Inquisitor Game + PvP Design Rambling
I spent the afternoon over at Chris's place, having a couple of games of Inquistor (a spin-off of Warhammer 40K, that instead of each player controlling large armies, they just control a small handful of units - we had one each in the first game, and two each in the second. Four players.)
The first game was a defensive affair, with spats of sniper fire between the characters with long-range weapons, and my melee-based character ineffectively trying to chase them down. It dragged on for quite a while, ending in a flurry of activity when my teammate was taken down in a single shot, and then an unfortunate tank explosion (aided in part by my melee character finally getting to hit something with his sword), eliminated the two opposing characters.
The second was slightly better, with a couple of tactical blunders leading to early serious injuries, and the balance in the game took on a slightly more 'rock-paper-scissor' approach, as a higher number of characters allowed for more variety in the teams, and a wide range of specialisations for countering the opponent's tactics.
However, the issues were the game were noticeable, especially the first game: No-one wanted to engage their character in combat until the situation was stacked heavily in their favour, as players didn't want to lose their sole character. The other issue is that of balancing: as the game is based on the 40K system, it derives a lot of the tactics from the said system, which does not mesh well with having a single character, due to the 40K system being based around the strategy paradime of 'rock-paper-scissors'.
"The greatest defense is a good offence," is probably one of the most widely-spoken phrases when it comes to strategy. And it makes sense: if you kill your enemy before he gets a chance to kill you, you don't expose your character to any risk, and when the player only has the one character to risk, this is the only tactic. It's noticeable in any form of game, the only thing that alters between games is the amount of extra variables that affect this tactic.
FPS games utilise the player's reflexes/aiming ability/personal skill, the player's knowledge of the terrain, and the player's choice of weapon to try and eke out any advantage to eliminate the opposing player as quickly as possible.
Fighting games utilise the player's reflexes/ability to pull off combos/ability to block attacks, the player's knowledge of their character (its strengths and weaknesses and how to utilise them effectively), and the player's knowledge of their opposition's character (their strengths and weaknesses and how to exploit them effectively), to try and elimiante the opposing player as quickly as possible.
RPG games utilise reflexes/ability to counter opponent's moves, the player's knowledge of their character/opposition character (strengths and weaknesses), the player's gear/level, and the player's knowledge of the terrain to try and eliminate the opposing player as quickly as possible.
As you can see, the FPS is the closest to being a 'pure' ability vs ability battleground - if both players had the same guns, and had equal time to gather knowledge of the terrain, then it would just be individual skill (with a side of luck, as is the case in life) to see who was the better. Whereas when the player character's gear comes into account, things start to get iffy. The most blatant example of this was pre-TBC WoW. Before TBC (The Burning Crusade expansion pack), came out, PvP was widely dominated by those with the 'best gear' and 'spec'. Being unique wasn't a good thing, because there was always an 'optimal' spec/gear set-up that allowed for maximum bonus to trying to kill someone as fast as possible.
And pre-TBC, you could kill people *fast*. Or, at least the classes that had a valid method of burst damage did. You see, Blizzard was (and still is), trying to not have a 'rock-paper-scissors' system. Instead, each class should be able to kill any other class. This system was very broken, "back in the day" as it were, because classes that were essentially glass cannons (low survivability, high damage), triumphed over all. It was a matter of front-loading *as much damage as possible*. Blizzard battled this by doubling the amount of HP that characters got from gear in TBC, and giving all classes more survivability/more damage, depending on which they needed.
Now, tying this back with the Inquistor game I was playing today. With it being a near PnP RPG-type game, I have a preference to try and make 'interesting' characters. I want my battles to be tactical affairs, decided by ongoing conflict between characters, as they attack and counter. Unfortunately, these principles are at odds to PvP in that game, as it's very definite as to what character set-ups are more powerful. A player has no reason *not* to take the most powerful gun, or the most powerful sword, and dominate with that weapon. Especially in the gun-situation.
After all, why would you want a slightly more appropriate-for-the-character sniper rifle (1d10 damage), when you could take a lascannon (4d10 damage)? The sniper rifle might make for the more 'interesting' game, but that's not what you want:
You want to kill your enemy as fast as possible.
