This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Challenges of Making a Multiplayer Game
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce
Avoid lag?! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Avoid lag?! (Score:4, Insightful)
When you get a few hundred thousand users on a server it's going to slow down, no matter the code or connection... While 3rd party server apps might be faster for small groups, I doubt they will be as fast as the 'official' server on compriable equipment with a few hundred thousand users. And if it is faster, I'd be suspicious about what features/preventative measures were not included to get the speed gains.
Re:Avoid lag?! (Score:3, Informative)
Figured I would post the email that I received from a Blizzard employee in response to the letter I wrote them regarding bnetd
Hello.
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's
CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made
with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing
users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd
been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow
access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby
eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore,
Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
Please take a moment to read through our FAQ regarding these issues at
http://www.battle.net/support/emulationfaq.sh
or concerns about Blizzard's stance on software piracy.
{WR655}
Thank you for your email,
Kenny Z.
Technical Support
Blizzard Entertainment
PS. If you plan to reply to this message, please include all previous
messages between us.
Re:Avoid lag?! (Score:2)
>Thank you for your email,
>Kenny Z.
I wonder if he's related to Kenny G?
Re:Avoid lag?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but (a) bnetd and FSGS didn't allow cracking; and (b) Blizzard doesn't have a legal leg to stand on anyway. These programs reverse engineering and reimplement Blizzard's protocol, which is perfectly legal. It was someone else who created the Warcraft hacking patch, and as I understand it neither bnetd nor FSGS directly linked to said patches. If anything, it was sites providing those patches that should have been pursued.
Avoid lag?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Avoid lag?! (Score:3, Insightful)
What about a rating (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about a rating (Score:2)
Re:What about a rating (Score:2, Interesting)
What appeals to me most about this is that it's ultimately the community spirit working against cheaters as opposed to trying to stay ahead of them technologically (we've all seen how well that works)
Re:What about a rating (Score:2, Interesting)
Its not that tricky to keep all of someones friends from giving one guy a bad rating. You must have actually played a game with the player before you can rate the player.
This system sounds appealing to me. I could see someone who is accused of cheating because he clobbers everyone, and know that it will be a challenge to beat this guy, because he is either really good or he cheats. So then I can either accept a challenging game or not play against this person.
But it is so easy to sign up for accounts on most systems that if someone is accused of cheating too much they can just create a new account and start with a fresh rating. But overall a system like this would be good.
Re:What about a rating (Score:2, Interesting)
In general, there's a whole asshole brigade of young online gamers who don't feel their online actions matter. That is a bad attitude, and a terrible way to conduct oneself.
The merit of a such a system lies in how identities are tied to a CD-Key. So if someone is an asshole, their bad karma is going to tail them unless they pay Blizzard and their Vivendi handlers for another chance at redemption. Sure there should be some kind of amnesty plan, but the whole system is going to require some kind of lock-step policing; a policy which would automatically invalidate bogus ratings. So that at the end of the game, when you're looking at the "Save Replay", or "Exit" options, there would be another, "Rate Players", which would bring up an interface that would include all of the MEAT players you just threw down with, some simple radio buttons for each (rate the behavior of your friends/opponents --based on the Alliance status when the game concluded) with 1 to 5 (1 being fscking sphincter to 5 being excellent), and a 255 character "comment" field, suitable for nice words like, "turncoat,cheating, bastard".
In the end, with a free service, and a very non-free implementation cost, to Blizzard, the ends are probably not worth the cost to implement. This is to be expected, and maybe there's a niche here for a 3rd. party to step in and provide a most excellent service which arbitrates the honor of people who would feel better about getting into a game with someone who is really interested in a "3 vs. 3 CPU!!!" instead of "1 vs. 2 vs. 3 CPU!!!", or the ever popular variant "2 cheaters vs. 1 pigeon", or the "Newbie!" games.
Hey, where's a venture capitalist when you need them!!!?
My comment.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can always judge the quality of a game player by asking if they have ever used a MUD. I honestly think this is a genres of Multiplayer gaming which has been tossed to the wayside by 13 year olds who have never heard of a BBS and want to push the limits of their new GeForce4 as to show off to their friends.
Talk about robustness, anyone who can remember MajorMUD or Tele-Arena know what I'm talking about.
I just honestly think game makers need to look back and reignite the Text Based RPG craze. I honestly feel there's money to be made in it.
Re:My comment.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My comment.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me text commands anyday.
Improved graphics spoiled Ultima series (Score:5, Interesting)
With bare-minimum graphics like Ultima III on C64 all the action took place in your own mind -- the best virtual reality/graphics engine ever developed.
When the series moved onto a sort of 3d graphics in Ultima VI the whole atmosphere changed. Suddenly you had these STUPID, squeaky-clean looking characters on the screen instead of the rough bunch of veterans you always had imagined. All the monsters were pitiful caricatures of the nightmares I had fought in the earlier Ultima episodes. In short, the whole game was fucked up because you were being forcefed the (annoying) vision of the game developers.
game graphics will be indistinguishable from real life
Sigh. And what's the point in that when the purpose of the games is to help you to spend some time away from the reality!?
