17 replies to this topic

[glhf]

The game I'm working on I just had a great idea while designing combat system that will make the game a lot more different that I intended from beginning but way more fun but the match durations could become very long duration.
Don't think that's good because people won't have time to finish off every match if it's too long, Or maybe they get griefed and want to leave the match or they just rage quit and ruin the game for the guys that were having fun that match.

It's going to be competitive too so everyone has to start equal powers and progress so can't just have an ongoing server that people can just join and leave as they like.

So I'm not sure what my options are.. Only thing I come to conclusion of is that while it would be a fun game it's just not doable cus match durations would become too long.
Should I just go back to my original idea that will still be a fun game but not as fun as it could of been with my new idea where matches could be really long easily an hour at least?

[glhf]

OK i have an idea to a solution..
ongoing servers that people can join and leave as they like.

The server remains running until one of the teams win.

You can't chose what team to play on, because teams must be even.

In lobby it says progression on server so they can find one that's just started or near end or whatever.

The further the progression the more a player begins with when he joins the server.. so for example if we think about the rts age of empires..
someone joins a match that has been running for while then he starts in iron age or whatever instead of nomad age or whatever all the age names were again.

I still don't love the solution though.. it's just something that popped into my head atm, still needs work.
Don't love it because it's kinda sucky if you join the server and the guys that played before you so far have done a bad job so it's really unfair.
Or easily griefable too.. joining and sabotaging.

edit: maybe a vote kick/ban would prevent griefing to some degree but first of all I don't really like the vote kick/ban system in games and it would only solve the most extreme griefers really.

[KenjiSenpai]

League of Legends matches avarage 35 minute, often go up to 45 minutes and ive been in games that lasted 70 minutes. So tell us exactly: how long would that '' very long match'' be

[glhf]

League of Legends matches avarage 35 minute, often go up to 45 minutes and ive been in games that lasted 70 minutes. So tell us exactly: how long would that '' very long match'' be

Well the new idea I've got is so new that there's no way to give a good estimate for how long but I would guess at least an hour.. might be able to design the mechanics to push it more towards 1hour on average.

I haven't really played LoL so I don't know how it works out except I know the game is a super big hit with huge population.
But I think it's because it didn't have much competition except for dota at the time and dota was just a mod while LoL was a standalone game.
So that was really good marketing.. because that market they were making the game for was so big and they only had dota.

Doesn't people quit in middle of matches very often if it's so long in LoL? I really imagined it to be shorter like 5-20 mins.
I know in bloodline champions which is also MOBA game the matches are on average around 3mins but people still drop out in middle of them if they don't like the team they ended up in or whatever reason.. And some people just go afk standing there ruining the match because they don't want the leaver penalty.. but if it was longer matches than 3 mins average then I'm sure even more people would be leaving and it will be catastrophic if people joined and ruined afked in 30+ mins matches.

What would you do if you joined a 30 or 60 mins match and your team is ust standing afk... will you leave the match and get penalty to score, and not being able to que for games or will you just keep playing 1 versus 3?

[KenjiSenpai]

Basically there is 30 lvl in LoL and after about 200 matches you reach that level at the point there are pratically no leavers. when you make a new account you will encounter leavers who dont know yet that they will end up being banned for doing so.

So long story short, there isnt many leavers in LoL if you are an experienced players.

So here is how you could prevent leaving for a game with long matches. Put a sort of rank system that you reach after playing a certain amount of games. example at 0 matches you're a new blood up to 200-300 matches you would get the title veteran. the thing is past the last rank wich would be veteran. you only match veteran players with veteran players. BTW leaving games in the middle would be a banable offense. Therefore when you reach the veteran status you're pretty much certain to be with non-leavers.


No its not 5-20 minutes. 35 minutes is the avarage and it often goes up to 45 minutes. If your game would take 60 minutes and you think thats too long but the ''super new'' mechanic you've came up with is worth it then just speed up the gameplay.

[glhf]

Basically there is 30 lvl in LoL and after about 200 matches you reach that level at the point there are pratically no leavers. when you make a new account you will encounter leavers who dont know yet that they will end up being banned for doing so.

So long story short, there isnt many leavers in LoL if you are an experienced players.

So here is how you could prevent leaving for a game with long matches. Put a sort of rank system that you reach after playing a certain amount of games. example at 0 matches you're a new blood up to 200-300 matches you would get the title veteran. the thing is past the last rank wich would be veteran. you only match veteran players with veteran players. BTW leaving games in the middle would be a banable offense. Therefore when you reach the veteran status you're pretty much certain to be with non-leavers.


