I'm sick of missions. They seem to be getting shorter and fewer each game, but the only thing that almost every game has. Yeah, I know the textures are high resolution, I know there are more models and meshes to look at, more units, more VO... but I finished Blue Shift in 3 days! Yet I can still play a good game of Starcraft, years after the stupid thing was released. Skirmish mode seems to be an ideal way of keeping the game on the hard drive. You don't even have to be the best game on the block. And you don't have to chuck story for it: Fallout 1-2 and Star Control 2 are good examples where players could get themselves into the meatiest part of the action at will (although the Fallouts weren't really customizable). Skirmish just lets you get to the good stuff, without wait. So, What Makes a Great Skirmish Mode? Configuration? Not as hard as level building, but this packs a lot of punch because players can vary their encounters. I'd say they should not only be able to pick what they're up against, but be able to specify a RANGE of opposition, in order to create suspense. Any ideas for config? How about start positions? Not just physical location, but what the opposition starts out with down to the lowest level. This can make a lot of difference in the rate of interaction, pace of the game, and initial disposition. Goals If the game supports multiple goals, and the AI knows how to play, this would be ideal for extending the life of the game because the game won't play out to the same inevitable conclusion each time. AI Settings I think you should be able to configure each opponent differently. Teams and allies, mixed with different play styles (defensive, overly aggressive, etc.) would be sweet. What do you think? What's the ultimate skirmish mode? I'm seeing a lot of similarities with open-ended 4x games, except the games can be finished in a much shorter amount of time. -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership... Edited by - Wavinator on July 10, 2001 10:04:02 PM

Wow, Wav on steriods! 80% of the posts there last days are entitled that "Wavinator"... Anyway.

BattleCry had a nice skirmish, especially at higher levels of difficulty. One of the things that made it cool is the random maps and... Wait, are we gonna discuss some sci-fi aspects of AI programming as always, or we gonna stick to plain words? So...

1. Nice randomiser settings, yet not time consuming, so you can hop right in. But you could play with them for 4-5 minutes and get "a personalised random " map and opponents.
2. Multiple skirmish modes: king of the hill, last man standing, blood fest, asassination... Those allowed different play tactics.
3. The fearless leader: you have a hero, which is leading forces in every skirmish game and advances. Also, you can transfer limited number of units from one battle to another, based on experience from the last battle (ie only the most experienced get a transfer).
4. Nice AI: as strange as it sounds, the AI of the game (Battlecry) seemed intelligent at higher levels of difficulty. It tried to beat you with skill, not only with resources.
5. And one thing Battlecry didn''t had. Advanced scoring system. I want to be able to play the skirmish for 15 mins and over it, or for a weekend and not come to an end. Setting game duration when beggining is not suitable, unless you provide some control to change the lenght from in-game. Say you intended to play for half an hour but you got tied in a nice combat and now you want to continue the game over the weekend, but your "Time left" timer is ticking and there are 5 mins left and counting. So I want a system that will allow me to resign at any given time, scoring my progress. Yes, I know this allows to "escape" from battle just before being slain, but there are always workarounds (actually I have several in mind).

So, as Porky would say, "A-di-di-di-a-di-di-di-a-di-dats all, folks!"
For now.

Boby Dimitrov
boby@shararagames.com
Sharara Games Team

Once again wav, I completely agree with you. Most of the time I only play skirmish games, I rarely bother with the single player missions at all. Why? Single player missions generally limit your interaction and the choices you have, (as well as preventing you from playing with your mates) in exchange for a story line. Unless the story is very compelling, I cant be arsed. I would rather set up my own missions and play those than follow someone elses plan.

One game which I think did a very good job of this sort of thing was X Wing Alliance. Not only was the single player story interesting, but you had a whole load of other modes. The skirmish mode was great - you could fly any ship you like, against any other ships you like, and you could set different types of skirmish (time limits, mission types) I probably played more missions in skirmish mode than anything else. Then there were the proving grounds - these missions were cool because they only took a few minutes to complete, and you could compete with your mates for the best times. All in all, it was a very complete game that was still fun to play even after you completed the single player missions. Another good game was the original settlers (although there were no single player missions anyway) this game gave you quite a lot of customisation options, far more than its sequels.

So, what would I like to see in a skirmish mode?

1. Random maps: This is probably not applicable to some games (would it be possible to write a random UT level generator? One that produces good levels?) but to those that in can be applied to should take advantage of it.

2. Preset maps: It should be possible to choose pregenerated maps from a list, as well as have random maps. Also throw in a level editor so people can roll their own.

3. Start positions could be random, or perhaps you could specify certain parameters.. (high resources + surrounded by water + near player 2) - although this would be *very* hard to do in practice. Another approach might be something like the original settlers - in this you chose your start position right at the beginning of every game. I did find it annoying in SC whenmy flatmate were trying to play cooperatively, but we ended up on the opposite sides of the map every time.

4. Configurable AI. It would be cool if you could alter the skill and personality of your AI opponents. Again, this is something you could do in the original settlers.

5. Starting resources. Give your opponents an advantage/disadvantage. (again Settlers let you do this)

6. Scoring and action replay. It is nice to sit back and compare your score, and review your progress throughout the game. Civ 1 had a really cool action replay, you could watch as your colour rapidly spread across the map consuming all the other colours, until the whole map was yours. I was really disappointed that this was missing in Civ 2 - it might have been a gimmick, but it was a nice gimmick, a kind of reward for completing the game.

Hm, actually, in my latest game design (yeah right!) I am actually moving away from skirmish mode (at least when skirmish is seen as ''randomly created'').

