www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Cooperative multiplayer thoughts
From a purely theoretical point of view I find people working together online a better idea than people trying to kill each other online. However if you look at chat, forums, and other places where gamers talk among each other, it becomes clear very quickly that cooperative multiplayer is a source of extreme frustration and anger. In team vs. team games in which the community has been described as "toxic", you will find that most of that toxicity is directed to people on the same team, not the opposing team.
After having reached the level in Destiny 2 where I get access to "strikes", which is Destiny's way of saying "LFG dungeons", I came up with a theory of why cooperative multiplayer is so problematic. I believe that it is much easier to tune single player difficulty to the right level. With only one player, knowing his level and gear/stats enables a game to provide him content of a challenging but not impossible difficulty, because the effect skill has on the performance of a single player is limited. But if there is a group, the effect of skill, or rather coordination between the players, makes the possible range of power of a group much wider. You can easily see that in places where a game makes it possible for a coordinated team (e.g. from a guild) to fight a team of random strangers. Coordination, especially the use of voice chat, makes a team far, far more powerful than a team that doesn't talk to each other.
Some people, like Gevlon or the Jacksonville shooter, are obsessed with the idea that the purpose of a game is winning. I always believed that the purpose of a game is playing, that is exploring options without having to fear consequences too much. What if I tried this crazy stunt move? Can I circumvent this challenge instead of facing it head on? Cooperative multiplayer makes this "playing" of a game much harder, while having the potential of making winning easier, if the other players on your team know what they are doing. If fun in games comes from a learning experience, the guy in the team who is there for the very first time and is probably having fun figuring out how this works ends up being a drag and a problem to his team mates, who are just there to win.
Theoretically clever game design could work around this problem. A game could estimate better how new and thus how proficient a player is, and get a better and better idea of the skill of a player by keeping score of his individual contribution over time. That would enable the game's matchmaking system to work much better, both in team vs. environment and in team vs. team mode. However the fundamental problem of matchmaking is that the better the game is in matching the right players together, the longer the wait for that match to happen becomes. So most matchmaking algorithms in games are very basic, and lead to the above mentioned problems and toxicity.
My preferred solution would be games in which the performance of a team isn't subjected to a simple fail or pass test. If you don't need to "win" against AI or another team, cooperation becomes much less contentious. For example in games like A Tale in the Desert people can work together to dig holes or build pyramids. Any contribution to such a task is a positive contribution, even if somebody is for some reason bad at this particular task. A guy carrying bricks slower than the others is still better than the guy not being there at all. Wouldn't it be great if we could have more games in which people could work together without constantly frustrating and angering each other?
After having reached the level in Destiny 2 where I get access to "strikes", which is Destiny's way of saying "LFG dungeons", I came up with a theory of why cooperative multiplayer is so problematic. I believe that it is much easier to tune single player difficulty to the right level. With only one player, knowing his level and gear/stats enables a game to provide him content of a challenging but not impossible difficulty, because the effect skill has on the performance of a single player is limited. But if there is a group, the effect of skill, or rather coordination between the players, makes the possible range of power of a group much wider. You can easily see that in places where a game makes it possible for a coordinated team (e.g. from a guild) to fight a team of random strangers. Coordination, especially the use of voice chat, makes a team far, far more powerful than a team that doesn't talk to each other.
Some people, like Gevlon or the Jacksonville shooter, are obsessed with the idea that the purpose of a game is winning. I always believed that the purpose of a game is playing, that is exploring options without having to fear consequences too much. What if I tried this crazy stunt move? Can I circumvent this challenge instead of facing it head on? Cooperative multiplayer makes this "playing" of a game much harder, while having the potential of making winning easier, if the other players on your team know what they are doing. If fun in games comes from a learning experience, the guy in the team who is there for the very first time and is probably having fun figuring out how this works ends up being a drag and a problem to his team mates, who are just there to win.
Theoretically clever game design could work around this problem. A game could estimate better how new and thus how proficient a player is, and get a better and better idea of the skill of a player by keeping score of his individual contribution over time. That would enable the game's matchmaking system to work much better, both in team vs. environment and in team vs. team mode. However the fundamental problem of matchmaking is that the better the game is in matching the right players together, the longer the wait for that match to happen becomes. So most matchmaking algorithms in games are very basic, and lead to the above mentioned problems and toxicity.
My preferred solution would be games in which the performance of a team isn't subjected to a simple fail or pass test. If you don't need to "win" against AI or another team, cooperation becomes much less contentious. For example in games like A Tale in the Desert people can work together to dig holes or build pyramids. Any contribution to such a task is a positive contribution, even if somebody is for some reason bad at this particular task. A guy carrying bricks slower than the others is still better than the guy not being there at all. Wouldn't it be great if we could have more games in which people could work together without constantly frustrating and angering each other?