No its not 5-20 minutes. 35 minutes is the avarage and it often goes up to 45 minutes. If your game would take 60 minutes and you think thats too long but the ''super new'' mechanic you've came up with is worth it then just speed up the gameplay.

You can actually become banned for leaving a game?
What if you just don't have time for playing entire match?
This makes it hard for casual gamers to play the game.

30-45 mins per match is borderline ok for casual gamers but what if its 1-2 hours?

And what about griefing?
How does lol prevent griefing?
someone just standing afk or just running around playing bad on purpose?
I don't see any way to stop that.. perhaps 100% afkers are stoppable but not people who 50% afk and 50% run around foooling around every match trolling.

[KenjiSenpai]

Basically, if you dont have time for an entire match you just dont play and wait till you have time. when you enter a game your team counts on you and you have the responsibility to stay.

There would still be people playing even if it was 1-2 hours long but you would have to keep the action increasing the whole time.

At the end of a game you can report people on your or the opposing team, the report is then reviewed and then punishment is given if it applies.

Theres a report option for: Griefing, AFK/Leaving, Refusing to Communicate and Assisting Enemy Team.


Yes these kind of things prevent a certain type of ''casual'' gamers to access your game but millions of people play league of legends every day so if your game is good you dont have to worry about accessibility concerning the lenght of games unless it goes higher than 2 hours. Even up to 2 hours you will find alot of people willing to play if the game is good.

On a side note, it is important that there can always be ''hope'' for both team. NEVER EVER Should the player be doomed to fail and have to wait 30 minutes to happen. If after 10 minute out of 1 hours, the team that has the early advantage is already sure to win, no one will play the game.

This is why LoL is so popular because even if the enemy team has a super big advantage, if you and your teamates make a very good play it can throw the game around and you can win in an instant. Ive seen and experienced momments when one team had twice the kills of the other team and was super close to winning and an awesome play of coordination by one team turned the game around and they won.

It is important to know that LoL is all about wining the match and not about having good kill death ratio. By that I mean : In call of duty, win or lose, no one cares they look at their individual performance at the end of the game and disregard the global score.
On the other hand, in LoL, the gameplay is VERY objective oriented (take down towers, group up to kill a monster for the buff, take advantage of being 2v1, ganks, etc....) The result is that what is gratifying at the end of the game is the victory of your team and not your individual performance.

Edited by KenjiSenpai, 26 May 2012 - 01:51 AM.

[glhf]

Basically, if you dont have time for an entire match you just dont play and wait till you have time. when you enter a game your team counts on you and you have the responsibility to stay.

There would still be people playing even if it was 1-2 hours long but you would have to keep the action increasing the whole time.

At the end of a game you can report people on your or the opposing team, the report is then reviewed and then punishment is given if it applies.

Theres a report option for: Griefing, AFK/Leaving, Refusing to Communicate and Assisting Enemy Team.


Yes these kind of things prevent a certain type of ''casual'' gamers to access your game but millions of people play league of legends every day so if your game is good you dont have to worry about accessibility concerning the lenght of games unless it goes higher than 2 hours. Even up to 2 hours you will find alot of people willing to play if the game is good.

On a side note, it is important that there can always be ''hope'' for both team. NEVER EVER Should the player be doomed to fail and have to wait 30 minutes to happen. If after 10 minute out of 1 hours, the team that has the early advantage is already sure to win, no one will play the game.

This is why LoL is so popular because even if the enemy team has a super big advantage, if you and your teamates make a very good play it can throw the game around and you can win in an instant. Ive seen and experienced momments when one team had twice the kills of the other team and was super close to winning and an awesome play of coordination by one team turned the game around and they won.

It is important to know that LoL is all about wining the match and not about having good kill death ratio. By that I mean : In call of duty, win or lose, no one cares they look at their individual performance at the end of the game and disregard the global score.
On the other hand, in LoL, the gameplay is VERY objective oriented (take down towers, group up to kill a monster for the buff, take advantage of being 2v1, ganks, etc....) The result is that what is gratifying at the end of the game is the victory of your team and not your individual performance.

I like the post but still doubtful on some points..
Like report.. They must have a big team of employees if they are supposed to have to watch a recorded video of every single report.. or how else would they check?
Also I prefer if it doesn't need any GM/DEV interception.. because then it's up to the intelligence, wisdom and judgement of these persons and it can lead to mistakes or corruptness.

My game will be amazing for the "genre" it's made, I'm a perfectionist and I won't say the GDD is complete before it's perfect.
But the genre I'm making the game in doesn't have as big player audience as the MOBA games do.. I really need the casual audience to be able to gain a big enough playerbase.
Although if I alter my GDD to the new idea I've got then the target audience is bigger but.. it's hard to say really because it's going to become sortof a new genre.

