Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2005-04-22 at 01:50:52
Multiplayer has always been competition. These are essentially tests of skill of who is better than the other. While in nature, the superior person should mercilessly defeat the weaker person, does that necessarily have to apply in games?
Take a look at games such as Gran Turismo or F-Zero GX. These are pure multiplayer games which mean a player's performance does not interfere with the other player. So regardless of who is in the lead, there will be no forces that hinder or help a particular player. While one may argue that racing games are not the most popular form of multiplayer, fighting games are also pure multiplayer games and they are often popular in the arcades. Nearly every result is the better player defeats the weaker one.
The rubber band philosophy is different from pure multiplayer games with factors, other than skill. The rubber band philosophy is what games use either to help weaker players, or to weaken skilled players. In summary, it helps close the skill gap with forces beyond any player's control.
A great example of this is in the game Mario Kart. This system is used in both ways as the leading players receive worse items such as the banana, and the falling players receive better items such as the lightning bolt, star or the blue shell. Maybe this idea is what made the Mario Kart series so popular, since it is easy to jump into, whether you are a hard core gamer or casual player.
In another popular game, Counter-Strike, we see this system used on an one-sided effect. While new players do not necessarily get a boost, there is however, a great chance that any downed player may inflict damage to the killer, whether minor or great. With this damage added on, the killer has a better chance of getting eliminated by the next enemy he encounters.
With the dual system, the leading player is weakened, while the losing player is given an advantage. This can lead to unpredictable results as a weakened player may fall all the way behind, only to shoot straight up, and vice-versa.
In a game where only the leader is reduced, the average players are more likely than the new players to reach the top, so poor players will most likely be left behind.
But what about a game that only boosts losing players? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I predict that the better the player gets, the harder the game will be for them. I would like this sort of game to be tested.
In any decent multiplayer game, weapons or tools are easy to balance, however, skill levels vary drastically player to player. So what can we learn from this? The rubber band idea helps any player, regardless of skill level, play a competitive game. Are the best games where one player is completely dominated by another OR a game where an outcome is difficult to predict due to equal skill? The rubber band system can tone down highly skilled players for an equally challenging game.
If the rubber band is to be added to games, the degree of help should only be determined by the computer when calculating player performance. Too often people misjudge skills and in effect, create a greater unbalanced game.
In theory, a perfectly balanced game would end up as a draw. So should we allow random factors to determine the victor? That choice is yours.
Thanks for reading.
- Revelade
Take a look at games such as Gran Turismo or F-Zero GX. These are pure multiplayer games which mean a player's performance does not interfere with the other player. So regardless of who is in the lead, there will be no forces that hinder or help a particular player. While one may argue that racing games are not the most popular form of multiplayer, fighting games are also pure multiplayer games and they are often popular in the arcades. Nearly every result is the better player defeats the weaker one.
The rubber band philosophy is different from pure multiplayer games with factors, other than skill. The rubber band philosophy is what games use either to help weaker players, or to weaken skilled players. In summary, it helps close the skill gap with forces beyond any player's control.
A great example of this is in the game Mario Kart. This system is used in both ways as the leading players receive worse items such as the banana, and the falling players receive better items such as the lightning bolt, star or the blue shell. Maybe this idea is what made the Mario Kart series so popular, since it is easy to jump into, whether you are a hard core gamer or casual player.
In another popular game, Counter-Strike, we see this system used on an one-sided effect. While new players do not necessarily get a boost, there is however, a great chance that any downed player may inflict damage to the killer, whether minor or great. With this damage added on, the killer has a better chance of getting eliminated by the next enemy he encounters.
With the dual system, the leading player is weakened, while the losing player is given an advantage. This can lead to unpredictable results as a weakened player may fall all the way behind, only to shoot straight up, and vice-versa.
In a game where only the leader is reduced, the average players are more likely than the new players to reach the top, so poor players will most likely be left behind.
But what about a game that only boosts losing players? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I predict that the better the player gets, the harder the game will be for them. I would like this sort of game to be tested.
In any decent multiplayer game, weapons or tools are easy to balance, however, skill levels vary drastically player to player. So what can we learn from this? The rubber band idea helps any player, regardless of skill level, play a competitive game. Are the best games where one player is completely dominated by another OR a game where an outcome is difficult to predict due to equal skill? The rubber band system can tone down highly skilled players for an equally challenging game.
If the rubber band is to be added to games, the degree of help should only be determined by the computer when calculating player performance. Too often people misjudge skills and in effect, create a greater unbalanced game.
In theory, a perfectly balanced game would end up as a draw. So should we allow random factors to determine the victor? That choice is yours.
