The Multi-player/Single-player gap

There have been been a number of statistics referenced on this forum that the vast majority of RTS player tend to play single player skirmishes and missions much more than on-line multiplayer.

This presents something of a disconnect with many aspects of RTS design. Most RTS elements have a design focus on multi-player. Despite the fact that I don't play online often, I would still say that RTS games reach their best potential in a good multi-player game. Players who play online tend to be those who stay with the game the longest, and offer the most feedback for the development of future games.

And yet despite all of this, there are a relatively small number of people who play online regularly. Many will try to play online and be put off by unpleasant individuals, or be intimidated by the perceived level of skill required. Others may never even try.

So, what considerations are there into how a game can entice people to play online, and get the most enjoyment out of it (aside from the obvious one of just making the best game possible). I have a few ideas of my own, but I would be interested in your ideas as to how players can be encouraged to give on-line a try, and enjoy the experience.

galactic war might be a thing that could make people want to play online, when its done good.

There's a GIANT gap between people who have just started and people who are even slightly decent at the game.

The problem with playing online is that it's intimidating for any player. New or old. If you're a new player, you will be avoidant to any kind of online play unless you're 100% certain that the person that you're playing against isn't a bag of dicks. The first experience is always the most important one. If you're an old player, you eventually just get used to it or only play with people who are certain to be fun with play against.

No one anywhere likes playing against pubbies. No one wants to play a three hour game, barely losing due to a silly mistake, and then hear a string of swear words howl through voicechat or regular chat. No one likes going through that and the good players only put up with it because with most games, it's the only way to prove one's worth at the game.

As a parallel example of what I'm saying, this very problem KILLED Warcraft 3 ladder for the longest time if anyone but me remembers. The only type of ranked ladder matches that could be played was pub matches against the battle.net rabble. Which is only fun if one considers the typical battle.net pub scum to be logical and rational. No one liked it, there was no way to cheat the system to play ranked matches with friends, eventually the whole system became barren and deserted. Taking hours at a time to find a single ranked match with anyone foolhardy enough to want to risk it.

If it weren't for the custom games option and DOTA, Warcraft 3/TFT multiplayer would have died within a month. I'm hoping galactic war acts as a kind of sandbox/testing ground for new players. They'll have to throw themselves into the pit of pubbies at first, sure, but it sounds forgiving and expansionist enough that even if they lose, it's not going to result in every person in the server throwing swear words at them and it's not exactly the end of the game for them either (they can always just try again on a new world). Meaning that mistakes can be corrected upon rapidly and there's no real guilt for making those mistakes.

The purpose of a ladder is NOT to play against friends. It is to play against others to determine who is the best. After a few games you should start to get opponents who are on your level, so you will get equal games. The only bad thing that can happen is that somebody flames you in the chat, which is totally unimportant. Does anybody really care about those few lines of text? I mean they are usually build up of random insults that cannot really get personal, since the flaming player does not know you at all.

Also I cant remember many people flaming me in WC3 TFT ladder at all.
Well the first game I ever played online was WC3 ladder, I was probably so bad that people had no reason to ever flame me.

on topic: A good ladder should be able to offer a matching opponent to most people.
The stuff that Blizzard does with SC2 is actually pretty good in that regard. Stuff like Divisions and Leagues can create a feeling of satisfaction, even though you are only the 10023849837th player in the overall-ladder.
But please don't hide that number like Blizzard does. Cause I like to see it jump down with each game I win.

I think stats are not very noob friendly. Stats are pretty bad idea because some people will get overly attached to their win/lose ratio and it will lead to whining and rage quitting. If there's going to be stats then I suggest there is some penalty from rage quitting also. Best alternative could be that there is ranked games with stats for pros and non-ranked games without stats for noobs.

If there's going to be a lobby where everybody chats and talks before game starts, admins should not have ability to kick people for fun or because those players are noobs. We don't want any ****-tator admins. I suggest that there will be only a votekick. But some trolls could still gather group of friends and start kicking people even with votekick so I don't know if its a good idea or not.

How do you know if someone ragequits?
In teamgames ragequitting might be bad but should people really be punished for leaving a game early?
Edit:In public custom games people will be remembered for ragequitting and in ranked matches their early department is likely to cause their team to do worse effectively punishing the ragequitters ranking.

Yeah, with a loss, nothing else is really needed IMO.

Mike

Carrot vs. Stick.


Motivate players to stick around and play with a reward, not a punishment for not staying.

I'm not sure if this is really a 'problem', per se. Some people just like to play solo or comp stomp with friends, and there's nothing wrong with that.

