msgrey: exactly as I was thinking

I''m planning on handicapping them according to skill, and not at all to time.

Working on a detailed design doc now (unfortunately I forgot it at work), should be up halfway next week. I''ll post a link here, and you guys can comment on the ideas.

Thanks for the input all.

There are different kinds of players. They all play for different reasons.

Some would enjoy the handicap system as they would be more likely to get a challenge. These are people whose reason for playing the game is the challenge, and the thrill of overcoming a challenging opponent. Therefore the more time there is a challenge the better the game to them.

Other players would hate it as they would see it as a punishment. "whats the point in getting better if you don''t 0wn more people?". These are people whose reason for playing the game is to win. To be told they are better. The playing is secondary enjoyment to the winning. Therefore the more time there is a challenge the less they will enjoy it. They just want to be able to win.

It''s very hard to make a game (of any kind) that appeals to both kinds of players. Even if you achieve it, the two types will piss each other off so much it will detract from the game. Human nature I guess.

I was planning on keeping each players score on a server (so the score will persist even if the players stops playing, and the next day start playing again (assuming they don''t make a new account). So 0wning people will reflect in a higher score, which I will publish on a website, and possibly in-game.

So although you might not kill as many people, you score will be high, so you will still be acknowledged as l33t

Good solution!

I''d consider doing it the other way round too. In my experience people who play to win (and nothing else) are the same kind of people who are obsessed with having a higher number. They like stats in rpgs, they like the gun bound to the 9 key in FPSs because it is from later in the game.. etc. Whereas those who play for the challenge would generally care less about an abstract representation of how good they are, and care more about the fun they had doing it. They''d enjoy fragging 100 people even if there was no cool score at the end. Whereas the play to win type wouldn''t care if he only had to frag 2 people to get his high score, because he''d just enjoy the fact he''d got the biggest number.

Likely to be totally opposite rankings to how it would be if done only on skill, I know. But hey, let the winning-obsessed win, let the play-obsessed play.

Here''s a possible solution. This solution would challenge experienced players by having them find groups of more experienced players to play with.

Baiscs are, You implement a series of Skill levels, however many you want, and however you decide to implement them.

When a game starts, the game compares the everyone''s skill level to the average skill level of the group. Each person is then given bonus''s and handicaps dependant on their relation to that average.

A lower person might get a little more speed, faster refire rate, or more health.

A higher person might get negatives in this area.

This system would encourage people to get into games with roughly equal or higher skill levels than themselves so that they would get bonus''s or avoid harsh penalties.

quote: Original post by robert4818
[...]This system would encourage people to get into games with roughly equal or higher skill levels[...]

The assumption is that they are already trying to find such games, but there are fewer good players than average players so it can be difficult for good players to find equally skilled competition.

How about a computer assist system, for varius aspects of the gameplay the player would be aidded by computer, such as making things easier automating some functions, and so. But as the player moves up skill these computer assists are gradually removed. Require more skill on the part of the player to achive the same level of gameplay. Thus players would continues to be challenged the better they get because they are handling more of the game play themselves.


-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

thanks for the suggestions

mrbastard:
I see what you mean. I think it''ll be difficult to devise such a scoring system, but I''ll think on it. The way I originally thought of it was to lower the score of good players --> the best player has the lowest score. What''s your take on that?

robert:
Matching up sameskill players would be a possibility, but one that would require a bit more programming skill. But since this matching up of similar skill players happens before the game actually starts (they have to come to the same server after all), I''m going to leave this until further in the project. I''m noting it down though.
The bonus/penalties will at this moment only consist of the change of points you receive when you kill someone. (see rmsgrey''s post)

Technogoth:
A good idea, if the game were complex. However, this game will be pickup and play. No fiddling with stuff. Just 7 buttons or so (left, right, accelerate, decelerate, shoot weapon, switch weapon, drop bomb). So I''m not sure what tasks you could delegate to the computer for newbies.

going to work on the design doc now.

i went ahead and uploaded the current design document on my game. Not yet complete, especially not with respect to the challenging part we''ve been discussing, but there is is anyway. Will probably work some more on it tomorrow.

Design Doc

And the old site for the first version I was working on (haven''t worked on that one for quite a while, and for some reason the latest source is very sluggish). The download on the site actually sort of works (though is seems collision for players is turned off).

Old site

Just enforcing what most others have said, which is NO to handicapping players I played infantry for 5 years and I can tell you I would''ve have played it more than a few days if they handicapped you for being experienced. You can look at it like... If you are handicapping experienced players, sure you are making the newbies happy, but this makes your veterans unhappy (which are more important in a sense, they will play a long long time ). And chances are, if people like your game for what it is, they will play it to get better. Also another thing that was stated before that was a good idea was to put the newbies/vets in different places. In infantry, each map had a bunch of different arenas that you could join with different people. Usually the hardcore vets would hang out in the first few arenas and the newbies would scatter amongst the rest, but the vets would go to one of the arenas just to beat them down sometimes