I think competitive multiplayer games are fun and exiciting only if both players are constantly attacking each other. Instead of both sides "camping" or "turtling" for 2-3 hours and not interacting with each other. I have been brainstorming on ways to get players to attack and would like to entreat the wisdom of the gamedev forums.

One approach that has been actively talked about 4-5 years ago is to have valuable resources in a central area for players to fight over. I think that idea has faded away because in actual implementations, players ended up camping just outright of the central resource, waiting to punish opponents who expose themselves trying to claim it.

Other approaches in popular games:

1. Counterstrike - One side wins by default. On bomb scenarios, the counterterrorists wins by default if the terrorists do nothing and failed to get a bomb to go off. So, the "lose-by-default" side is forced to attack and interact.

2. Collectible Card Games (Magic: The Gathering?) - As resources build up, players can deploy more and more "superweapons". Cards are randomized so there is no telling who gets to deploy their superweapon first. Players tend to aggressively try to end the game before their opponent gets enough resources to use their superweapon.

3. Starcraft - One side has a advantage in the late game. So the disadvantaged side would want to end the game before it reaches late game. If the game drags out too long, the advantaged side would win. This does not apply to "mirror" matches where both players are using the same "race/faction".

Ideas anyone?

I'm most likely to attack other players in a game if I know that doing so helps me more than it harms them. For example when two players fight they should both gain more than they lose out of the conflict, though it's fine if one gains more than the other. On the other hand if I know that one or both players will have heavy costs associated with fighting I will avoid it, because I don't want to pay those costs myself and I don't want to harm my friends within the game.

Another way is have the resources where you have to control them in order to mine the resources. For example, say your resources is a gold mine. Have a tower or small camp at that mine that you have to have in your sides posession to use the mine.

Reward for aggresiveness and punish for turtling. For example: make one kill worth more in the beginning of the round and less in the end of it. Since both parties are inclined for early killing, conflicts are inavoidable.

You can go even further: make kills worth double or triple in the first minute in the round (if kill is made in the enemy territory), when winning score is counted.

Also it balances out risk player takes for attacking first with much greater reward.

Starcraft uses scarcity of resources to discourage turtling.

You have to keep expanding and fight over resources or you'll starve.

Late game units will also run right over base defenses or counter natural choke points (flying or walking over cliffs, or special abilities etc) which means the longer you turtle, the weaker you become.

All of the responses above some up the concept pretty nicely - Give players a reason to do something and they will do it. If there's some bonus to doing something (eg, safisfaction for getting a kill) on the individual players part, they will most likely attempt to do it.

Picture the guy who runs out blindly early on in a CS:S round with a P90, spraying and praying. They know the consequence (dying), but they have plenty of fun just getting their semi-gauranteed kill. The satisfaction makes it worth it.

If you can gaurantee there will be something in it for the player encourages them try it (aka spreading out / multi-base in RTS), most players will take the risk so long as the consequences aren't too high.

Compare PVP mechanics of RuneScape vs. WoW - WoW there is no cost, only really benefit and a respawn time. RuneScape, you lose everything for a tiny gain. The result? People in runescape camp/turtle on the edge of the wild (I haven't played the game in a long long time, maybe its gone/renamed) in order to protect themselves from loss with little gain. In WoW, theres always a hope you might crit and win, and respawning is sometimes faster then waiting for health regen, so people keep fighting just for the sake of advancing on.

In short: Keep it simple - give the user some satisfaction from playing aggressively. In a shooter, reduce respawn times for the players who were moving when they died - and make them aware of it! Insult campers automatically by annoucing them outloud. Do something to encourage the player to do something, and they will do it. (Horrible grammer, I know)

Starcraft uses scarcity of resources to discourage turtling.

The disadvantage of this is that it requires that the player actually understands this. A player must realise that he cannot play effectively just by mining his home fields more heavily and building lots of turrets, he has to make a conscious effort to get out there and claim new fields & apply pressure to the enemy.

In Dawn of War - resources came in at a fixed rate, and the only way to increase that rate was to capture more flags - a process which was accomplished using any of your main combat units. The act of going out there to capture more flags naturally brought players into conflict with one another, resulting in lots of conflict without the players even realizing they were being aggressive.

3. Starcraft - One side has a advantage in the late game. So the disadvantaged side would want to end the game before it reaches late game. If the game drags out too long, the advantaged side would win. This does not apply to "mirror" matches where both players are using the same "race/faction".

That is not actually the case in Starcraft. The races are roughly even. How you arrive at the endgame (map? player's stance on map? tech? resources?) has everything to do with who has the advantage, same goes for every other situation of the game. A more correct description of what's going on is that whenever a player thinks they are at a bad disadvantage, and they expect the opponent to capitalize properly on the advantage, they will gamble rather than take the guaranteed loss. The gambles can take the form of a risky attack on the opponent, but also risky plays to grow their own economy faster than is considered safe. The goal often isn't to win outright, but to get ahead or even so that the player can resume "normal" play.

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]

[background=rgb(250, 251, 252)]In Dawn of War - resources came in at a fixed rate, and the only way to increase that rate was to capture more flags - a process which was accomplished using any of your main combat units. The act of going out there to capture more flags naturally brought players into conflict with one another, resulting in lots of conflict without the players even realizing they were being aggressive. [/background]

[/font][/quote]

Company of Heroes uses the same system... The problem is - players tend to rush and capture the most defensible flags (eg. If the map is split by a river.. They'll take their side of the river) and fortify themselves. Since both sides continue receiving resources at a set rate - they end up in a stale mate that encourages defensive play.

You could try varying the output of these flags over time to encourage aggressiveness.

In something like an rts, I would make it easy to invade other players. Because of that, it's very easy to get more land and resources whenever you want to. However, people will also grow suspicious of their neighbors and launch pre-emptive strikes.