That said, the people I've known who've made the jump from PvAI to PvP in any game have done it almost exclusively for social reasons. If you give new players a PvP format where it's easy for them to play with friends and where there's enough noise that any potential poor play won't stand out, then they will. What we know about the Galactic War format goes a long way to meeting a lot of that, so I feel like the opportunity for people to make that jump is being provided.

I honestly believe there is a much larger market for team oriented multiplayer than singleplayer PVP. Look at Borderlands 2 - a game entirely BUILT around a team effort.

A big part of playing online is being social about it, and if you can promote that as much as possible, so much the better. Working as a team to defeat a challenge is lot more fun for many people than getting pummeled individually in a 1v1.

If PA has a galactic war mode where you fight against an unstoppable alien force invading the galaxy (players vs AI) I'm betting that mode would have 10x more players than the PVP mode.


Another idea I've had about PVP is - what if you could rank up as a support player somehow? Have a 1v1 PVP where you can call in a buddy as a support assist. No extra units, just another brain keeping an eye on things.
You could even have a possible ranking / rating system after the game where a good support player gets rated on how well he works with the main commander. (Communication, listens to orders, economy, tactical control..)

Admittedly this is a generalisation, but this particular sub genre seems to attract people who are more mature than the players of many other games. On Forged Alliance Forever for example, I have encountered a total of three people who were genuinely obnoxious.

So hopefully the PA community will be slightly more welcoming than ROFLFAGSHAGGEDYOURMUMLOL. Certainly there's a high calibre of forum posts so we should be proud of that and make sure it continues.

What I meant with "there should be penalty for rage quitting" is that it shows in your ranks if you leave in the middle of the game. So people can't abuse the game by quitting every time they are about to lose.

I agree, game should be rewarding. I think achievements, ranks and a funny game are already pretty good rewards.

In every RTS I have played quitting the game is the same thing as conceding the victory, eg losing.

Actually, there's a massive difference between quitting at the first sign of trouble and nobly falling on the field of battle.

I consider someone who fights to the end to be a better player than someone who quits half way through.

Well play hide the commander than with me. A friend of mine searched like 3hours for my commander because i didnt gave up. He raged a lot :-D.

Multiplayer with two equally bad players is fun too.
I played SupCom against my brother, ended up just spamming one boat to fire missles on his commander, ended up killing him and since he fled into his base before dying, blew up all his stuff

I concur. There have been a number of times in Zero-K where my team has gotten off to a weak start, and some immature moron has demanded the team surrender, then quit when the rest of the team disagreed. Particularly hilarious when the team then goes on to win with a well-placed nuke that nobody saw coming.

The interactions between players is very important for a positive multiplayer experience. Someone being unpleasant online can put off new players from joining or continuing their online experience. Dealing with these individuals in a effective manner without being too draconian would very much help with encouraging more people to play online.

In addition to this, i would like to propose a few different ways in which more people could be attracted to play online:

• 1. A good spectator system is a must. Many people will feel apprehensive about joining a game where they may get their asses handed to them, where watching such a game wouldn't be a problem. I would suggest that the home screen of the multiplayer lobby always has a list of games that a player can jump into to spectate.
  
  2. A "noob-only" room may be something to try. It's a lot more likely that a player will play a game online where they know that the other people are at a similar skill level to them. Once a player has played a certain number of games they can no longer play in the "noob-only" room.
  
  3. A good matchmaking and ranking system is important, but i wouldn't make it central in the multiplayer lobby. Is should always be there of course, but not given pride of place, as initially it will intimidate many new players into thinking that competitive multiplayer is the only real game to be found online.
  
  4. People have already mentioned how custom mods and maps with fun and cooperative modes are important to maintaining a healthy online community. I would like to echo this sentiment.
  
  5. Dealing with abusive and unpleasant players is difficult, but should addressed. One possible option would be to some sort of "sportsmanship" score that players can +1 or -1 after they have played a game with them. Players with a sufficiently low score can be muted, barred from games, or banned on a temporary or permanent basis. I recognise this system may be open to abuse, so any other discussion would be welcome.
  
  6. Obviously, a robust moderation and reporting system for abusive players is necessaries.
  
  7. Having unockables which depend upon the number of games played or won would alienate newer players. It's certainly something i would advise against.

These are just a few ideas I'm trying to toss out. I would be curious to hear if anyone else has any suggestions.

"Mature" does not mean what you think it does.

You will forever be unloved.

what whuuuuuuuuuut whaaaaaaaaaat whaaaaaaaaaat? wait whaaaaaaaaaaat?

No sorry I disagree; this requires proof

(this project was a funded kickstarter whose announced plan was to be a multilayer game with no campaign)