- posted by Tobold @ 8:37 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
These days, I'm ready to take it a step further, back to the realm of no longer multiplayer.
GW2 tried the 'everybody can contribute' route, but the attitude of the overall population rapidly took a nosedive towards the judging of others, once given the slightest loosening on the leash via the new developers supporting competitive play, raids and dps meters.
A Tale in the Desert ostensibly takes the 'everyone can contribute something' route, but you'll find this only works because of a shortage of players and the need for bodies for certain activities, like digs, cement stirs and monuments. Hardcore players will happily ally with those equally hardcore (so that there's more equal perceived contribution) for activities that require less bodies or that benefit from being more selective, and leave the more casual to their own devices. (Or unless they're motivated by the assistance of weaker players and socially benefit from this.)
It strikes me that the benefit of having others around is to simply skip or shortcut through gameplay that falls upon others to perform. Which is all very well if your end goal is "winning" or reaching some destination fast or further than others.
But if our gameplay goals are "experiencing" all gameplay or "learning" for ourselves, we might be better off in games that allow us to experience it all at our own pace. In this socially connected world, we can still connect and benefit from asynchronous discussions with others via wikis, forums, Reddit, blogs, Twitch, Discord and what-have-you.
Ultimately, if the game restricts others from pulling you along at an improper pace (too fast, too slow), only then can we have our Goldilocks gameplay experience of "feels just right."
GW2 tried the 'everybody can contribute' route, but the attitude of the overall population rapidly took a nosedive towards the judging of others, once given the slightest loosening on the leash via the new developers supporting competitive play, raids and dps meters.
A Tale in the Desert ostensibly takes the 'everyone can contribute something' route, but you'll find this only works because of a shortage of players and the need for bodies for certain activities, like digs, cement stirs and monuments. Hardcore players will happily ally with those equally hardcore (so that there's more equal perceived contribution) for activities that require less bodies or that benefit from being more selective, and leave the more casual to their own devices. (Or unless they're motivated by the assistance of weaker players and socially benefit from this.)
It strikes me that the benefit of having others around is to simply skip or shortcut through gameplay that falls upon others to perform. Which is all very well if your end goal is "winning" or reaching some destination fast or further than others.
But if our gameplay goals are "experiencing" all gameplay or "learning" for ourselves, we might be better off in games that allow us to experience it all at our own pace. In this socially connected world, we can still connect and benefit from asynchronous discussions with others via wikis, forums, Reddit, blogs, Twitch, Discord and what-have-you.
Ultimately, if the game restricts others from pulling you along at an improper pace (too fast, too slow), only then can we have our Goldilocks gameplay experience of "feels just right."
It's not unnatural that poor performance by team mates that makes life harder for you is going to be more annoying than good performance by enemies that makes life harder for you. Only one of them is doing what they are supposed to do!
This is largely a consequence of pick-up groups and anonymity, in my opinion. The games have evolved away from grouping with players you know. Inevitably they lead to a shallow experience. Maybe the future is in most people watching professional players, like in football...
Hard-core griefing, as distinct from selfishness, is a different issue. Maybe a less serious one, really.
Have you ever tried Die2Nite? Cooperation, built-in for griefing and selfishness... embrace what you can't defeat!
This is largely a consequence of pick-up groups and anonymity, in my opinion. The games have evolved away from grouping with players you know. Inevitably they lead to a shallow experience. Maybe the future is in most people watching professional players, like in football...
Hard-core griefing, as distinct from selfishness, is a different issue. Maybe a less serious one, really.
Have you ever tried Die2Nite? Cooperation, built-in for griefing and selfishness... embrace what you can't defeat!
It's rather simply really: you are performing a collaborative team project, either at work or back in high school/college. Are you happy that there's one more warm body that can complete a menial task?
The best groups, in-game or IRL, are the ones in which it hardly feels like anyone else is in them. Tasks are accomplished without you having to worry that they will be done poorly, or not at all. You can focus on your one objective and completely ignore everything else going on around you. In a dungeon, the tank or healer does their thing while you maximize DPS. Or, as the tank, the mob marked with a skull goes down and your HP bar never drops below half. Or, as a healer, you follow a group of basically four NPCs as they clear the dungeon while you watch HP gauges.
Now, if you are grouped with people you know IRL, things can change. But that's because you aren't trying to accomplish something per se, so much as you are trying to spend time with friends. The goal is different. Plus, you know that if a friend screws up, that was a one-time deal and not their standard state of being; there's a relationship to smooth any bumps in the road.
