The way you have set it up it means that the people you are attacking might not be able to see your presence. This means for example, the enemy might be standing right in front of you and not bother to dodge as you continually pound him. This is not very satisfying for the killer, who would very likely assume that their opponent had just timed out or something.

Quote:MMO FPS like Planetside was most fun when you were in a good group, and you were winning...Playing FPS against NPCs is not as much fun as playing against other people

Consider the reason why playing against real people is more fun: you know that they are real. When you defeat them, you have proven your superiority over another person who is equally matched. That makes you feel good about yourself.

Even if you are able to implement this strategy without technical flaws, players will know that it is happening. The more frequently you win, the less satisfaction you get from winning...especially if you didn't have to start out as a newb who got killed all the time and work your way up to greatness. Players will know that the system is implemented, and that their opponent's are not fairly matched. I think this may make players feel like they are cheating and not be able to enjoy the spoils of victory as much.

Don't see why it wouldn't work. I really like the idea of the game server manipulating the perceived environment for each player - that is the ultimate power of network gaming. I have a feeling there is some sort of formalism that describes this type of gameplay that would extend it beyond the deathmatch-type game case, but I have no idea where it would be found.

Oh yeah, yahastu has a point there. There's probably a remedy, though.

It's absolutely insane...by which I mean I agree with your conclusion, that it really deserves a prototype, at least to see if you can work out all the logical inconsistencies. Just try to avoid tearing the space-time continuum and creating a black hole that devours the universe.

I think you could get it working. I think it might even be fun. But I'm really skeptical that it could translate to any kind of sane tactical or strategic situation in the MMO context. I never played Planetside, so I've no idea how that works, but I always thought games like TRIBES were vastly more fun than a simple deathmatch.

Simple mayhem is entertaining in brief doses, but always winning sucks. Apply this as a kind of adaptive handicap, and you might really be on to something.

I wouldn't say that games should be easy, but most any game out there starts at an easier level, then progresses to more difficult. Network games could work the same way, so that more-experienced game players can play with less experienced. This method could be a way of leveling up, if, instead of "invisible player", it weighted the impact of players against other players. That doesn't have quite the same elegance of just taking a character out of play - but fades out their impact. Do any network FPS games do this?

[Edited by - DWN on February 10, 2009 2:46:14 PM]

hplus,

Instead of weakening one team by making them always be outnumbered, you could try reducing their life of all enemies by like 25%, but using the same method otherwise. This would eliminate a lot of the "social confusion" effects.

What are all the different ways in a networked FPS that you can increase a player's handicap?

Team (allied players who play better or more allies)
Exposure (fewer experienced players that can attack player)
Environment (better tactical position, shorter distance from goal)
Movement (greater speed, jumps, turns)
Shield (greater defense)
Damage (greater attack)
Lives (more chances)
Items (access to in-game bonuses)
Knowledge (ability to find secret walls, goals, detect enemies)

Did I miss some?

Quote:Original post by hplus0603
For example, you could favor one side by only allowing half of the players from the other side to be visible. Thus, on the red server, there are players R1 through R4, and they only see players B1 and B2. On the blue server, players B1 through B4 see players R1 and R2.

Let me get this straight your idea is to allow 4 people to attack 2 people while making the two other players invincible (In your example B3 and B4). Then to even this out you want to allow R3 and R4 to be invincible and randomly choose that B1, B2, R1, and R2 are going to die.

It's interesting though because if B1 and B2 don't shoot back then players R1 and R2 could still take damage from B3 and B4. To make matters worse B3 and B4 could be using snipers and B1 and B2 could be using pistols. All of a sudden even though B1 and B2 aren't attacking R1 and R2 are taking sniper fire. This would appear to be a huge glitch in the game.

Better yet. B1 and B2 are hiding behind cover. In a real MMOFPS R1 and R2 would shoot at B3 and B4. But those players are unknown to R1 and R2. However, B3 and B4 can attack R1 and R2 so they will take damage from invisible players.

That should tell you this can't work unless those points are fixed. To make it really simple pretend it's just 2v2. R1 and R2 are out in the open and can see B1. B1 is hiding behind a tree and B2 is out in the open. B1 and B2 can only see R1. They both gun down R1 easily since he can't see B2. The game keeps playing and R1 just died randomly and he has no idea why.

Also imagine seeing "B2 killed R1" and R1 is thinking, "where was B2?"

You're not even taking into consideration Vehicles/Planes, Weapons and such.

I know when I play an MMOFPS I don't want to be singled out to die by the server.


I understand you're trying to think about how to balance it, but you have to remember Planetside wasn't about winning or losing so much as just being there in a huge war fighting 133 enemies. These games aren't about winning plus if you've played Planetside for a while then you'd know that the feeling of using strategy against that many players feels so much better than having the server hand it to you. (50+ kill Liberator bombing anyone?)