You want to sate that ingrained human desire for victory over your peers.
You want to win.
The first game was a defensive affair, with spats of sniper fire between the characters with long-range weapons, and my melee-based character ineffectively trying to chase them down. It dragged on for quite a while, ending in a flurry of activity when my teammate was taken down in a single shot, and then an unfortunate tank explosion (aided in part by my melee character finally getting to hit something with his sword), eliminated the two opposing characters.
The second was slightly better, with a couple of tactical blunders leading to early serious injuries, and the balance in the game took on a slightly more 'rock-paper-scissor' approach, as a higher number of characters allowed for more variety in the teams, and a wide range of specialisations for countering the opponent's tactics.
However, the issues were the game were noticeable, especially the first game: No-one wanted to engage their character in combat until the situation was stacked heavily in their favour, as players didn't want to lose their sole character. The other issue is that of balancing: as the game is based on the 40K system, it derives a lot of the tactics from the said system, which does not mesh well with having a single character, due to the 40K system being based around the strategy paradime of 'rock-paper-scissors'.
"The greatest defense is a good offence," is probably one of the most widely-spoken phrases when it comes to strategy. And it makes sense: if you kill your enemy before he gets a chance to kill you, you don't expose your character to any risk, and when the player only has the one character to risk, this is the only tactic. It's noticeable in any form of game, the only thing that alters between games is the amount of extra variables that affect this tactic.
FPS games utilise the player's reflexes/aiming ability/personal skill, the player's knowledge of the terrain, and the player's choice of weapon to try and eke out any advantage to eliminate the opposing player as quickly as possible.
Fighting games utilise the player's reflexes/ability to pull off combos/ability to block attacks, the player's knowledge of their character (its strengths and weaknesses and how to utilise them effectively), and the player's knowledge of their opposition's character (their strengths and weaknesses and how to exploit them effectively), to try and elimiante the opposing player as quickly as possible.
RPG games utilise reflexes/ability to counter opponent's moves, the player's knowledge of their character/opposition character (strengths and weaknesses), the player's gear/level, and the player's knowledge of the terrain to try and eliminate the opposing player as quickly as possible.
As you can see, the FPS is the closest to being a 'pure' ability vs ability battleground - if both players had the same guns, and had equal time to gather knowledge of the terrain, then it would just be individual skill (with a side of luck, as is the case in life) to see who was the better. Whereas when the player character's gear comes into account, things start to get iffy. The most blatant example of this was pre-TBC WoW. Before TBC (The Burning Crusade expansion pack), came out, PvP was widely dominated by those with the 'best gear' and 'spec'. Being unique wasn't a good thing, because there was always an 'optimal' spec/gear set-up that allowed for maximum bonus to trying to kill someone as fast as possible.
And pre-TBC, you could kill people *fast*. Or, at least the classes that had a valid method of burst damage did. You see, Blizzard was (and still is), trying to not have a 'rock-paper-scissors' system. Instead, each class should be able to kill any other class. This system was very broken, "back in the day" as it were, because classes that were essentially glass cannons (low survivability, high damage), triumphed over all. It was a matter of front-loading *as much damage as possible*. Blizzard battled this by doubling the amount of HP that characters got from gear in TBC, and giving all classes more survivability/more damage, depending on which they needed.
Now, tying this back with the Inquistor game I was playing today. With it being a near PnP RPG-type game, I have a preference to try and make 'interesting' characters. I want my battles to be tactical affairs, decided by ongoing conflict between characters, as they attack and counter. Unfortunately, these principles are at odds to PvP in that game, as it's very definite as to what character set-ups are more powerful. A player has no reason *not* to take the most powerful gun, or the most powerful sword, and dominate with that weapon. Especially in the gun-situation.
After all, why would you want a slightly more appropriate-for-the-character sniper rifle (1d10 damage), when you could take a lascannon (4d10 damage)? The sniper rifle might make for the more 'interesting' game, but that's not what you want:
You want to kill your enemy as fast as possible.
You want to sate that ingrained human desire for victory over your peers.
You want to win.