The thing with some (most) games I''ve played is that the single player missions are always too perfectly balanced and the randomly generated skirmish maps feel just like that... randomly created.

I''d rather have the designers of the game I play create 1000 single player missions, not as heavily balanced and thought out as the 30 or so they supply me with now. That way, I get a randomly SELECTED not randomly generated mission. Once the game engine is developed, it shouldn''t take too long to create the 1000 missions (well, it might take long, but it doesn''t have to).

And those missions don''t all have to be balanced. Some might be extremely easy, some extremely hard. It''s all in the game.

That to me, is the ultimate skirmish mode: Randomly Selected mission from a big, huge pool of possible missions.

Well Silvermyst I sure wouldn''t want to be the pathetic soul assigned the task of developing 1000 single-player missions. Even if you were over-exaggerating what''s the purpose? Playing those missions would be no fun because you''d get no sense of unity from the game, unless each mission had it''s own little storyline, and that would be killer for the developer, having to create all those stories.... could you elaborate more on what exactly you think will make this system better than the story-driven single-player missions out today?

==============================
"Need more eeenput..."
- #5, "Short Circuit"
==============================

GAIIDEN:

I think the main factor of games should be that they are unpredictable. I don't think there's anything more demoralizing as a predictable gameplay.

And I think the only way to make games new every time you play, is by offering literally thousands of missions. Now, you could just create a random generator and have the player play those, but that just doesn't seem quite right to me. I don't think you'll have enough control to create truly interesting missions.

So, go the other way, create each and every mission, keep it simple.

For an RPG example, the simplest of missions could have the player enter a small cavern with maybe 2 or 3 goblins. The quest could be to retrieve an object. Give the player different options of achieving his goal (or not) and create some logic in the setup of the mission. Post a goblin at the cave entrance, who will quickly alert the other(s) when an intruder (you) is spotted.

I'm always for making planning a big part of the game. The player should be able to watch the situation, assess it and then make a plan. Maybe he feels that he needs more backup. He could enlist the help of others. Maybe he'll take out the guard with a well placed arrow. Maybe he can sneak past him. It's up to him to try. And there's no 'save' because the situation is unique.

(Edit: I know I say 'single player mission' but that just means that the mission CAN be played by a single player. I mainly think of games as multi-player oriented, with a single-player mode as a possible way of playing, but not the desired way)

I think that having 1000s of missions shouldn't just be added to the game, it should actually determine the way you'll design your game. I think it gives the designers more freedom in their game design, less focus on that ever-important 'balance'. If five players decide to accept the quest and kill the three goblins easily, good for them. If one wants to do it by himself, fine too. No need to balance, because there's so many quests out there that the randomness of it is enough of a balancing tool. You don't know what you get until you get it. For this to work though, there really HAVE to be 1000s of missions (10.000+?). And somehow you have to keep variety in the quests. I know it'll be hard, but I think it'll be worth it.

Edited by - Silvermyst on July 12, 2001 10:11:52 AM

Nice way to stay on subject, Silver (not! Sorry Wav )

What is a skirmish mode like Battlecry''s missing for me?

Unexpected AI.

I think the one thing that can keep me playing a skirmish game is if the AI is different from game to game.

Once I start, I shouldn''t be able to predict what''s coming (''okay, I''m playing enemy AI race X, so they will come fast and attack hard. If I can just hold them off, I can finish them off after the attack. Alright, I need to build the following structures and follow this strategy'').

That''s always my main issue with most games: being able to follow the same strategy because you know what''s coming. If you can somehow design a skirmish mode that will forever keep the player guessing, you''ve got a game that they''ll be able to play for a long, long time.

So, I guess my main factor would be AI. But I don''t think I should be able to set the way my enemy will play myself. I think I should be able to determine it only during gameplay. Keep me guessing.

Well Silver I wish you luck on your idea, although I don''t agree. Don''t get me wrong, I''m not stuck in a rut or anything and afraid to let go of old practices and such, I just don''t see any value in what you have. For me as a designer to create thousands upon thousands of missions.... even small ones.... Well I just can''t see the gains they have over a regular series of single player missions following a storyline. I mean they still can have all you want - take Deus Ex for example, yuo can sneak past guards or walk in shooting, there are ALWAYS two ways of doing things in that game, at least. I dunno I sorta see your point but I just don''t agree with having to create thousands of missions, and your line between single- and multi-player is too blurred for me to make out. Best of luck anyways tho I''m pretty sure you''d be developing a game like this outo f your own pocket - I can''t imagine a publisher going for it. They''re the ones getting stuck in a rut and afraid to let go of proven practices.

==============================
"Need more eeenput..."
- #5, "Short Circuit"
==============================

Sylvermyst, you bring up a very good point that many designers don''t usually deal with, namely game NON-balancing for missions.

When you really think about it, the great battles that are household names were all lop-sided battles. PEarl HArbor, the Alamo, Custer''s Last Stand (Little Bighorn), Gettysburg, Battle of the Bulge, Dien Bien Phu, Charge of the Light Brigade....the list is endless. In all of these battles, the forces were very lopsided. The trick was often seeing how little damage you could take.

I guess the point I''m trying to make is that sometimes the fun or interesting part is playing the underdog. But when battles are always "even" then there''s something missing at times. Although to be honest, the concept of balanced forces is a very subjective one. How do you even define balanced? By point costs? By the resources of the different sides?

I think missions should be based on how real life goes....sometimes it ain''t fair. Sort of reminds me of the Kobayashi Maru Test in ST2; The Wrath of Khan. I think a very interesting mission could be made in which there was no way to win.