That statement really resonated with me. I'm currently playing Battlefield 3 on the Xbox and the number of times I've died because I went to duck into a doorway to avoid enemy fire, only to get halted because the door frame has a 3cm ledge that my battle hardened soldier has difficulty stepping over.
It's amazing how a seemingly trivial issue can really drive up the frustration with a game and take away from it's enjoyment.
The best way to deal with this is to use the latency of the shooter to predict what their bullet would of hit at the time they fired on their screen. This just cleverly shifts the lag from the shooter to the target, but players getting hit by lag compensated shots will rarely notice or care; certainly not as much as a shooter would when their shots miss.
"Artificial intelligence is crucial to any strategy game, providing a compelling opponent for solo play. While many of the challenges of AI development are technical, significant design challenges exist as well. Can the AI behave like a human? Should it? Should the game design be adjusted to accommodate the limitations of the AI? How do we make the AI fun? Should the AI cheat? If so, how much? Do we even want the AI to win? This session suggests some possible answers to these questions using the "Civilization" series as a case study. Ultimately, developers must choose between a "good" AI and a "fun" one, with an understanding of the trade-offs inherent when deciding between the two."
"Good player, bad player, everyone loved Crash games. They never realized it is because they were all playing a slightly different game, balanced for their specific needs."
Reminds me a lot of what I'm sure was a Mariokart64 behaviour - that the powerups you received were directly proportional to your race position, giving everyone behind you much better options to ruin your day.
I wouldn't say anything; a decent strategy for when you see someone else with a shell is to slow down to 2nd place and let the new 1st get hit (which will then put you on 1st again). Timing is essential, though.
a) I have to buy money to buy a blade (WTF?! Either you charge for the game or the in-app purchases)
b) I cannot close the buying menu without buying anything
c) It is completely unclear to me how the practice blade is different from a "real" blade
You talk about how you detect players' intentions. My intention was to buy a game for 99 cents. Not for 10 bucks.
Just my 2 cents (sorry, couldn't help it).
So far the biggest mistake I believe I've made is not cheating to help players win. I made a brutally difficult simulation game.
We have tons of players quit simply because the game is too hard. Because you are 1 person versus 31 other people, there is only 1 winner, and 31 losers.
People don't like this.
Compare this to our competitors, and they make losses not exist, and otherwise "cheat" the experience so everyone is above average.
The worst player in the games, looks like he is the best.
There has to be a happy medium somewhere, and I am the ruthless simulation side of it for now. (Trying to figure out how to change...)
My gameplay involves 32 human players playing against each other in football for a title that only one can win. Each season takes a month.
That's 32 shades of grey, with 31 of those shades being losses.
How do you rubber band that? I'm about to build a facebook app for our game, and I'm trying to brain storm solutions to this problem.
The only answer I have so far is make 32 team leagues, with 16 fairly inept CPU players. But not indicate they are CPUs, so that humans believe they are beating 31 other humans, even though the reality is they are beating 15.
This cuts my problem by a lot, but adds overhead, and removes a lot of the challenge.
I would suggest banding things so 20 teams compete for a spot in the playoffs which consists of 16 teams. (aka 16 people get a win at the cost of 4.) And in the actual playoffs you only lose one game, so rank people based on what round they get to. Something like winner!, (A++) lost final game, (A+) final 4, (A) final 8, (B) got into playoffs, (Try again)did not get into playoffs.
The secret is letting people move on as soon as they can't win any more while making them feel like getting as far as they did is still worth something. Lost the first 6 games? Hey start over it's ok, I hope you learned how the game worked etc.
A football like game. There's nothing wrong with a football like game, but we're a simulation.
Would sort of defeat the purpose. The way to do it in our case probably involves outside "goals" like...
"Obtain a Quarterback over 90 overall."
Or something similar.... Things you can accomplish, outside of the normal system.
Speed up gameplay with UI improvements, etc, so that players can compete in more simultaneous (staggered) competitions, increasing their chance of a good score.
