Encouraging People to play together
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:49
In my opinion, the number 1 problem in this game is that new players are vets are pretty much separated. The new release will make it even worse since new players won't be able to even get to where all the vets want to play (below emberlight).
So then the question is how to get vets and newbs to play together. I don't think it should be forced (i.e. making it so people can't get below emberlight whatsoever unless you go below haven) but rather encouraged. What's the main problem with how the game functions now? Below haven gives you barely any crowns/rewards at all.
I thought of this some time ago and posted it in the general forum once I think, but I don't think I posted it here. But essentially I think crown rewards should be even through all the zones. So if you make 500 crowns in a level below emberlight, you should (as a general rule) also make about 500 crowns in a level before haven. This not only would encourage people to play together but would make it easier for newbs to get better gear (they would probably have to balance out the prices a bit if this was ever implemented to maybe make items cost some more crowns).
So then the question comes into play, if rewards are the same, what reason would there be to go below emberlight? Why not just stay under haven? Well the answer to that is to make a cumulative system that rewards you more based on how many levels you completed. If someone went from haven to the core they would make a lot more money than if someone went from emberlight to the core. Of course not everyone has the energy to play 30 levels, so things can't be exactly even. For instance the farther down you are the more heat you should get, and the farther down you are the greater concentration of red boxes there are. Things like that. Also bigger and badder bosses would be further down that could have chances to drop phat loot (like how the turtle drops the 5 star turtle shell). But the important part is to keep the amount of crowns enemies drop to be relatively even or else people feel swindled if they play below Haven. The cumulative bonus would also be even. So if you played from haven to moorcraft you get the same bonus as if you played from moorcraft to emberlight. The idea is to not make players feel like they are wasting energy if they play below haven.
The cumulative bonus could be based on how many levels the player has played, or the team, or a combination of both.
Oh, and this idea works a lot better after they did the "equipment is worse the closer you are to haven" nerf incidentally.
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 13:15
#2
Mhmhm
I'm too shy to join other peoples groups because I think I'm pretty bad at the game :x And when people join my group I don't speak to them except for acknowledgement, because they usually are better at everything. Going straight to Moorcroft after 2 hours game time wasnt the best idea, but at least i get more money :) Can do the first 3 gates (mostly) dieing only 2 or 3 times :p
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 16:10
#3
If you stick with the system
If you stick with the system of "high star equipment is weak and poor at shallow depths", then keeping payouts relatively equal isn't so bad -- your incentive to play lower is that you have better equipment.
The real question is a little different:
With new players wanting to play shallow, because they have shallow gear, what incentive is there for people with high-end equipment to play shallower?
So what if your crown/heat award was modified by your equipment tier? Have tier three equipment? Get three times as much payout. Running in tier three? Your equipment is at full strength, but you don't have the newbies with you Payout is three times normal. Running in tier one? Your equipment is pathetically weak, but you're running with newbies, getting lots of crowns/heat for the increased challenge. Payout is 6 times normal.
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 17:41
#4
Nope
Games need endgame content that is different from the beginning content.
And so vets and noobs will be separated like in most MMOs.
If you want noobs to go to vets, you would have to scrap the concept of "better" equipement, so noobs can beat any enemy. And then you can't have hard levels.
If you want vets to go to noobs, despite recent balancing vets can sweep areas up to Ember with no problem at all, possibly taking away fun from new players. And the crown income is less, as it should, otherwise progression gets screwed.
I have recently been playing Moorcraft Tier, and it's not really much fun now that I'm sued to Ember and have good equip. I have also been leveling my chroma suit.
If you want a system to get more crown, just have every level give the same crowns, and have them be multiplied for each party member depending on the star rating of the equipment, or something like that.
I'm all for having more party play, I don't really see how this can work.
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 19:59
#5
> Games need endgame content
> Games need endgame content that is different from the beginning content.
Why?
If you regard a ship battle as the basic game content of YPP, then that -- a good ship v. ship battle -- will keep you going for years.
(Sadly, YPP was too dependent on a good pillaging crew. I got lucky on two of my early ones -- ARR, and later Fandango -- but after Fandango crumbled, I didn't find good green ocean ones, and eventually just gave up and went back to blue. Soloing over there doesn't give good ship battles. Flotillas, Atlantis, etc, are all dependent on having lots of good people. Small stuff? Minimum is really a cutter and a backup officer/navigator if you DC or have real life.)