The best groups, in-game or IRL, are the ones in which it hardly feels like anyone else is in them. Tasks are accomplished without you having to worry that they will be done poorly, or not at all. You can focus on your one objective and completely ignore everything else going on around you. In a dungeon, the tank or healer does their thing while you maximize DPS. Or, as the tank, the mob marked with a skull goes down and your HP bar never drops below half. Or, as a healer, you follow a group of basically four NPCs as they clear the dungeon while you watch HP gauges.
Now, if you are grouped with people you know IRL, things can change. But that's because you aren't trying to accomplish something per se, so much as you are trying to spend time with friends. The goal is different. Plus, you know that if a friend screws up, that was a one-time deal and not their standard state of being; there's a relationship to smooth any bumps in the road.
While the lows of a coop online activity are much worse than solo, I'd argue the highs are also much better. Some of my best gaming experiences have been in raids (in WoW or Destiny). There's really something to finally downing a boss after hours of attempts. When it all comes together you feel a great sense of achievement and camaraderie. You have to invest a fair amount of time and effort to finding the right group for you though.
The problem is that it's trying to be a "team" game.
Almost no one plays on a team in "team" games. Those that do crush the non-teams like bugs, forcing the two groups to be separated.
Here is the core issue: The vast majority of players do NOT want to join a team. That requires commitment and discipline... and the willingness to wait until the entire team can play to actually play the game.
What people want, is for a team to join THEM. they want to show up and have the rest of the team magically appear and be able to work together perfectly with THEM.
And when that doesn't happen, there is a pretty good chance of toxicity to rear up with at least one of the jilted players.
Almost no one plays on a team in "team" games. Those that do crush the non-teams like bugs, forcing the two groups to be separated.
Here is the core issue: The vast majority of players do NOT want to join a team. That requires commitment and discipline... and the willingness to wait until the entire team can play to actually play the game.
What people want, is for a team to join THEM. they want to show up and have the rest of the team magically appear and be able to work together perfectly with THEM.
And when that doesn't happen, there is a pretty good chance of toxicity to rear up with at least one of the jilted players.
Ok, so... in response to your final point:
"My preferred solution would be games in which the performance of a team isn't subjected to a simple fail or pass test"
There is no longer a "team", then. It's a single player activity of doing the activity. The hole will be dug or the Pyramid built regardless of your involvement. WoW has big "Community service" projects every few expansions where "The entire Server" is supposed to get together and do some quests for some greater purpose like Open the gates of AQ or gather tons of whatever to fight the current antagonist.
As such, it's not a team, it's a bunch of people doing solo quests for their own reasons. Quest: Take these bricks to the build site of the Pyramid, and talk to the NPC there for your reward. It doesn't matter if you're slow at it, no one cares as it doesn't affect their ability to haul bricks.
If you pan back far enough, Every activity of that type is a bunch of people doing solo quests for their own reasons. Any impression they have that it's a "community effort" is just an anthropomorphic extension on their part.
I want to see games where the designers understand this and stop "forced grouping" for the dogmatic reason of "It's multi-player, you're supposed to group." You can STILL have teams, but they're completely optional and don't provide better rewards than solo pay.
What you would find? Is very few people form proper teams and do the "team" parts. And that should tell you all you need to know.
"My preferred solution would be games in which the performance of a team isn't subjected to a simple fail or pass test"
There is no longer a "team", then. It's a single player activity of doing the activity. The hole will be dug or the Pyramid built regardless of your involvement. WoW has big "Community service" projects every few expansions where "The entire Server" is supposed to get together and do some quests for some greater purpose like Open the gates of AQ or gather tons of whatever to fight the current antagonist.
As such, it's not a team, it's a bunch of people doing solo quests for their own reasons. Quest: Take these bricks to the build site of the Pyramid, and talk to the NPC there for your reward. It doesn't matter if you're slow at it, no one cares as it doesn't affect their ability to haul bricks.
If you pan back far enough, Every activity of that type is a bunch of people doing solo quests for their own reasons. Any impression they have that it's a "community effort" is just an anthropomorphic extension on their part.
I want to see games where the designers understand this and stop "forced grouping" for the dogmatic reason of "It's multi-player, you're supposed to group." You can STILL have teams, but they're completely optional and don't provide better rewards than solo pay.
What you would find? Is very few people form proper teams and do the "team" parts. And that should tell you all you need to know.
dahut said: "Some of my best gaming experiences have been in raids (in WoW or Destiny). There's really something to finally downing a boss after hours of attempts."
But I bet those were not PUGs generated by anonymous matchmaking. And even PUGs in the old days (I'm thinking up to Burning Crusade in Wow) could work well when people were on one server, and used to the need for cooperation, and everyone chatted. You would make friends, though, and often do dungeons with the same folks repeatedly. And that would be for dungeons, not raids. For raids you went with guild-mates, as a rule.