Edited by glhf, 26 May 2012 - 02:12 AM.

[Inukai]

Like report.. They must have a big team of employees if they are supposed to have to watch a recorded video of every single report.. or how else would they check?

They check only a few cases by themselves. The majority of the cases goes to a system called "the tribunal" where all experienced players(lvl 30) can read the cases and chose if they want to punish the players, or not. They get some ingame currency for voting. However, the system is kinda being abused, because the most voters are going to press punish without reading the cases...

I'm not sure about the length of the rounds.. It depends on your game, but IMO 2 hours are too long. There aren't many casuals who would play your game at all, when a single round last this long

Edited by Inukai, 26 May 2012 - 02:52 AM.

[glhf]

Like report.. They must have a big team of employees if they are supposed to have to watch a recorded video of every single report.. or how else would they check?

They check only a few cases by themselves. The majority of the cases goes to a system called "the tribunal" where all experienced players(lvl 30) can read the cases and chose if they want to punish the players, or not. They get some ingame currency for voting. However, the system is kinda being abused, because the most voters are going to press punish without reading the cases...

I'm not sure about the length of the rounds.. It depends on your game, but IMO 2 hours are too long. There aren't many casuals who would play your game at all, when a single round last this long

Yep, That's what I thought.

So the discussion is really if I or anyone who have a similar idea have to simply forget about it and create something that lasts around 30 mins avg at most.
Or if it's possible to design it in a way like the 2nd post i made in this thread.. what is the best situation you can make out of it.

[KenjiSenpai]

Like report.. They must have a big team of employees if they are supposed to have to watch a recorded video of every single report.. or how else would they check?

They check only a few cases by themselves. The majority of the cases goes to a system called "the tribunal" where all experienced players(lvl 30) can read the cases and chose if they want to punish the players, or not. They get some ingame currency for voting. However, the system is kinda being abused, because the most voters are going to press punish without reading the cases...

Statistics shows that only 50% of the cases reviewed by the tribunal end up in a punishment or a warning. Plus, about 10 person review the cases before its considered ''reviewed'' so its not like a single person decides on the fate of a person its a jury and they vote

[j-locke]

Like report.. They must have a big team of employees if they are supposed to have to watch a recorded video of every single report.. or how else would they check?

They check only a few cases by themselves. The majority of the cases goes to a system called "the tribunal" where all experienced players(lvl 30) can read the cases and chose if they want to punish the players, or not. They get some ingame currency for voting. However, the system is kinda being abused, because the most voters are going to press punish without reading the cases...

I'm not sure about the length of the rounds.. It depends on your game, but IMO 2 hours are too long. There aren't many casuals who would play your game at all, when a single round last this long

Yep, That's what I thought.

So the discussion is really if I or anyone who have a similar idea have to simply forget about it and create something that lasts around 30 mins avg at most.
Or if it's possible to design it in a way like the 2nd post i made in this thread.. what is the best situation you can make out of it.

I think that really comes down to a discussion of the game mechanics you're using. Without you describing the idea, there's no real way to give you feedback on if someone can provide any idea that could reduce game duration while keeping the fun.

In mmo concepts, maybe it's as simple as adding a stacking buff that makes units do more damage and/or take more damage at certain time marks in the game.

In rts concepts, maybe it's a matter of lowering the unit cap so your core gameplay could remain unchanged but people would be reach the cap quicker and feel an incentive to attack sooner.

There are lots of good ideas out there of how make a game shorter or longer but since you're the only one who knows your idea, you're the only one who can think of ways to maintain the fun factor while adjusting the duration.

[glhf]

Like report.. They must have a big team of employees if they are supposed to have to watch a recorded video of every single report.. or how else would they check?

They check only a few cases by themselves. The majority of the cases goes to a system called "the tribunal" where all experienced players(lvl 30) can read the cases and chose if they want to punish the players, or not. They get some ingame currency for voting. However, the system is kinda being abused, because the most voters are going to press punish without reading the cases...

I'm not sure about the length of the rounds.. It depends on your game, but IMO 2 hours are too long. There aren't many casuals who would play your game at all, when a single round last this long

Yep, That's what I thought.

So the discussion is really if I or anyone who have a similar idea have to simply forget about it and create something that lasts around 30 mins avg at most.
Or if it's possible to design it in a way like the 2nd post i made in this thread.. what is the best situation you can make out of it.

I think that really comes down to a discussion of the game mechanics you're using. Without you describing the idea, there's no real way to give you feedback on if someone can provide any idea that could reduce game duration while keeping the fun.

In mmo concepts, maybe it's as simple as adding a stacking buff that makes units do more damage and/or take more damage at certain time marks in the game.