If a dungeon run is enjoyable, then it is enjoyable. It's not like we have scripts and story lines, where once you've done a script or story line, it's done -- you've got a never ending set of dungeons. Twisty maze of little passages, all different.
So why do you need new content for the end game, if the base game is enjoyable? If the base game is not enjoyable, what would make it enjoyable?
Does Chess, or Go, need advanced content?
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 20:16
#6
Uh
Because doing always the same thing gets boring.
If the game has progression (leveling or different tiers of equipment, etc) you expect that once you get to the end (top tier/lvl) you get to do all the awesome stuff.
Endgame is where most players stay, so there should be a wide variety of things to do to keep people entertained.
Why they shouldn't be available to new guys, is that they are hard and challenging. Generally you want to give the new people easy stuff to not scare them away, since most people these days is not hardcore enough to play the first level of a game like it was Contra.
If the endgame is not different at all from the initial content, there is no motivation to get to the end, and people ultimately get bored that they have been doing the same thing since they started playing.
Currently I am quite bored of the gates, I have played every stage time and time again, I'd love if there was more variety. I'm only playing to get recipes for some decent gear so I can pvp properly.
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 21:00
#7
> Because doing always the
> Because doing always the same thing gets boring.
But if the endgame content doesn't keep expanding, then you'll get bored.
> > Games need endgame content that is different from the beginning content.
> Why?
Question still stands. The need for new content, and different content to avoid boredom, doesn't mean that the content must irrevocably change to this second set and never go back to the first set.
You mention the need for easy levels, as well as challenging levels. Fine. That doesn't mean that "endgame" and "new game" are different, just that you need easy, medium, and hard.
YPP has red routes, and Midnight has Ruby. End-game and new-game are still pretty much the same there. Red just means "Harder than the game thinks you can handle". Normal might mean you're expected to win 70% of the time; as you win, the difficulty goes up slowly. Hard means the game expects you to lose; as you win, the difficulty goes up quickly. Either way, it goes up until you lose.
What's "Hard" supposed to be here, different from "easy"? Given that 1-star equipment outperforms 2-star equipment in tier 1, isn't "harder" the same as "Play shallower, it's harder"?
Most people's response to "Play shallower" isn't "It's too hard", it's "It's too cheap".
By "end-game", do you really mean "Make me rich"?
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 22:26
#8
Oh Curtain, you so crazy
>But if the endgame content doesn't keep expanding, then you'll get bored.
Yes, duh. The idea is for it to be diverse and challenging enough to take some time to get boring.
It will eventually get boring, that is why every MMO updates their content.
>That doesn't mean that "endgame" and "new game" are different, just that you need easy, medium, and hard.
Yes, because the start is to be kept simple, charming and transitive. Nobody (except you maybe) spends much time with newbie content. It is to be played some time and never again.
It needs to be interesting enough to keep you playing, but using time developing it deeply is a waste of resources.
There are some things that are easily adaptable to new players. Others simply don't adapt well and would require many tweaks.
Most of the development of a game should be directed to whatever the players will be doing for most of their time.
Let me give you an example to see if you understand:
Bossfights. They can only be mid or endgame content:
Why? Because they are supposed to be challenging fights that require preparation, cooperation, and skill.
New players aren't familiar with the game, have few sets of equipment, and generally have few in game contacts as to get a good party. So you have none of those 3 things I mentioned.
The only way to make a boss fight for newbies fun, is to dumb it down considerably, completely missing the point of a boss-fight.
>What's "Hard" supposed to be here, different from "easy"?
Hard and easy refer to how well you have to play to not die.
In a hard dungeon, enemies might take away 1/2 of your health in a hit, while in an easy dungeon that amount may be 1/8. Etc. Pretty simple.
>Given that 1-star equipment outperforms 2-star equipment in tier 1
Does it? I have played tier 1 with 4* equip and killed everything in 1 or 2 hits. Boring. Similar thing with tier 2. Went recipe hunting.
Also, I find typing this much to be horrible. What have you done to me.
Thu, 12/16/2010 - 23:30
#9
> Does it? I have played tier
> Does it? I have played tier 1 with 4* equip and killed everything in 1 or 2 hits. Boring. Similar thing with tier 2. Went recipe hunting.
