forced teamplay elements

Started by
18 comments, last by spikespiegel 20 years, 10 months ago
im designing a multiplayer game right now and i would really like to force its teamplay elements. personally my favourite games have been ones that have had team elements (tribes, halo, battlefields 1942) but it has always bothered me that people play around these elements rather than use them. i really enjoy having vehicles that require users to drive it together, thats what my game is focusing on, combat based on capital ships with multiple users manning different guns and systems of the ships. anyone else doing anything like this? care to discuss?
Andrew McTeerwww.bitporters.net
Advertisement
(Forced_teamplay == BAD)
http://edropple.com
why so? the most fun i have in games is when my team really works together and we are matched against a team that does the same.. why do you think tribes 1 is still so strong?
Andrew McTeerwww.bitporters.net
I play Tribes. You don''t /have/ to team together. In fact, ninety percent of the time either you go off alone or do everything by yourself (or at least I do in our school LAN games, and I clean the floor with most people).
http://edropple.com
thats true, and i used to be like that too, but i got sick of the ''lonewolf'' kinda thing.. it was the same way in counterstrike.

by making it so as a group you would have to play on that same skill level, i think that would be more rewarding.

also id like to note that this game im developing is console based so players on teams would be playing on the same machine... thats another problems with the teamplay elements over pc.. its hard to follow instructions if they just fly by with text.

but tribes was good for that with their voice command system.
Andrew McTeerwww.bitporters.net
I absolutely agree, team based efforts are awesome when they work.

But you can't stop anyone who logs in from just being a rogue player that's out for their own.

Battlefield 1942 doesn't force team play, but I think it should be left up to the player to discover for themselves how teamplay strengthens the efforts. I'm more a rogue team player myself - I go where I think I'm needed, and only respond to direct requests when I'm called.

If your force teamplay too much, you might actually constrict the experience even for those that agree with teamplay.

You could design the game to be hard to win without teamplay, and that would teach the players the necessity of teamplay. Those that don't play that way will get frustrated quickly.

[edited by - Waverider on June 4, 2003 12:05:32 PM]
It's not what you're taught, it's what you learn.
yea, for our game were not totally curbing the abiltiy to play a rouge player. but just making it the game requires you to play with your team if you want to really be involved.

the game is basically a top down like subspace but its more focused on fleet based combat, teams start on other sides of deep space and the only way to get from one side of the map to the other is through the use of capital ships, capital ships need to be manned by many users and each play different roles.

there will be defence fighters and carrier fighters but they will be limited to the range of their base (finate fuel supplies etc)

the carrier ships them selves will need to co-ordinate as for some are for carrying fighters, others are heavy weapons for base seige and others are supply and repair vehicles, radar etc.
Andrew McTeerwww.bitporters.net
The only problem with FORCED team play is not everyone likes teamplay.. and if 1 person in the team runs off then its harder on the members that are left to pick up the slack.. I would say put elements in that you have to work together but I personally make it possible to play alone if you''d like or if its forced apon you..

what if your team getes blown up and its just you.. now you can''t do anything if you force to team play.. as you have no team to play with
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER OR MY BLOG
right, we are adaping the battlefields 1942 system of respawning from captured points (or constructed ships in our case).

so the team will always be active, but co-ordination will be required to complete goals
Andrew McTeerwww.bitporters.net
You may want to look into FireTeam. That game''s goal was to be focused on teamwork and create a community. You may find some interesting advice in Gamasutra''s postmortem on the game. (You can get there from the articles section of Gamedev) A few of the things they did:

- Made voice communication standard. The game came with a headset (you know, headphones + microphone). This freed the hands from typing and reduced issues about missing a command/request as the text scrolls by. (by the way, I don''t know what people think about the bandwidth this would take, but according to the postmortem, I believe they targeted 14.4 modems, and it ran beautifully on my 28.8 at the time)

- Teams were small. 4 people per team. This helped a lot toward creating teamwork. If one person isn''t pulling his weight, then you''ve lost 25% of your team.

- You create teams in the lobby, not just jump into existing games. This means if you have a reputation for screwing your team, you don''t get on a team. Also, there were two types of games: those that anyone can play and those that only people whose stats are being tracked can play. You don''t have to track your stats from the start, so you don''t get screwed while you''re a newbie, but you also don''t get to play with the best until they can see your stats and see that you pull your weight.

- The maps and the games were designed around teamwork from the ground up.

Well, that''s all I got, just a suggestion to look at another game, with a similar goal, that I loved.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement