Multiplayer Thread - Competitive and/or Co-Op.

[Suhiira]

Actually that contract idea sounds feasible.
In CP2077 you could allow players to create contracts that specify harsh terms for failure. This should discourage much of the griefing because now there's a significant cost of some sort to the potential griefer, and that's no fun at all!

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Do you guys want a rail shooter a la House of the dead while you're at it?

If you get scammed by another player, it's your problem.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Should braindancing have "built-in" hardcore mode by default (so that death of one means death of the other and both would experience each other's "complications" when things go haywire)? I mean, what's better way to ensure that both of you would be working on success, instead of netrunner leaving solo to his death (as netrunner operates from the safety of his own apartment)? On the other hand, a bad netrunner could cost solo his life, so this is also a problem. I don't even mention people who would die on purpose just to grief somebody. Perhaps some level of clearance on the contract, tied to how costly this is (big money would require more "skilled" player character), making you decide if you want to pay smaller sum for bigger risk involved? And how would other classes co-operate, should we go with this scenario? The idea of instances is there, but then again, this is supposed to be an open world, with each player being a hero and friendly fire (or lack of it) would again cause problems.

If trust is implicit in social interactions, then it is unrealistic and frankly quite immersion breaking.

isn't that supposed to be you know, the dark future? A near warzone? Hardcoding harsh penalties for breaking contracts is the worse possible outcome.

"Fail to be there at 8 o'clock, be penalized by 2000 credits"

There's a saying in the business world: nothing moves unless a sale is made.
The truth is trust IS a scarce commodity.

Aren't you guys roleplayers? If it is purely cooperative, there is little incentive for the mainstream player to roleplay.

 

[Sardukhar]

Aren't you guys roleplayers? If it is purely cooperative, there is little incentive for the mainstream player to roleplay.

Errr..what? PnP is often purely cooperative and it's chock full of roleplay.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Yeah, but that's for the PnP people. They agree beforehand to meet and roleplay.

For everyone else , you have to put a competitive incentive in playing the role.

 

[Sardukhar]

Yeah, but that's for the PnP people. They agree beforehand to meet and roleplay.

For everyone else , you have to put a competitive incentive in playing the role.

I disagree utterly. Roleplay isn't competitive, it's generally cooperative. You play for the satisfaction of immersing yourself in the role. If you're playing a cooperative online game, you also agree beforehand to meet - if it's an RP server, you agree to meet and roleplay as soon as you sign up.

You can have conflict roleplay - even then the players must agree in order to meet and pretend fight. Competitive roleplay doesn't even seem like a thing to me - do you get bonus points for using an accent or something?

 

[Harthwain]

If trust is implicit in social interactions, then it is unrealistic and frankly quite immersion breaking. isn't that supposed to be you know, the dark future? A near warzone? Hardcoding harsh penalties for breaking contracts is the worse possible outcome. [...] The truth is trust IS a scarce commodity. Aren't you guys roleplayers? If it is purely cooperative, there is little incentive for the mainstream player to roleplay.

That's the point I was trying to make. Truth is a scarce commodity and it's really easy to default yourself into a defense mode where you treat everyone as hostile, but such approach doesn't help multiplayer in terms of cooperating or interacting. EVE has very unique system, because players often can interact without even needing to meet one another while performing their roles in the in-game world, and still retaining the possibility to take chances and join with someone else for various reasons. The safest way is to incorporate this aspect of doing one's job without taking risks, but then again one would find it unrealistic and immersion breaking for various reasons.

You mention roleplaying, so I will share a bit of my SWTOR experiences in this regard. In the very first dungeon I met with people who were role-playing their characters. It was an amazing experience, especially when you know how well done the very first dungeon is. My last month was purely this: roleplaying my character, the self-proclaimed Crimson Knight of the Order, with other like-minded individuals. I had the armor too match this nickname too. It was pretty original, given that all people were walking around with ther currently-top-level gear (making many of them look like clones). The most interesting people actually took effort to look differently, like obtaining uniform of an officer of the Siths' forces. It was the best RPG experience I had in this game and in many - if not most - cRPGs. I even have a story in my head, based on all this. If I had more drawing skills than I have (I am a hobbyist), I'd be doing a fan-made comic in Star Wars universe. And I don't find Star Wars universe in itself all that good, nor am I a fan of it.

In L4D you don't even have to role-play. You are a character as you scream in terror to your teammates for help or communicate with them as you move through the devastated world. Some people even asked me if I am changing my voice to sound like Bill (I didn't). In "Red Orchestra 2", on the other hand, on the Soviet side people said that they like when I speak, because I immerse them more with my russian accent, others said it sounds really old and like I am drinking person. Except that I am not Russian, I am not that old (at least not that old to remember Stalingrad) and I don't drink alcohols.