Have you done this recently? I've confirmed, and reported (both F2 and in the forums here) that 2-star equipment does less than one-star equipment in the 1-7 zone since the recent patch. Roughly, 10 heat 2 star and 1 heat 1-star are about the same (granted, that's a loose approximation, and it does vary by weapon.) Haven't (yet) tried the other tiers (although I'm making three star stuff now).
> Most of the development of a game should be directed to whatever the players will be doing for most of their time.
Yep. You still haven't explained why that can't be the main game. All you've done is explain why it can't be rescue camp:
> New players aren't familiar with the game, have few sets of equipment, and generally have few in game contacts as to get a good party. So you have none of those 3 things I mentioned.
So rescue camp, and the sparrow dungeon in rescue camp, are different than the rest of the world.
Why can't you have a boss battle balanced for either 1-star equipment at full, or tier-2/3 equipment weakened by being in the shallow area?
> Bossfights. They are supposed to be challenging fights that require preparation, cooperation, and skill.
You and I have different ideas of Boss fights. Heck, I haven't yet seen a fight like that in SK. All I've seen is hordes of monsters all spawning at once to surround you.
I've seen MOB fights.
I have not seen a BOSS fight.
Are boss fights only below emberlight? Or are you and I thinking of different things and calling them the same thing?
To me: A boss fight is a fight against one unit that is very powerful, intended to be an equal or better match for you, that you have to wear down slowly, using primarily defensive tactics, and looking for an opening to exploit the Boss's weakness. And maybe the boss has a lot of wimps around for distractions. Mario Vs. Browser Junior (Super Mario Galaxy). "Monster X" (Cave Story/Dokotsu).
They are NOT rapid twitch combat.
They are slow, cautious, and "look and observe what's happening" fights.
Yes, I'm spending a lot of time with Tier 2 stuff.
Yes, I'm checking to see if Tier 2 stuff behaves as expected in Tier 1 (apparently, it doesn't, but that actually opens up new possibilities and challenges).
I suspect that the majority of players will be in Tier 2 zone at any time. Just because the cost to get out of Tier 2 and into Tier 3 is so high.
Yes, long players will spend most of their time with tier 3 equipment.
Most players won't be long players.
I suspect most play-time will be spent with Tier 2 equipment, especially if Tier 3 is really going to be raid content with hard to get equipment, and tier 3 gear in tier 2 content is penalized.
Now, why do you want to say "Tier 2 gear should not be seen in tier 1 content"? What is wrong with saying "Levels 4-7 are significantly harder than levels 1-3; you're expected to have warmed up 1-star or better, and know how the game works before you go here"? Or are you saying that the equivalent -- 2 star (tier 2) equipment is not sufficient for levels 14-17? (Threat indicator red to solid purple, so apparently 2 star gear isn't supposed to get me down to Emberlight.)
If you can say "4-7 are harder than 1-3", then you can say "Your weakened tier 2/3 stuff will be a challenge and you can play with the tier 1 people in the just as challenging, if not more so, hard boss fights".
Again, we're back to the question:
Do you want a hard fight, or do you want to be rich?
Do you want "End-game pays super duper riches, so I'm $$$"? Or do you want "Hard, challenging fight"?
===
>>What's "Hard" supposed to be here, different from "easy"?
>Hard and easy refer to how well you have to play to not die.
In a hard dungeon, enemies might take away 1/2 of your health in a hit, while in an easy dungeon that amount may be 1/8. Etc. Pretty simple.
... Except ... I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
We have people pointing out that if you can circle and shoot, then all armor has the same value -- zero -- because you can avoid being hit.
Even if you do get hit, yes, the nastier monsters do bigger chunks of bars, but you have more bars.
And now we're at a flaw in the vitapod system. Going from 1 to 7, I might go from 7 health to 12. Going from 20 to 30, I might go from 12 to 40. Or I might go from 5-7 to 25-27.
Something that takes 1/4th of my start -- 2 bars -- will only take 1/6th at the end.
Something that takes 1/4th of my start -- 3 bars -- will take 1/13th at the end.
And if I'm in tier 1 gear down with friends? That 3 bars will be 5 because my armor is weaker, so it's going from 100% to 1/5th. So if you really want "harder" as in "Monsters take longer to kill and hurt more when I'm hit", get out your proto sword and shield. There's your "hard" game.
