and other players, but i want to have some kind of "positive/negative feedback loop" that encourage the players to "behave" in the micro society that is the game world, while at the same time letting them break the rules, if they are willing to deal with the consequences.
05/25/2010 (7:26 pm)
Daniel> that's a very interesting concept of peer review (wouldn't work in my game model but i can see a lot of games that would benefit ery much from it)Ted> the thing is that i am trying to balance things, i wat to give my players very powerful tools to affect the game world and other players, but i want to have some kind of "positive/negative feedback loop" that encourage the players to "behave" in the micro society that is the game world, while at the same time letting them break the rules, if they are willing to deal with the consequences.
#8
Balancing behavior is a very difficult thing to do (behavior is unbalanced by default in nature). The best way is to deliver your positive and negative feedback within the context of the gameworld, and not through trying to close out meta-gaming (which pits you directly against the player). If the gameworld experience flows, then you know you've done it right. If not, then you know you should consider redesigning it.
05/25/2010 (7:48 pm)
Quote:the thing is that i am trying to balance things
Balancing behavior is a very difficult thing to do (behavior is unbalanced by default in nature). The best way is to deliver your positive and negative feedback within the context of the gameworld, and not through trying to close out meta-gaming (which pits you directly against the player). If the gameworld experience flows, then you know you've done it right. If not, then you know you should consider redesigning it.
Torque 3D Owner Daniel Balmert
Default Studio Name
Many games before have explored this idea: Clue for example.
At any time, you could accuse someone of being the culprit (shooting, in effect). The risk of missing caused people to keep it in their holster until they were absolutely sure they could win. Clue is also really awesome in that you could be the culprit and not know it
Also, the game Witch Hunt - a game you play with a large group of people. Some are witches, others are villagers. Each side takes turns killing each other strategically until one side is left, but you never know who's a witch unless you're one of them. The game usually has a lot of innocent villagers getting killed for no reason other than suspicion, so people try really hard to make their kill-vote work.