Two points (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of game graphics indistinguishable from real life is to make your escape from reality more complete. Just because it LOOKS like real life doesn't mean it has to PLAY like real life. Just look at ID Software's games (from Wolf 3D to Q3A) for an example of games that have gotten progressively more realistic looking without becoming anything more like real life.
Re:My comment.. (Score:2)
Text based isn't better than graphics.
The original poster didn't say that they were. He just said that he thought that there was a still a decent market for them, and I think that he's probably right.
Re:My comment.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Games these days are quite like women. They keep getting prettier, but not necessarily any better; they may provide more stimulus, but that doesn't guarantee more pleasure. Just some free association there... take offense only if you're the offensive type.
And speaking of the ladies, I know why you can't wait for the day when graphics are indistinguishable from real life... you naughty little boy. Get a real life, don't rely on graphics to make it look like you have one. "And what's wrong with trying to see what your new $300 video card is capable of?" Are you by chance the exact 14 year-old the previous poster was referring to?
Re:My comment.. (Score:2)
I still love q3 and rtcw, but I still love to fire up Supernova and Zork! It's all about personal preference... don't just assume text games are all worse-off than their graphical counterparts.
Sure, 3D effect-laden graphics that need the Ti4600 to run are certainly far more popular, but don't generalize so much
Re:My comment.. (Score:2)
Granted, I don't show off my GeForce4 b/c I don't own one (I don't play anything except Quake1CTF and due to extremely high ping times for some reason *cough* woh.rr.com *cough* I can't even do that).
But how the hell could you compare gaming of yester-millenium to games of today?
I am waiting for broadband GT3. Now that would be fucking sweet.
Just my worthless
Re:My comment.. (Score:2)
GT4 has been officially announced and will be network-ready (it replaces the GTN expansion) and will ship in Japan mid-2003 and will probably be in North American hands a few months later.
GT4 is said to include variable weather and time as well as new tracks from China and somewhere I can't recall at the moment. All this I got from my latest PSM2 maazine.
There's also going to be a PC GT as well.
GTRacer
- Time to subscribe to broadband, no?
Re:My comment.. (Score:2)
Not terribly impressed w/GT3's handling but I assume that will improve in GT4.
I have been playing GT1 for years, just got GT3 this past December. I will patiently wait for GT4
Sorry, I don't buy it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My comment.. (Score:2)
Does anyone remember a game called Omega as well? It was like Ultima with ASCII graphics, where you could traverse the actual world, not just the dungeons. One of the coolest (and most frustrating features) was that after the sun went down, the ghosts of the monsters you killed came looking for you again.
Now THAT was gameplay
Re:My comment.. (Score:2)
I don't know if spoiled is quite it. More to the point, I think some games spend too much attention on graphics, sounds, special effects, and not enough on making a good, playable game. That's true of all game genres, not just multi-player online games.
If you're looking for a MUD, even a text-based one, they're still out there:
- NetHack [nethack.org] - successor to Rogue, the granddaddy of them all
- Falcon's Eye [www.hut.fi] - a graphical version of NetHack
- Wyvern [cabochon.com] - a Java/Jython MUD with graphics
If what you're looking for isn't listed, check out the The MUD Connector [mudconnector.com]Re:My comment.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My comment.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, we will ignore the thousands upon thousands of MUDs, text-based adventure games, and so forth that outright sucked because they didn't have a cohesive world, storyline, had a broken interface, impossible-to-decipher riddles, broken code, or any one of a number of other issues. Clearly the fact that successful games usually had all of the above in working order doesn't mean anything.
Do you work for Hollywood? You know, that group of "big brains" that thinks the next Big Thing is to make computer generated movies, since Pixar and Dreamworks have been so successful (and thus ignoring that Toy Story, Bug's Life, Shrek, and Monster's, Inc. succeeded due to a combination of script, acting, direction, AND technology; not technology alone).
Yes, I played a text mud long, long ago. And found it boring and uninteresting. I quit after a couple weeks at best. Verant, on the other hand, has commanded $10/mo from me for nearly three years because EverQuest, despite it's flaws, has proved to be enjoyable for the most part. There are tons of things in EQ that annoy me, but the good bits outweigh the bad most of the time (and when they don't, I take a break, as I'm doing currently).
Future MMORPG designers not only have to get the carrot-stick model right (which is pretty much the only thing I think Verant did), but also incorporate a rich world, an intriguing storyline (as much as you can given the MM part), a good interface, and a rich graphical world. Oh, and yes, it'll have to be robust too. Or you'll have to have deep pockets to run in the red until it becomes robust (c.f. Anarchy Online - I hear it doesn't suck rocks now. I don't care to find out.)