For a monster to be equally nasty at the end, it has to be horrifically overstrong at the start. In this case, "hard" meaning "more damage if you are hit" is really a flaw in the vitapod system.
> In a hard dungeon, enemies might take away 1/2 of your health in a hit,
But with the current system, at depth N, there is no way to tell what your HP will be. The rate at which vitapods are dispensed doesn't seem to follow any noticeable, dependable invariant, so you really can't tell if the person has level appropriate HP, or 4 levels ago HP; there's the whole issue of "the bigger the party, the less HP most people will have", and "you just joined? Gaa, you're horribly weak until the next vitapod -- which might be three more levels".
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 18:15
#10
Nope
>Have you done this recently?
Yes. 2 days ago.
>You still haven't explained why that can't be the main game. All you've done is explain why it can't be rescue camp
I did. Even gave you an example. The basic is beginners = easy, vets = challenges. And being a beginner is transitive.
>Why can't you have a boss battle balanced for either 1-star equipment at full, or tier-2/3 equipment weakened by being in the shallow area?
Taking away the challenge makes the content not challenging. The idea of a boss fight is to be challenging. I explained this. Back to answer 2.
>I haven't yet seen a fight like that in SK.
Get out of tier 2. http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Vanaduke
>Most players won't be long players.
It takes 2 week to get to tier 3. Yes they will.
>Except ... I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
It is. Avoiding being hit is playing well. Vitapods are distributed well enough so at any depth you have more or less X health. It is also random, which adds a random factor to difficulty.
Also if you had played a boss fight, you would know there are vitapods that give every member full health before them.
>Do you want a hard fight, or do you want to be rich?
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
>If you want the game to be hard play it with the noob gear!
You are silly.
Now, I challenge you to write clearly, addressing what the other person says without ranting about other stuff, and without writing more than 15 lines.
Also, all your opinions are wrong.
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 18:29
#11
Are you guys gonna keep at it
Are you guys gonna keep at it or am I going to have to turn this thread around and take you both home? Really, creating more work for Poseidon to moderate the forums... *sighs*
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 18:38
#12
>:
I blame UnderCarpet
Also http://xkcd.com/386/
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 18:41
#13
THAT COMIC IS MADE OF WIN.
I
THAT COMIC IS MADE OF WIN.
I love XKCD.
Seriously, that is my life at times.
Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:40
#14
Thank you XKCD.
@Pupu: Hahah, I laughed pretty hard at that. I think that sums up what goes on here a lot. Most of the time, even if someone is arguing with something I said (or did not say, which happens a lot), I end up laughing for some reason. From now on I will always have a reason. Thank you XKCD.
On Topic:
I love solo. I always play solo. There should be no penalties against playing solo, if you ask me. If anything, maybe some Heat bonus or something if you are in a party. However, I do not even think something like this is fully necessary, since being in a group already ups your chances of winning to begin with. On the other hand, there is an issue with people playing together when they want to - mostly because they cannot find a group. I believe this to be a problem arising from the low player base, not a game flaw. Once everybody is in Haven and there are 20x the players, I can almost guarantee you people will be able to play with someone if they want to (yes Talbain, that includes PvP :D).
I have always enjoyed soloing things. I firmly believe there should be no negative implications on soloing things. At least, this is what I believe for the game as it seems to me now, which is that it does not seem like you are supposed to play in groups. This is one of the reasons I like SK so much: I do not have to worry about finding other people to play with, I can do things on my own whenever I want. I believe that for later implementations group partying will be (nearly) a requirement, and thus player communication may also need implementations. Admittedly, some things should require you to party up with others, I just do not see anything like this occuring right now.
Anyways, those are my thoughts on "encouraging people to play together". I am not arguing with anyone, in fact I have not even read everything here (I found out after a few days on the forums that this is useless to do since half of everything is useless bickering).
Or you could make pay sort of "bound" to player experience?
To give an example:
Say you wouldn't gather coins, but instead some kind of impure mineral inside the clockworks and etc. Higher player experience would allow you to purify it much better, which would in return gain you more coins back at Haven where a mineral trader sits and buys these off players. With a system like this you could put the pay even at every depth, but just let it depend on player experience? So you still have the increasing pay throughout the game, but you get the same pay at every depth.
Just throwing something in!