In rts concepts, maybe it's a matter of lowering the unit cap so your core gameplay could remain unchanged but people would be reach the cap quicker and feel an incentive to attack sooner.

There are lots of good ideas out there of how make a game shorter or longer but since you're the only one who knows your idea, you're the only one who can think of ways to maintain the fun factor while adjusting the duration.

I wasn't looking for ideas on how to make it shorter though..
I was looking for ideas if it's possible to design it in a way to it's possible to have 1-2 hour long matches where casual gamers can play as well and keep the game as competitive as possible.

[KenjiSenpai]

I wasn't looking for ideas on how to make it shorter though..
I was looking for ideas if it's possible to design it in a way to it's possible to have 1-2 hour long matches where casual gamers can play as well and keep the game as competitive as possible.

Short answer is no. And we cant help you further without knowing how the game works.

[j-locke]

I wasn't looking for ideas on how to make it shorter though..
I was looking for ideas if it's possible to design it in a way to it's possible to have 1-2 hour long matches where casual gamers can play as well and keep the game as competitive as possible.

Ah, ok. With that goal in mind, I'd say you need a way to make the game enjoyable for the people who won't or can't play for the full match. So reward or recognize players for the things they accomplish during their play time (make sure you're counting more than just match wins and losses). If it fits in your game, going turn-based breaks lengthy games into discrete rounds that can be short, yet entertaining.

[Legendre]

I wasn't looking for ideas on how to make it shorter though..
I was looking for ideas if it's possible to design it in a way to it's possible to have 1-2 hour long matches where casual gamers can play as well and keep the game as competitive as possible.

In the FPS "Team Fortress", a match takes place on a single map and can lasts for hours. But casual players can easily join, play a little, and leave.

You can still keep it competitive by not counting the match outcome. But instead count things like kills, how many times the player captured the flag etc.

[TechnoGoth]

With out knowing what kind of idea it is or what kind of game you want to make then I'm going to say its too long.

• For FPS 5-10 minutes I've always found to be best epically if there is no respawn.
• Fighting games 60 seconds
• RTS slightly tricky as they tend to last for around 30-60 minutes but are usually decided by the opening gambit. So within 5 minutes there is a good chance the winner has already been decided.

The time of a round comes down to the standard for that type of game and the amount of meaningful activity. No one would play a version of tekken that over an hour to win a single match. Like wise how much of 1 to 2 hour match is meaningful? If its nearly impossible to win if I do badly in the first 10 minute what is the point of sticking it out for another 2 hours? If only the last 10 minutes matter then why can't I speed to that point. If it is incremental where each move matters like in chess then you can't have people dropping in and out during a match.

[Explodinator]

You expect to develop a competitive video game to appeal to super casual gamers?

There are casual league of legends players, but a session takes on average 35 minutes. I wouldn't expect someone who is on the casual level of angry birds to enjoy playing league.

To appeal to "angry birds" casual gamers, your game probably needs to meet the following criteria:
1. Start and stop the game at any time
2. "Pause" the game
3. Easy to learn and teach
4. Make player feel good about themselves
5. Appealing visually

To appeal to competitive gamers, your game must have the following:
1. Deep strategy
2. Involved mechanics (enough to separate skilled players from for-fun players).
3. Matchmaking
3a. Ladder rankings
4. Clear, easy to understand visuals.

A game with involved mechanics and deep strategy is not easy to teach and learn.
A PvP game with matchmaking and ladder rankings will not make a casual player feel good about themselves.

This is pretty much impossible, and you will not see this happen at all. You will, at best, attract the non-competitive avid gamers with a competitive game.

They expect:
1. Game is fun
2. Game is decently challenging
3. Game is visually appealing.

This is why SC2 and LoL are so successful. They inherently offer a challenge by making the game PvP and matchmade. They always get a challenge that is not terribly easy or terribly hard. SC2's ladder system allows people who aren't good still feel good about themselves (leagues), as they can progress in their own league/division and not worry about their global ranking. This keeps the non-competitive gamer coming back because they want to progress. On the other hand, the best players are in a national league of the top 200 players. This keeps the competition strong.

Now, to address your problem:
If your game is 1v1, penalize the other player for leaving by assigning him a loss and decreasing his points (like sc2)
If your game is XvX, penalize the leaving player by blacklisting him as a leaver after a certain leave:game ratio. If the player is a leaver, pair the player with only leavers until they salvage their leave ratio to be better than the limit. For example, if the acceptable leave amount is 4% and the player exceeds that amount, they would have to reduce their leave % to something like 3% before they get un-blacklisted. If their leave ratio becomes too high, ban the leaver.

This will definitely NOT appeal to casual gamers, but it will appeal to both competitive and non-competitive avid gamers.