And, slightly offtopic, but one of the biggest challenges they'll find is convincing jaded MMORPG players to come to them. I know that after playing EQ I have no desire to play another MMORPG, since I understand exactly how much of a time investment it implies.
This would've helped when... (Score:2)
Even the basics are hard (Score:4, Interesting)
Although, I don't think some of the algorhythms in place right now for latency (for example, Quake III Arena) are much better. I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
Lag. (Score:3, Insightful)
If my connection to a game is rotten, there's nothing the game client or the game server can do about it.
If you're only getting 4 updates a second from the server, your client *has* to guess what the other players are doing until the server tells it what really happens, because the alternative is to have a 4 FPS update.
Likewise, if the server only gets 4 updates per second from your client, it *has* to guess what you want to do, because it can't read your mind. Most servers guess that you'll keep holding down the keys that you were holding when it last heard from you, which is a tolerable solution. What would you prefer them to do?
The networking code in most games is already as good as it can be. The interpolation code tends to vary from game to game, but the effects are usually the same.
Re:Even the basics are hard (Score:2)
Re:Even the basics are hard (Score:2)
I'm also not really sure where your insult is being targetted, or even what it is. Not all game makers rely on the default DirectNet or TCP/IP stacks to create their games. Some create their own stacks (I recall Carmack saying they had to create their own IP stack for Quake on Dreamcast). If you rely on the existing network code, you're relying on what someone else perceived as the best way to optimize the packets were - whether this was a game or not. The better programmers (for example, in first-person shooting, id and Epic) create highly-optimized, usually UDP-based solutions. If they relied on the exact same code as the original, for example, used to spit out web pages, most players would be toast.
Re:Even the basics are hard (Score:3, Insightful)
First you say not to "rely on the existing network code", and then you talk about creating "highly-optimized [...] UDP-based solutions". What do you think UDP is? It's existing network code. The only magic being perfomed is the data inside of the packets. Everything else - from the trivial handshaking to the deeply important things like encoding, transport, routing, etc. utilize existing code. What the previous poster was saying is that you are asking them to rewrite THAT code, and that is outright absurd. Go ahead and do so, but if you expect people to actually use it beyond a home LAN then they're going to stuff it into a TCP/IP packet which is not only going to undo any magic you may've done, but add additional overhead on top of it.
To go back to your original complaint, if you'd like to see how things work without having everyone using prediction, just turn it off. You can you know (and sorry, I'm not enough of a Quakehead anymore to recall the correct variable). Welcome to hell. There's a reason that id, Epic, and everyone else has started using player prediction on both the servers and the clients. Without it you're limited to the lowest common denominator for network traffic. Think back to Doom and how much it sucked when someone with a shitty computer or ethernet drivers connected to the game.
The key to player prediction is the right balance. Too much prediction and you get a lot of silly things like modem players shooting people on OC-3's after they're down the hall and around 3 corners. Too little and you make it unusable for anyone not on an OC-3.
cheating (Score:5, Interesting)
Be carful on what you call cheating (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating (Score:2)
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating (Score:2)
You don't cheat, you just suck ass at starcraft. Big difference. You may want to actually learn to play and join some newbie games so you can actually enjoy the game. The problem with people like you is that you don't actually take the time to learn the game but you just play with cheap tactics that really screw the game up and don't make it any fun. Any 2 bit chimp can build cannons up in someones base -- it's no fun. Most people should be able to stop it, but it offsets the game... you are the same type of people who rush in with SCVs right in the beginning.
This is actually covered in the article somewhat, which is making the game fun and balanced. You need to make it so it has an easy learning curve, but something that doesn't allow "bitch tactics" but still will allow other rush tactics. Same thing with War2 and the lumber mill in front of the gold mine...
Re:cheating (Score:2)
Just takes time and skill.
Re:cheating (Score:2)
Re:cheating (Score:2)
still ruins the game though.
Re:cheating (Score:2)
Re:cheating (Score:2)
No doubt that most network game designers need to read some good network programming books (or just Stevens), but even if games had a 100% solid protocol you'd still have auto-aimers in FPS games. I'm sure there are plenty of other cheats that don't involve taking advantage of the network.
Re:cheating (Score:3, Interesting)
I would solve it in a different way: characters could be set to automatically aim to the enemies (as an integral part of the game, not as a cheat) but when he shoots, the decision if the target was hit is made by the server, depending on many factors (like if the character and target are running, if the character is tired, hurt, far from target, etc.). It would not only solve the auto-aim cheat problem, but would also make the game more realistic.
My point is that when you have online multiplayer game, where people from the whole planet play the game on their own computers, the only sane assumption is that sooner or later (usually sooner than expected) someone will use a hacked client. So if you don't want cheats, you can't depend on strictly manual skills, which would be extremely easy for a machine, like aiming to targets. Otherwise, you'll have big trouble when someone finally learns your protocol or alters the client binary. That could mean the end of fun for many people and an endless fight against cheaters for the game developers.