Do you have a tunable AI to test players against, for making sure they get into the right skill-group? If people are in a good group they'll enjoy a loss more than if they're totally outmatched but somehow forced to play it out. The game takes so long it'd be discouraging to try to learn it while losing badly. Maybe let people drop out at any point (to join a game starting today), and be replaced by a bot of their skill? This could also handle no-shows.
How is the game played? Is it like fantasy football? It there a screenshot of what the game looks like? Are real teams and players in the game? You should consider answering these questions on the home page.
I am really quite poor at the design, and work flow. I mostly spend my time trying to make the most accurate game play as possible.
So I am usually doing statistical analysis on how much yac is the average gained for throws behind the back field, and things like that. Focusing so much on the details, I lose sight of a lot of the core things a website like this needs.
To answer your questions
"How is the game played?"
You choose a league, and then a team. From there, you are playing in a football league with 31 other people. The football year goes, Free Agency, Draft, Preseason, Regular Season, Playoffs, Repeat.
Different leagues have different rates of play, but I always play 1 spin a day. That's most popular. So every day 1 spin occurs. Most of the time, that is one game day. So every day, a new game is played. You check out the results, make adjustments. Do it all over again. Make some trades, remove guys because of injury. Sign replacements.
"Is it like fantasy football?"
No. It is more about the football management side of a real pro football team.
"Is there a screenshot of what the game looks like"?"
The game is the website. I think the most valuable thing here would probably be a link to what a boxscore looks like. What a gamelog looks like. Pieces of the game like that.
I have made some recorded sessions that I put on youtube, but it's sort of me talking over me playing.
"Are real teams and players in the game?"
This is coming with the start of me working on a facebook version.
How this works I am still working out. At the moment, it would be just allowing you to practice your team against real teams. Perhaps there's a ladder outside of normal gameplay to beat all the real teams.
Not sure. Lots of ideas. I could even run reality back from.. I don't know.. 1994.. and you could reexperience the drafts that occurred.
I really should answer them on the home page.. Not sure how they should look.
Again.. I'm not good at design, so I tend to focus on what I am good at, and the other stuff doesn't get done :)
Have you ever read "The Smart Money"? It's about some hacker gamblers who built a simulator and placed their bets according to its results. Ever since I read it I have wanted my own simulator to play around with. I'm not a gambler, but I thought it would be neat to make a game out of it. I don't have a background in statistics and realized very quickly that I would be in over my head trying to make one myself. I'm glad you did the work and I can just play!
A very weak player will likely lose the first two or three matches in a row, but then have a real chance against some other weak player.
As an example, I played a football game that obviously had some type of tackling assistance. When I dove to tackle someone, my defenseman wouldn't dive to the spot I was aiming at, but instead try to orient himself to the ball carrier. The developers probably thought that this was helping people with their "misaimed" tackles, but it was actually causing me to miss them. When I dive, I'm aiming for a spot where I think the runner will be, not where he is at the moment I hit the button.
I've seen these types of things enough that I'd approach the idea of implementing a cheat much more cautiously than other features.
Sports, there is no way to adjust those results. If you lose a game, you lose. There is no fudging anyone can do to avoid that.
You are setting up a strawman.
On the flip side, someone once commented that games should have a "toddler mode" where anything the player does just adds up more points and won't kill you. Obviously wouldn't work for every game, but I thought it was a brilliant idea.
Sure, some difficulty is nice, but be careful of the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia.
As an old-timer with a job and a family I really appreciate being able to enjoy and make progress in games despite only having a couple of hours a week to play.
Still there are some who buck the general trend. And I'm not only talking about indie games like Spelunky, but also (among all things!) several games for the oh-so-family-friendly Wii: Donkey Kong, Super Mario, and even Mario Kart on the higher difficulty settings.
I might not be remembering the details exactly, it was about a year ago I was working on this stuff.