What Not To Do When Making A Multiplayer Game

I'm currently developing a simple multiplayer game, and I've read some stuff that really do spoil an mp game such as having a very large world with too many players per game, so what are the stuff that YOU hate most to find in an mp game?

 

Unrealistic story-dialogue driven.

For example, you're talking to some NPC and she said;

"You're great, you're the FIRST EVER PERSON that defeat that DRAGON master".

But in actual facts there's THOUSANDS other player have do so.

This is great for normal RPG games, I think they need to approach the dialogue and the story from different angle.

 

1. A lack of meaningful player interaction. Take most RTS games for example (that is, at lower levels of play before you've learned all the common build orders and how to scout effectively). Most players at a low level won't attack you until they're ready to wipe out their opponent. So what basically happens is you both sit in your base speedrunning SimCity until somebody decides to attack, at which point the game ends if there's any mismatch in economic efficiency (and therefore military strength). There's no point in even playing in real-time! Why not just record a replay of you building your base and army, and compare it to your opponent's replay, and see who has the most units at the 15-minute mark?

2. Games with an inverse learning curve. Take most FPS games for example. A multiplayer FPS is one of the few games that gets easier the longer you play it. It's hardest when you first start out, then as you practice, you get better - which would be great if you opponents got more skilled, too! But they don't - you'll almost always get matched into a game with a mix of noobs and pros - the only difference is that you're now a pro instead of a noob and there's fewer players who are better than you. Most modern FPS games compound this issue by awarding better weapons to more experienced players. In other words, "Congratulations! As a reward for being better than all the noobs, here's a weapon that's also better than the noobs' weapons!"

3. Games that require homework. Take most MOBAs for example. Sure, you can start playing and derp around and be moderately successful - the core design is very accessible. But when you want to take it to the next level, suddenly you have to learn about all the heroes, all their strengths and weakness, and every item in the shop! And if you don't know all that, you're going to get flamed by your teammates. There's no way you can learn all of this in-game, it's too competitive, there's not enough time to experiment and figure out what stuff does. So you have to hit the wiki and study it before anybody will treat you like a human being. Don't most people play video games to avoid doing homework?

In short, I like single-player games. XD

 

Hate that part as hell...this is the reason I don't play most multiplayer games...

 

Most multiplayer games I play, I play to compete against other people. One major thing that annoys me when playing any multiplayer game is 'toxic' game mechanics with no counterplay, to borrow a word from Morello, a lead designer of LoL.

Whenever you introduce a gameplay mechanic in a multiplayer PvP game, you need to make sure it has some form of counterplay - for example, the Mortar in BF4 is a terribly designed, 'toxic' game mechanic in my opinion. Why?

• You have no way of knowing a mortar is about to hit you (in most cases), so there is 0 counterplay to it
• The only option you have to deal with it is to find it on your map (often in an unfavorable location), risk trying to get to the back of the enemy team to get to it, and then finally destroy it - which gets you 25 points, very poor compensation for the effort you've gone to.
  
• It isn't very rewarding to the player using the mortar - the only feedback that the user gets is a message on the UI saying "you killed someone"

Also, in relation to what DallonF is talking about above, Burden of Knowledge is pretty important as well - whilst adding complexity to a game might attract the more hardcore players, you have to make sure that the game is still accessible to casual players, who might only play it once a month or so.

 

You're contradicting yourself... Games with inverse learning curve = game with no homework.

 

yeah.. i think call of duty 2 was the last , actually good call of duty for this reason... cod2 felt like more of an even playing field, although, yeah, the pros were badass, LOL i used to kill the whole enemy team and not let my teammates get any kills

i dont understand the allure of MOBAs ... and i LAUGHED at the fact theres only like 3 maps.. wtf?? thats just lazy devs...
smite is kinda cool, ... the arena mode, if it was strictly skill based(not stat based), itd be awesome, but the fact its basically lvl 15 vs lvl 5 the lvl 5 cannot win, is just LAME ...

one thing that i think is really stupid is, master server.