I like the idea of WorldForge [worldforge.org] project, which I think will be introduced with Mason [worldforge.org] and Werewolf [worldforge.org], i.e. to integrate into the game the AI scripting of PCs with identical possibilities as the AI of NPCs. There'll be lots of ready to use scripts and some GUI script builder, as well as a possibility to write the scripts (currently in Python). So you'll be able to program your character to always run away when he's attacked by someone taller than him, or otherwise always instantly hit the offender in the face. But also more general tasks, like eat when he's hungry, buy food when he has no food, find food when he has no money, etc. That way when you don't play the game, your character can still do something useful, unlike most of MMORPGs where the character usually just stands still or disappear. Thanks to that, there's no point in cheating with the client by e.g. setting your character to automatically train his skills for many hours, because everyone can easily program his character to do the same, probably with just few clicks in the GUI.
Check out the Cyphesis [worldforge.org], WorldForge AI/ALife engine. There's still not much of documentation, so the Cyphesis source code [dyndns.org] is the best reference.
So that's about the client itself. On the other hand, from the side of network protocol and the clean client-server architecture, the client never gets to much info, and it's never trusted to make any decisions, other than just send to the server what the character wants to do (not even what he actually does, just what he wants). I'll quote part of the Atlas [worldforge.org] protocol summary, my emphasis:
See also the Atlas Tutorial [worldforge.org]. The standard implementation of Atlas is Atlas-C++ [worldforge.org], the source code [dyndns.org] of which can be great for anyone who wants to learn multiplayer games related network programming, and high quality network programming in general. For more about Atlas, check out the Battleplan [worldforge.org] and protocols at worldforge.org [worldforge.org] mailing list (see the archives of scripting@ [worldforge.org] for discussion before 1999, and protocols@ [worldforge.org] for later and actual discussion).
So, the point is that not trusting the client is the fundamental aspect of game design, not just a feature to be added later. There are and will be games [worldforge.org] designed around open protocols (where you can easily read and change the client-server traffic in both ways), free software clients (which you can easily change), and servers (which you can easily read and find out how they work), but those games won't have problems with cheating because of their design, not because of security through obscurity like in most of games today.
That's why I always talk about WorldForge [worldforge.org] when there's a discussion about multiplayer games design, security and cheats - these folks do it exactly the way how it should be done.
Re:cheating (Score:2)
Re:cheating (Score:3, Informative)
We hope you have enjoyed this article. Check back in March for our upcoming article on one of the most controversial issues in Internet gaming today: Dealing with Online Cheating.
Re:cheating (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea behind setting up a game and giving it rules to create an artificial constraint that everyone agrees to work within. The important part is that agreement. Sure, you can technologically bend and break the rules, but that doesn't make it right. The idea is to level the field somewhat and then make it a battle of skill and wits WITHIN the constraints of the game.
The big problem with cheating is identification. If you want to go out and duel against other bot builders then it's a fair competition. Other people are out there trying to move and react as quickly as they can but within the rules. If you present yourself as one of those people (the "nearly undetectable" comment) then you should play within those rules.
So, I'm glad that you get a huge power kick out of being able to dupe people trying to play within the bounds, but you've completely missed the point. Note: The Matrix is a horrible example to justify your actions. The Matrix is about revolution and fighting tyranny, not getting the highest number of frags.
He has a point (Score:3, Interesting)
The primary things done by cheats (looking through walls, etc) are things that the game does not prevent.
When you design a game you have to consider the players hardware to be untrusted. You cannot prevent a persons computer from telling him all it knows, nor can you prevent it from obeying his commands.
So to limit the information a person knows, you have to limit the information that is given to his computer. (If you dont want someone to know the location of all the other players in an FPS, you simply dont send them that information.)
Taken to its logical conclusion, The player's PC would end up being thin terminals doing I/O, while all the game logic is hosted on a central trusted server.
For games with a central server, then the game is only as fair as the server is. This does break down a bit with servant-peer topology- such as starcraft. In this, since everyone's computer has total knowledge of the game state knowledges cheats are possible (knowing how many resources everyone has and where they are).
However, if anyone cheats in a detectable way the game is aborted by all.
Re:He has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? A chess board also doesn't prevent you from moving the pawns sideways.
Re:cheating (Score:2)
The example you brought up to support your point isn't valid. Even if we disregard that Matrix is a movie, not a game, the premise is closer to a war than a game. The war is between humans and the machines. Any means necessary can be more valid in a war setting than a game setting.
I would also say that you've completely missed the point of gaming. I can out ride a 3 year old, but it doesn't make it fun. Maybe you can take your obvious skills and pit them against other bot-makers and try to see how fun that might be. Which bot maker is the best, etc. Try it, you may have something that you've been missing -- real fun.
Re:cheating (Score:2)
Alternatively, why not look at it like a sporting contest, such as tennis. When you go out to play tennis (or raquetball, or whatever) with someone, is your goal to bend the rules and win at all costs? Or is the goal to have fun competing within the mutually agreed upon ruleset?