There were a limited number of people on the server. Your character wasn't completely anonymous and randomly selected. If you had a good or bad experience with a particular character, you'd remember them either way and choose accordingly next time.
The good old days. I'm glad I got out.
But I bet those were not PUGs generated by anonymous matchmaking. And even PUGs in the old days (I'm thinking up to Burning Crusade in Wow) could work well when people were on one server, and used to the need for cooperation, and everyone chatted. You would make friends, though, and often do dungeons with the same folks repeatedly. And that would be for dungeons, not raids. For raids you went with guild-mates, as a rule.
There were a limited number of people on the server. Your character wasn't completely anonymous and randomly selected. If you had a good or bad experience with a particular character, you'd remember them either way and choose accordingly next time.
The good old days. I'm glad I got out.
I think for a lot of people, playing multiplayer PvE is neither about "playing" not "winning", but rather about completing a chore to get paid. So a teammate that doesn't meet their high standards is a direct impediment to getting their "work" finished so they can collect their paycheque.
Everyone wants to win, some just want it without effort. This is the root of the problem. Matchmaking works relatively quickly in League of Legends and yet there is awful lot of toxicity. Why? Because the players don't want a team of peers, they want to be carried by better players. If they are bad, and the matchmaking is random, they usually get it. If the matchmaker would give them peers, they couldn't even enter the dungeon.
Has the definition of Co-op changed recently? When I hear of cooperative play, I think in terms of games like the Quake series where up to 5 people could attempt to complete a single-player level with the same mobs as the single-player experience, only bigger and bad'er with more hitpoints and tighter aiming and shot patterns. There was a reason why it was considered co-op, in that everyone knew how to complete the level from prior experience in the single player campaign, and players would "cooperate" in reaching the known goal. You weren't playing against other players, you were playing against the AI/scripted nature of the game.
Can a game-mode really be considered cooperative when two teams of randomly chosen players are thrown together? Team-based or squad based multiplayer? Yes. Cooperative? No.
Can a game-mode really be considered cooperative when two teams of randomly chosen players are thrown together? Team-based or squad based multiplayer? Yes. Cooperative? No.
Back in the old days, there was much whining about how WoW raids were only accessible to a fraction of players (and for top-end raids, it was a tiny fraction).
But that's probably the only way to make coop play work properly. Make the challenges difficult. Then teams that can cooperate properly will self-select. (They don't necessarily have to be elite players, or even really good enough for the raids. If the challenge is enough, they will have to be team players to even try.)
Expecting good coop play AND allowing everyone on the team is a recipe for failure.
But that's probably the only way to make coop play work properly. Make the challenges difficult. Then teams that can cooperate properly will self-select. (They don't necessarily have to be elite players, or even really good enough for the raids. If the challenge is enough, they will have to be team players to even try.)
Expecting good coop play AND allowing everyone on the team is a recipe for failure.
" I always believed that the purpose of a game is playing, that is exploring options without having to fear consequences too much. What if I tried this crazy stunt move? Can I circumvent this challenge instead of facing it head on? Cooperative multiplayer makes this "playing" of a game much harder, while having the potential of making winning easier, if the other players on your team know what they are doing."
This is probably the most selfish attitude to bring to a co-op situation. This screams "I want to maximize my fun, while leaving the rest to deal with the situation at hand". It can fly if you are playing with friends, not so much in any other situation.
"If fun in games comes from a learning experience, the guy in the team who is there for the very first time and is probably having fun figuring out how this works ends up being a drag and a problem to his team mates, who are just there to win."
The "learning experience" is very finite, unless the player is a legitimate moron. Thus games that build around this die 3 months after launch, and it's also why WoW clones die almost immediately; there are the systems in a shittier setting.
I would argue that the majority of players in a healthy co-op scenario have fun while contributing, and being useful overall. This is why leeches are so frustrating to a lot of people, especially the shameless ones.
Post a Comment
This is probably the most selfish attitude to bring to a co-op situation. This screams "I want to maximize my fun, while leaving the rest to deal with the situation at hand". It can fly if you are playing with friends, not so much in any other situation.
"If fun in games comes from a learning experience, the guy in the team who is there for the very first time and is probably having fun figuring out how this works ends up being a drag and a problem to his team mates, who are just there to win."
The "learning experience" is very finite, unless the player is a legitimate moron. Thus games that build around this die 3 months after launch, and it's also why WoW clones die almost immediately; there are the systems in a shittier setting.
I would argue that the majority of players in a healthy co-op scenario have fun while contributing, and being useful overall. This is why leeches are so frustrating to a lot of people, especially the shameless ones.
<< Home