theres a few games i seen, they shut down the master server, and its impossible to play multiplayer then, in order to play multiplayer you have to get the pirated version lol

pay to win, obviously , is super lame and turns everyone with a brain (and not rich)away...
i think path of exile has a good free-to-play structure, in that you only pay for cosmetic effects for your character or spells, and the pets are just for looks... (i think itd be cool if pets were standard, and just extra pets for pay)

planetside 2 is cool ... i guess itd be cool if you play with a group of friends, but as a single player its really lame i find it to be... well they have sorta pay to win... but besides that, it feels that 1 person cant really make a difference, like in wolfenstien i remember id win the match singlehandedly in like 3 minutes lool but in planetside 2 theres not that, and theres no end of match, i never felt the feeling of "yes!!! i/ the team won the match!!" .. its just missing.. sure you take bases, but you know the base is just going to be taken back eventually.. and you cant take a base singlehandedly (well maybe, but like 100x less likely than BF or cod or wolf/quake wars)

MMOs are lame... too many reasons, cool in theory, but not (yet) in practice..

 

Hitting people with mortars in Battlefield is preposterously rewarding because you have a 3-4 second travel time on a shot that only kills at a nearly direct hit... With a long reload time and no consistent targeting info.

Also, there is a S***load of counter-play, you are basically a sniper's best friend the moment you try to use mortars. His game with a ridiculous 2-4 second travel time at real sniping ranges + bullet drop that still requires a head-shot to kill; even though he has a bolt action and has to exit scope to fire a second round? You basically exist for that guy when you're using mortars.

Just saying, it's easy to be ignorant about an FPS that looks shallow, but they are very dynamic games when played at a high level.

 

That's not the feedback the player gets though. Yes, it is difficult to land a mortar, but the only reward the player gets when they do hit it is a small GUI message, and the same amount of points as any other kill.
In regards to the counter-play, mortars in BF4 can be remotely operated now, which completely removes the option to use a sniper to take out the people manning them. In BF3, like you said, at least they had options for counterplay.

 

1) Not allowing control over your matches. For some reason this is a huge trend with consoles. It's like a solution to a problem that was never a problem. Back in the day you'd load a list of games running and pick one. Now you only have the option of being auto assigned one. And I have had lots of times where it keeps throwing me back into the same match again and again.

2) Letting cheaters and trolls fly. Tribes Ascend was my favorite go to game for some time, then suddenly within the period of a week the game was swarming with aim bots. Then on XBox they have you pay to use your own internet connection, but they don't do anything about the constant harassment. Here's how you fix both of them, have a "time out" server list for them and let them cut each other’s throats. And if you want to get really creative you can make a electoral judicial system from the community to judge questionable games and have accusers suffer the consequences if they are found to be lying.

3) Differentiating between casual games and ranks games. There is nothing worse than going to a game when you feel like being serious and there's a few screwing around ruining the competiveness. Conversely it sucks not being able to goof off once and a while.

 

I'm only contradicting myself if I claim there's a good solution As I said, I prefer single-player games.

But I disagree with your statement. The Homework Problem and the Inverse Learning Curve problem are one and the same, solving one will solve the other. The root problem of both is that the learning curve of multiplayer games is front-loaded. Unlike in a single-player game where designers can slowly introduce one mechanic at a time until the player has mastered each one, in a multi-player game, you have to be familiar with all the mechanics in play before you can really be an effective player. Until you learn them all, you will lose horribly.

I think the primary game I've seen do this right is Team Fortress 2 (as it exists now): the basic mechanics are fairly simple - obviously you have to learn how to aim and shoot, as well as how all nine classes interact with each other. But until you learn that, you can just play as a Pyro and torch everything in sight. Finally, once you've spent some time in the game, you start getting new items, and you start noticing that other players have wacky items that you don't. The learning curve has diminishing returns at this point - learning what all these items do will only have a marginal impact on your ability to kill noobs - but there's such a diversity of play at that level that you'll never master everything.

 

What not to do in a multi-player game? I answer lots of your questions in, 'Believable Dead-Reckoning for Networked Games' though to be honest, the simplest lesson I can share is .... don't make a multiplayer game at all. It's 100X harder than you think, which means you're unlikely to finish. Build smaller titles, to build up your confidence and your skill set, until you've at least enough experience that you wouldn't need to ask questions like, 'what-not-to-do-when-making-a-multiplayer-game'.

Gigi

 

I hate pointless leveling/upgrades, i.e. Battlefield 4 has all the ranking you can do and get ribbons but they are pointless.
The best leveling I ever saw was in Halo 2, it was simple you had a number for a level and that was pretty much it.