In the end, it all comes down to ethics.
Re:cheating (Score:2)
You're the one who seems to be lacking a great deal of understanding, as well as maturity. People play games because they want to think "inside the box." They set up that situation to test their abilities at a certain task. The real world is what's "outside the box," where almost anything goes. I'm sorry you can't bring your super-duper-ultra-l33t Quake bot to McDonald's to flip burgers for you so you can stay home working on new ways to DDoS people trying to play a game and otherwise bring your miserable anti-social tendencies into everyone's face. If you think that the ability to write an undetectable cheatbot makes you akin to some sort of fictional movie character, or a God, or someone who controls the Universe, all things you've said, you've got some sort sort of delusional disorder. You're one thing: an immature, snotty little punk who, if you were one tenth as good as you think you are, would be the one creating those games, working with the developers whose gift to the players you destroy, and earning the adulation of those players you sneer at. But you're not. You're sitting at home, writing your little bots and developing a god complex simply because you're unable to accept your own personal failings and blame the world for what's wrong with your life so you seek to bring it down to your own level. It's the only way to feel good about yourself. Congratulations on your contribution to humankind.
Re:cheating (Score:5, Funny)
> I can walk into nearly any deathmatch in the world and win with nearly no effort at all. Like Neo. Like God!
I have a game you'd really like. The UI consists of a "play" button and a high-scorers widget. Every time you click "play" you win, and your name is added to the top of the high-scorers list, with a score one point higher than the highest score already there.
This is the most fun game I've ever played. I've never lost! My score gets better every time I play!!! I feel like God's own God when I played it!!!!!
Re:cheating (Score:2, Funny)
Re:cheating (Score:2)
Actually I find cheating to be boring and obnoxious. It's not really a test of skill or intellect. I prefer to win games by simply being better than my opponents.
No one wins when you cheat, because by cheating you've removed any chance to win.
Re:cheating (Score:3, Funny)
One Thing in Common (Score:4, Insightful)
Also known as Nerfing, Rebalancing, etc. Every major game I can think of off the top of my head - Starcraft, Everquest, Diablo II, Counterstrike, Anarchy Online - has undergone significant and major changes since it's release, and I'm not just talking about bug fixes. Seems no matter how big or bad your beta test is, you will need to make changes to it after the fact.
Seems like making an online game is an ornery task. Then when you finally do ship it, you're only halfway done.
Re:One Thing in Common (Score:2)
Best multiplayer game (Score:2, Informative)
Being a tank game, lag is not as much of an issue as it would be in Quake or Half-Life (though people still complain). There is a strong sense of community that keeps this game going.
Wyatt mentions social climate as a plus... (Score:5, Funny)
ANYONE HAVE A DOOMSLAYER SWOARD?!?!?!? WILL MAKE TRADEZ!!! PLZ RESPOND!!! PLZ RESPOND!!!
Anyone have stuff for n00b??????
1 w311 ownz all yuo!!!!!
Not the type of social interaction most people usually think about.
Sounds like a real life marrige to me (Score:2)
And when played single player . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And when played single player . . . (Score:2)
Generally, the more complex a game is the worse the AI is as a teacher.
The WorldForge Project (Score:5, Informative)
cool. (Score:5, Funny)
- A.P.
Re:cool. (Score:2)
First off, B.Net is a free service run at Blizzard's expense. The only catch is that you need a licensed copy of the game to connect to it. Second, they already have basic LAN connectivity (which doesn't require valid CD key's btw) for LAN parties and office shenanigans. Finally, they've been relatively responsive to upgrades to improve connectivity.
The use of B.Net ensures that everyone's patched to the same level and you don't have to worry about compromised servers trying to hack your client. Sure you need a licensed copy of StarCraft or other, but that's pretty small compared to the others with monthly access fees.
Re:cool. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:cool. (Score:2)
Most buyers of the games were parents of younger soon to be private engineering college students, or former private engineering college students. Go figure.
Re:cool. (Score:2)
Blizzard will start to lose market share in the game market soon. If they'd take an example from ID and simply allow people to run their own servers they'd do themselves a service. ID software is more pirated than Blizzard shit; they don't complain because they know a game has a life cycle, you can't make money off of it forever so they provide a quality product and a quality game and let you play it where you want, when you want how you want. The customers who are gonna buy their games are still gonna buy them and the pirates will still pirate, and hopefully eventually they'll grow up and purchase ID games.
Blizzard is just putting nails into their own coffin.
Re:cool. (Score:2)
Re:cool. (Score:2)
How *not* to make a game site.. (Score:2, Interesting)
you definitely dont want to make a site that is only browseable with some fancy browsers that support CSS.(NS 6.x+, IE whatever).
Cant believe this arena.net crap not letting people read the article with good'ol Netscape 4.76.. Even some plain text would have satisfied me but now I only get to read the "upgrade your browsers and come back". Yeah, very likely.
Hope they werent trying to sell anything because this is not the way.
