Sounds like a cool idea...I personally find the concept of having to train and market your character to be the most compelling part of your idea. In regard to preventing ball hogging, I would leave that job to the coach of the team (whether AI controlled or human); if it''s human controlled then it''s easy...the coach controls which players come in and out and take out ball hogs at any time. If it''s AI controlled then it gets a little more complicated because you''d really want to simulate tactics (however I guess you could just get play books and choose the best play based on the current state of the game); however in general any player that deviates too substantially from the coaches play can be forced to sit on the bench. If "in the huddle" talk is allowed, the players may be able to influence the coach''s decision too.

quote:Original post by bob_the_third
Sounds like a cool idea...I personally find the concept of having to train and market your character to be the most compelling part of your idea.

Thanks. I thought that was one of the coolest parts of it too.

quote:
In regard to preventing ball hogging, I would leave that job to the coach of the team (whether AI controlled or human); if it''s human controlled then it''s easy...the coach controls which players come in and out and take out ball hogs at any time.

Precisely, and in the huddle talk - as well as talk while on the court, during sideouts, etc - should be critical to a social game. The key is simply to give people a lot of flexibility and support technologies like VoIP. Instantly, players are able to talk to each other - a critical part of sports in real life.

quote:
however in general any player that deviates too substantially from the coaches play can be forced to sit on the bench.

Well, not exactly. If a player deviates from the called play, but still puts up numbers, passes and does all the things that win games, the coach may decide to let them play. Many coaches allow their better players to be like on-court coaches, particularly point guards (and to a lesser extent, two-guards). If, OTOH, the player is following the general playbook but not passing the ball or taking good shots - generally making bad decisions - then he should be benched. So it''s a balance of playbook versus production, and at different times and for different players different factors will be emphasized. Early in the season or in pre-season games, the playbook will be emphasized, particularly for rookies and "junior" players. At playoff time, OTOH, production is just about <em>all</em> that counts, provided you''re not disrupting the flow of the team.<br><br>Great comments. Thanks! <br><br><small>[ <a href="http://www.gamedev.net/reference/start_here/">GDNet Start Here</a> | <a href="http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/search.asp">GDNet Search Tool</a> | <a href="http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/faq.asp">GDNet FAQ</a> | <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/">MS RTFM [MSDN]</a> | <a href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/">SGI STL Docs</a> | <a href="http://www.google.com/">Google!</a> | <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html">Asking Smart Questions</a> | <a href="http://www.ucc.ie/info/net/acronyms/acro.html">Internet Acronyms</a> ]<br>Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!</small>

I just wanted to re-iterate a point that got glossed over before. There will always be many more minor league players than major league, many more players than coaches, and many more coaches than owners.

Adding teams doesn''t change the proportions. For each owner you are going to need an entire stable of coaches and players to play for you. If owning is popular, how do you ensure that? If you get 5000 people signed up to play as owners, and just 10000 as players, what do you do?

quote:Original post by AnonPoster
I just wanted to re-iterate a point that got glossed over before. There will always be many more minor league players than major league, many more players than coaches, and many more coaches than owners.

Adding teams doesn''t change the proportions. For each owner you are going to need an entire stable of coaches and players to play for you. If owning is popular, how do you ensure that? If you get 5000 people signed up to play as owners, and just 10000 as players, what do you do?

There are two options. The first is that the ownership simulation - like the sports simulation - require advancement in that you can''t just walk in and "be" an owner. You have to make investments in teams or "rise through the ranks" to hit an ownership position, if you even want to. Very few teams are actually owned by just one person; it''s usually a family or a group of associates. Furthermore, there are other, probably more strategically important, positions than owner - such as General Manager. I think the Scout role could also play a part here, so that could be a crossover role, working with the GM to make smart acquisitions.

The second solution is to simply create a team of al AI players for every new person that decides to be an owner right out the box. If the guy makes smart decisions, his team value will rise and real human players will sign. If the guy makes bad decisions, the team will fall and either be bought out by a larger team/organizations, its assets being absorbed and/or redistributed as the acquiring organization sees fit.

Since the management sim is still far off, I have time to adjust, tweak and otherwise correct this model. My focus now is on the sports sim.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Internet Acronyms ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

The trouble with mixing AI and humans in the same game is keeping the abilities even. If the AI players are better than human players, then owners will not want humans on their team, and that is terrible. If the AI is worse than the humans, then teams that for one reason or another are composed predominantly of AI will be very handicapped. And if they are equal, then there is the problem that there may not be enough hard decisions for the players to find the game fun.

On the other hand all-human teams are prone to schedule trouble. You could take the step of incorporating player scheduling into the game, so that players join teams that are naturally on at the same time they are. Or you could dissociate the human controlling the avatar from the avatar itself. Coaches/GMs could trade avatars, statistical representations of player capability, and then could get the actual game played by whoever happens to be on at the time. Players'' stats would be kept according to how well they used the avatars they controlled. The trouble with this is that players might not feel very attached to the outcome of the game.

While the idea of a stratified MMO game where some players are leaders and others are followers is fantastic, the design is troublesome :} I think it could be made to work, but you have to choose among the lesser of several evils. But I think in the long run it might contribute to player equality and game accessibility, because newer or less skilled players would not be so overshadowed by the more dedicated players.

quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
The trouble with mixing AI and humans in the same game is keeping the abilities even. If the AI players are better than human players, then owners will not want humans on their team, and that is terrible. If the AI is worse than the humans, then teams that for one reason or another are composed predominantly of AI will be very handicapped. And if they are equal, then there is the problem that there may not be enough hard decisions for the players to find the game fun.

I agree, but I think AI within contexts as limited and well-defined as sports can be implemented much better than they currently are using current technology; the barrier seems to be a lack of knowledge of the game. I''m convinced that I can create AI that, while not as explosive or not possessing as much "upside" as a human player, can participate adequately at very high levels.

I''m not fond of dissociating players from their avatars, and I don''t think any gamer would be either.

quote:
While the idea of a stratified MMO game where some players are leaders and others are followers is fantastic, the design is troublesome :} I think it could be made to work, but you have to choose among the lesser of several evils. But I think in the long run it might contribute to player equality and game accessibility, because newer or less skilled players would not be so overshadowed by the more dedicated players.

The advantage is that the real-life equivalent of what I''d be modeling in this title is itself stratified, with some "leading" and others "following." In reality, though, the leader-follower relationships are lopsided symmetric, meaning that at times the players lead the coach and coach their teammates (experienced/"franchise" players who are out on the floor may have more to offer about critical game situations than a coach on the sidelines, especially if the coach has never been in a similar situation). Furthermore, there is much to be gained in grooming and helping newer players to mature, something that no other MMO currently available has. This makes experience level conflicts less of an issue.