Thanks for reading.
- Revelade
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-04-22 at 02:02:14
Incredible. 
It's given me ideas. 
It's given me ideas. Report, edit, etc...Posted by SA_Max71 on 2005-04-23 at 00:02:37
QUOTE(Revelade @ Apr 21 2005, 10:50 PM)
In another popular game, Counter-Strike, we see this system used on an one-sided effect. While new players do not necessarily get a boost, there is however, a great chance that any downed player may inflict damage to the killer, whether minor or great. With this damage added on, the killer has a better chance of getting eliminated by the next enemy he encounters.
[right][snapback]193020[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]193020[/snapback][/right]
In halo 1 for PC, I have let people kill me 100 times without moving. The game was set up in such a way that the less points you have, the faster you move. The more points you have, the slower you move. Well, once I had died 100 times, I had -100 points. I moved so quickly on foot that people in banshees couldn't keep up with me.
QUOTE(Revelade @ Apr 21 2005, 10:50 PM)
If the rubber band is to be added to games, the degree of help should only be determined by the computer when calculating player performance. Too often people misjudge skills and in effect, create a greater unbalanced game.
[right][snapback]193020[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]193020[/snapback][/right]
On the other hand, I know 2 people that play halo 1 for PC quite often. If they are on the same time, the game is all but over. One of them set up a game, where it was him (on the red team) vs 15 other people (on the blue team) with friendly fire off. No one was allowed to use glitches. One person explioted a glitch, and got kicked from the game (but that is beside the point). Guess what? The red team won. Based on this real life example, the rubber band effect is not necessary true.
ADDITION:
lol... nice post! I would give you a karma if I could...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2005-04-23 at 13:50:44
I see my message is a bit too difficult to understand... Could this possibly be placed in Serious Discussion?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Fortune on 2005-04-23 at 14:06:08
It's no joke about Multiplayer being a competition—what other reason would there be for having more than one player?
I have much more fun in games that aren't competitive on single player than while playing them in Multiplayer—hence, RPG's.
On the other hand though, sports maps, bounds, defenses, and pretty much all the other maps played on Starcraft: Broodwar are competitive and fun to be played with more than one person.
The reason I'm replying only about Starcraft: Broodwar is because it's pretty much the only game I specialize in—so it's the only one I could give experienced feedback for.
I have much more fun in games that aren't competitive on single player than while playing them in Multiplayer—hence, RPG's.
On the other hand though, sports maps, bounds, defenses, and pretty much all the other maps played on Starcraft: Broodwar are competitive and fun to be played with more than one person.
The reason I'm replying only about Starcraft: Broodwar is because it's pretty much the only game I specialize in—so it's the only one I could give experienced feedback for.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rhiom on 2005-04-24 at 18:44:49
QUOTE(SA_Max71 @ Apr 22 2005, 08:02 PM)
On the other hand, I know 2 people that play halo 1 for PC quite often. If they are on the same time, the game is all but over. One of them set up a game, where it was him (on the red team) vs 15 other people (on the blue team) with friendly fire off. No one was allowed to use glitches. One person explioted a glitch, and got kicked from the game (but that is beside the point). Guess what? The red team won. Based on this real life example, the rubber band effect is not necessary true.[right][snapback]193483[/snapback][/right]
i wouldnt be so quick to say that that is the rubber band effect but instead examine the situation. in 1v15 for every chance that those 15 players have to score 1 point your freind has a chance to score 15 points. that means his death is seriusoly devauled because even if he tosses a correctly placed grenade he can usually gte at least 2 kills for each oppertunity that the other players can get 1. I personally dont think this is an example of the rubberband effect....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by iamacow on 2005-04-28 at 19:48:15
I would prefer a game with no "rubberband effect" or other handicaps. Skill should be what determines the winner, except for when chance makes sense. In Unreal Tournament for example, in a 1v1 with the same weapons/health, it almost comes down to only individual skill. There is still some chance that someones hand could slip, and they get a much faster kill by aiming at the head. Someone who can always am at the head and can always stay on an unpredictable path will almost always win, though.
To me, the rubberband effect is fair to people who are new, but not people who aren't. I don't want to play against a team of people who are terrible at the game and own them for 5 minutes and then they have more health, move faster, and do more damage. Even if it's not so drastic, it takes away from the experience for me, because it makes it an unfair fight by giving them a free advantage.
To me, the rubberband effect is fair to people who are new, but not people who aren't. I don't want to play against a team of people who are terrible at the game and own them for 5 minutes and then they have more health, move faster, and do more damage. Even if it's not so drastic, it takes away from the experience for me, because it makes it an unfair fight by giving them a free advantage.