/T
Other article (Score:5, Interesting)
There's another article that sounds similar about is written by Peter Lincroft entitled The Internet Sucks: Or, What I Learned Coding X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter [gamasutra.com] back when multiplayer games were not plentiful.
It's interesting reading, including "Lesson four: UDP is better than TCP, but it still sucks" and "Lesson five: Whenever you think the Internet can't get any worse, it gets worse". It's good stuff.
Multiplayer Games Overrated? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are certain games whose genre or interface makes multiplayer functionality completely cumbersome to the point of being unplayable. The Baldur's Gate series comes to mind as beautiful single-player games with horribly implemented multiplayer modes... IMO of course.
I'm a fan of multiplayer when multiplayer works, but I won't be a party to Monkey Island on Kali.
3D multiplaying (Score:2, Insightful)
The protocol is called Verse [sourceforge.net] and is a network protocol, for three-dimensional, client/server graphic - Quote: "A typical way to communicate in Verse is to let clients upload or use existing objects as avatars, and then communicate by moving and animating these avatar objects".
I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Every time I played on Battle.net, anyone with half a brain simply played the Zerg and rushed the hell out of everyone else. Usually, the Zerg won. In a war of 'resource command' it would seem that those who can expand the fastest would win.
Just to convince people I'm not blowing hot air, look at the StarCraft Season III Ladder Tournement results [battle.net] and count the occurances of Zerg versus occurances of other races. By my count, of the top players, there was 1 instance of Humans, 2 of Protoss, and 21 people playing the Zerg.
not quite.. (Score:2)
(Also remember your workers can attack if ordered; this is surprisingly useful in thwarting the early zergling rush!)
The map makes a big difference; in a highly constricted map, the rush is a lot harder. On an island map they're in deep trouble.
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . . (Score:2)
Bear in mind I'm NOT NOT NOT saying its a bad game! I loved StarCraft. .
Why you should play starcraft.... (Score:2)
If you've never played starcraft, you should.
My best friend loves all of the Civ games, but he is a Starcraft freak because of the sheer fun.
Why is it good? It is speed chess. If you have ever seen speed chess, you would understand. When the people that play long games get into the whole speed, hit and run, and intimidation tactics of starcraft, then you'll love it.
There is one drawback. I was a good player that left because the players kept getting weeded out by frustration of playing some real hardcore maniacs out there that would slay you quick. Its evolution, they survived, most can't compete.
The game is $20 US now everywhere, it really is worth it. From a average gamers perspective it is truly worth it.
Unit VS Race Balancing (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this to be a very important statement he made in regards to the development of multiplayer and RTS games. After warcraft, the piles of RTS games that came out all had some thing in common. A few races (or civs, etc) that had different units that all did basically the same thing.. the "ranged unit" the "fast unit" the "strong unit that is really expensive", etc. Other than some small games that didn't really make it off the ground, Starcraft was the first mainstream game that said "this race can do this and this other race is completely different". I believe that Starcraft is replayed so often because there is an incredible amount of flexability with each race and when combined with fighting against another diverse race, it creates an incredible amount of possibilities.
What makes this a great money maker for games such as Diablo and Starcraft (if they'd get off their buttocks), is that they can reuse the same engine they already had written, code in another race (or couple classes as in Diablo II LoD), and have people scrambling to buy it, since it adds an exponential amount of excitement to the game. If Starcraft added one single race (sold at the price of $25 in stores), I would instantly buy it.. not only would I be able to learn all about the new "Dotslash" race, but I would be able to figure out piles of strategies about how to fight Dotslashes with Terrans, or Protoss.. Just as the message boards are filled with people asking how to fight Druids with Necromancers, etc etc.
The game industry needs to focus more on additions to their games, instead of starting from scratch every single time. Not only would the players be happier, but I imagine the pocketbooks of the game makers would be happy as well.
Dave
Re:Unit VS Race Balancing (Score:2)
Re:Unit VS Race Balancing (Score:2)
Re:Unit VS Race Balancing (Score:2)
This concept fleshed out in a computer game would be EXCELLENT. Not only do the gamers win, but the publishers have a way to make a good profit off of coninuing a game's expansion. Consider a computer version of a table top wargame, once the initial engine is written there is little work involved in creating new races, weapons, equipment, vehicles, powers, ect. Rather than spending several years in developement of the sequel release an expansion pack for $20 several times a year. Rather than wait four years to collect $50 for the sequel collect $200 or so for all of the expansions. A new compatible version of the engine could be released every couple of years at that point to keep up with technology.
Re:Unit VS Race Balancing (Score:3, Funny)
No, I'm sorry but the "Dotslash" race is intrinsicly unbalanced. The Dotslash Effect incapacitates any target enemy.
-
Unsupported Browser? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seeing as my using OmniWeb [omnigroup.com] to view arena.net resulted in a quick glance at the requested page (which looked fine) and then a bounce to ArenaNet Error: Unsupported Browser [arena.net], I thought I'd respond in kind (note: I didn't actually send HTML email; I had to replace some of the hyphen characters with just bolding the topics so that I wouldn't get blocked by the lameness filter):
To: webmaster@arena.net
Subject: ArenaNet Error: Unsupported Webmaster
Why am I getting this instead of a friendly, congratulatory email?
You are here because the webmaster you are using is apparently too lazy to create pages that work in most browsers, regardless of their support for the full HTML 4.0 specification, including Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).
Most likely, you're losing a decent hunk of viewers because of this.
Why does that matter?
In the pursuit of giving web surfers the kind of experience that you want them to have, as opposed to simply letting them control the experience for themselves (as would tend to be suggested by the HTML and CSS standards), you tried to use the best technology available, which I heartily commend. HTML 4.0 and CSS are examples of some of the best and most widespread standards-based technology available for presenting interactive media to the world. However, you have decided that, rather than simply using these technologies and letting the user decide if and how to implement them on the client-side, your webserver will detect browsers that you haven't tested with and will send the user of said browser to a completely useless page rather than actually delivering the content that the user requested.
What should I do?
If your webmaster can't figure out how to get pages to display at all in browsers other than those created by Netscape and Microsoft, you might want to hire a better one.
If you are running a smart webmaster who has simply gone astray from the vision of the web, you will want to either ask them to change their policies or follow the advice above.
Aggressive play (Score:3, Insightful)
But I would add one more crucial point: gameplay should be fast-paced and aggressive. Sitting in your base and defending against unsuccessful attacks is just boring. In Warcraft 2, defending almost never worked and attacking was always to your benefit. The result was an edge-of-your-seat game where, among skilled players, every unit you pumped out was immediately sent to the battlefield and you were constantly trying to stop one of your bases from being trashed. I have yet to see an RTS which, all balance issues aside, is just plain more exciting than a good game of multiplayer War2. This is why I continue to consider it the greatest RTS ever made.
But Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this in later games. In Starcraft, sitting in your base and defending actually works, which makes for terribly boring games. Am I the only one who finds that games after Quake 1/Warcraft 2 have subtly become more and more slow-paced and boring?
Frankly, I would object to the "balance" business, which seems to be taken for granted by all game developers nowadays. Of course, games should be mostly balanced, but saying that ideally a game should be 100% balanced is going too far. A bit of imbalance serves to focalize the players' energies. E.g., in the original Quake, the most important thing was to control the rocket launcher and red armor, and this made for exciting games where players desperately vied for control of the key resources. In later Quakes, you can just pick up any weapon, since they're all just as good.
In sum, I don't think "balance" is the holy grail modern developers make it out to be. IMHO, the attitude of "balance above all" epitomizes all that's wrong with modern games. If a bit of imbalance is necessary to make a game that's more aggressive, fast-paced and fun, I say game developers shouldn't be afraid to sacrifice the principle.
Re:Aggressive play (Score:2, Insightful)
Arena.net's bizarre "unuspported browser" page... (Score:2, Offtopic)
In fact, [and this is the annoying bit] during the 2 second meta-refresh pause, my browser acutally loads the page. But since it could not display just the right version of Arial, I could not view the page for long.
I'm sure the article is very interesting. I thought of loading on the laptop sitting behind me, but since they're being so snotty about it I think I'll pass.
Game Design (Score:4, Interesting)
First, good games are cohesive. The rules and the plot and the mechanics should flow together. The fundamental structure should dictate the higher behaviors in the game. This creates a game world that makes sense and learning a few basic guidelines are all that you need to get started.
Second, many games with three or more players and player interaction can suffer from petty diplomacy. If someone gets ahead in the game, other players can take time to squash the leader. If bad enough, there is a disincentive to get ahead. Balancing this problem can be quite tricky, and I would like to see more discussion about how designers deal with it on-line. IRL, we use hidden information, randomness, or high complexity to keep petty diplomacy from breaking a game.
Still, a good article, and it distills years of game design experience very well.
He missed the biggest problem of all... (Score:4, Insightful)
After running around killing bats for a while in EQ this realization hit me - my character could come, go, exist, or not and nothing really changes in the world. It just doesn't matter. This is by necessity - the game cannot make anything pivotal happen based on my character, 'cause it can't assume I'll be around or even that I'll exist (as a player).
So, what you wind up with is a bunch of folks running around killing things and so on, but really to no purpose at all ultimately.
yeah, you can gain levels and become some 50th level powerhouse, but who cares? There are hundreds of others just like you. You might even go out with some buddies and kill some big thing like a dragon or whatnot, but who cares? It'll just respawn in a while anyway. The world is essentially unchanged. It just winds up feeling so pointless.
I guess I've just been bred on single-person games that make you feel like you're truly at the center of the universe (such as Deus Ex, where you literally save reality). Even Half-life, which arguably has a lot going on besides your own sorry butt's survival, makes you feel like you're right in the middle of the action all the time. I guess I'm just spoiled that way.
I find in the MMO games I'm just wandering around in a very static world wondering what vermin to kill next or whatever - it's all quite boring really. I suppose guilds might help to some extent, in that they present a nice social environment of bonding, etc, but you really just click the futility up a notch: instead of simply having a character that doesn't matter to the world at all, you have a whole guild that really could exist or not and nothing would really change.
I've read that games like DAOC have a multi-year storyline that will play out some kind of plot, but again, I'd imagine that for 99% of the "population," it just won't matter what they do, find, or accomplish.
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all... (Score:4, Insightful)
instead of simply having a character that doesn't matter to the world at all, you have a whole guild that really could exist or not and nothing would really change.
I'd imagine that for 99% of the "population," it just won't matter what they do, find, or accomplish.
eeriely like real life, huh?
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all... (Score:2, Interesting)
So, from the standpoint of challenge to game makers, I'd posit this one: how can you cater to millions of players, yet have each one feel they have a large part in what's going on and that their actions actually matter in some non-trivial way?
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all... (Score:2)
While obviously we can't let everyone actually save the game world (since if you failed it would mean the end of the game for everyone else
The game is not available yet, but we will be showing it at the Game Developer's Conference (Sun is sponsoring us). At a guess, I would say we will be releasing in about a year and a half.
Unfortunately, what we will be showing at the GDC will look more like an EQ clone than anything, but that's because we have the infrastructure done but not all of the game mechanics, and because of the superficial nature of what you can show at a conference to people passing by.
The amount of lag should be increased! (Score:2)
I simply think that the server should be able to set a minimum lag for the players, and if a player is well below that, the server should introduce extra artificial lag- upto the minimum atleast.
I mean, if you're 3l337 it won't make any difference right?
The other advantage is to the developer- if there are some serious playability issues when the lag reaches a certain threshold, the designers can find this out during testing.
I've actually been on servers that work the other way- if your link starts to lag for a few tens of seconds, you get booted. That really sucks big time. Like you've done something wrong, you deserve to lose the frags you built up, because someone else did an ftp download? Uh huh. That makes sense.
Re:The amount of lag should be increased! (Score:2)
I've been known to play on servers in Australia from the UK occasionally. [ Lag of 700ms or so IRC
The real problem with current MMORPGs (Score:2)
However in a persistant world, I might want to have my character go through a great deal many careers, while at the same time keeping the same character, that I am interacting with other players with. I don't want to have to tell my friends that I'm now character Y instead of character X.
While obviously games are an escape from reality in some sense, there is one thing from them I wouldn't mind seeing taken. The opportunity to learn new skills while letting old skills decay. Or the ability to sacrifice old skills, deliberately weakening my character, so I can have more room to learn new skills and powers more cheaply.
Once I'm done with a magician, I might decide to turn my character into a fighter and let their magical skills decay. In time I might move on to a cleric and let the sword and related skills rot. All the time I'm still character X even if my profession changes.
Of course to properly handle this you need a point-based system or something like the upcoming Dungeon Seige, where characters simply grow in whatever skills they use. Levelling becomes a thing of the past. I do not consider this a bad thing. Levels are just a game mechanic device to regulate advancement. There are countless pen and paper RPGs that find the concept of levels nonsensical.
The power cap is annoying to powergamers who want godlike levels of power, but some may find it more of a challenge to grow in power within the limits of the game. It also reduces the power spectrum spread that a MMORPG has to encompass. Once players reach the power cap, it all comes down to optimization within that level, and because they can drop a few points here and add a few there they can tinker with their characters endlessly.
Ideally a game should have more things for the players to do than grow in power endlessly. Or they can allow for 'king of the hill' advancement. You can give great swords of power out that every player will want. All of a sudden, hanging onto a weapon like that becomes the challenge. You can give social ranks based on peer acclaim that will grant extra power to a character. All of a sudden, players worry about the support of their peers and they risk the chance of dropping in power.
That's something you can do in a persistant world game, let characters drop in power and give them a chance to regain what they have lost, not to mention keeping them less complacent about what they have. This adds to the replayability without the need to start a new character. They can build characters that have real history to them. Some of the most famous people in history, such as Napoleon, had drops as well as rises.
Of course for games like Diablo I/II, where you have a world with a finite plotlength as well as finite size, you might as well go for the oneshot player system. I'm talking about games like Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot where you have a world that you play a prolonged part of.
Re:Right (Score:2, Funny)
H
W
orld
It's in C!
Re:Oxymoron...social gamers (Score:5, Funny)
"You f***ing lagger! Relog now!"
"Stupid newbie!"
"WTF? You hacker!"
"Camper!!! Kick that f***ing camper!"
"0wned!"
"Ha ha you suck!"
"You #!@% Q#% @!#%$ piece of @#%$!"
Re:Oxymoron...social gamers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm usually one who is strongly against filters, but I have to admit, this one did wonders. People learned to either be civil towards each other, or they learned to be quiet.
I don't think... (Score:2)