Cooperative gameplay doesn't mean there will be no role-playing, but how you want to encourage players to role-play on their own with other players in terms of the in-game system that actually awards role-playing? The real issue is that it's often so easy to purposefully betray someone you don't know for the sake of betraying him. I wouldn't mind a brilliant, really brilliant, or realistic betrayal (or "betrayal", like running in fear for your life, because dying would be really so-not-worth-it, with the spoils and not waiting for the rest of the team who's in trouble), but when it's too easy - like killing other player the moment you drop-in his game - without even making someone to trust you with exploitable secrets, it's not good thing. It's lame.

"Fail to be there at 8 o'clock, be penalized by 2000 credits"

There's a saying in the business world: nothing moves unless a sale is made.

That'd kill this aspect of gameplay. It shouldn't be worthwhile to fail, but risk and reward should be more balanced than that. I think that in many cases failing might be sufficient. Especially if you find yourself in a bad situation exactly because you are or were trying to fulfill a contract. In some cases it may even cost you your life. Furthermore, you don't sign a contract to earn money if you lose even more of it.

 

[Suhiira]

Yeah, but that's for the PnP people. They agree beforehand to meet and roleplay.

For everyone else , you have to put a competitive incentive in playing the role.

Huh?
Wha?

So you're saying RP would be more popular if it were competitive rather then cooperative?

I guess all the folks claiming they're role playing a psycho serial killer understand RP far better then I do.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

yeah, because then it wouldn"t be play pretend. Most players do not do play pretend.

Of course, the real definition might be play pretend for the sake of play pretend but I think I'll just go by sard's definition which I think is to immerse yourself in a role.

I think this could qualify:

http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1102035

That sounds a lot like acting --- and role playing! And here: no play pretend either! You have an actual goal and an actual incentive to play the role, in this case mutual funds salesman.

Non-cooperative: you have to gain other player's trust before parting them with their hard earned limbs ---er I mean money.

Of course, it does not need to limit itself to the role of sleazy mutual funds salesman,

If you take up contract, you'll also have to sell yourself in some way.

Hopefully, you won't get any info on other people so this mechanic can truly come to life. In real life, you do not know if your dentist is a lvl 75 dentist or a lvl 25 dentist. So that netrunner that is running high-tech gear claiming lvl 50 might actually be a slick noob at lvl 2 with made in Hanoi replicas.

Cooperative gameplay doesn't mean there will be no role-playing, but how you want to encourage players to role-play on their own with other players in terms of the in-game system that actually awards role-playing? The real issue is that it's often so easy to purposefully betray someone you don't know for the sake of betraying him. I wouldn't mind a brilliant, really brilliant, or realistic betrayal (or "betrayal", like running in fear for your life, because dying would be really so-not-worth-it, with the spoils and not waiting for the rest of the team who's in trouble), but when it's too easy - like killing other player the moment you drop-in his game - without even making someone to trust you with exploitable secrets, it's not good thing. It's lame.

This is where the media could shine.

One quick way to build trust (or not) would be to have a media for example, do a story about a heroic solo/clan and his deeds.

For example, if you were in hiding, unless you had a name (and even then), an opposing wouldn't know victimise you unless he looked for you specifically. This would allow for privacy for someone.

but let's say a player is a big time corporate.He is the Michael Milkin of 2077. He would have a big incentive to keep a reputation of honesty esp. since opposing medias would be quick to slander his good name.

 

[Suhiira]

So the incentive to role play in competitive gaming is in order deceive other players so you can gain or take advantage?

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Would that be a bad thing?

 

[Suhiira]

In a word, yes.

This points out the biggest problem with multi-player gaming.
No consequences to behaving in ways that in real life would get you ostracized, tossed in jail, or just plain dead via legal execution or murder if you pissed off the wrong person.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Are you afraid of being taken advantage by a slick mutual funds salesman of 2077 Suhiir?

EDIT: You actually edited your post after I posted my answer, but

that's why there's permadeath and permatheft of limbs.

 

[Suhiira]

Me personally?
No.
But I also don't want to have to deal with them.
In real life I can (and frequently do) intimidate jackasses into going away, in on-line games my only choice is to log off myself.
And I just hate that there is no recourse to their behavior other then becoming a bigger dick than they are, and I refuse to do that because unlike them I have some morals and self respect.

 

[Sardukhar]

The essential difference here is one of perspective.

Poet plays to compete, to triumph or fail in the attempt. He derives satisfaction from the conquest, even in an RPG setting.

Suhiir plays to explore, to create, to share. She derives satisfaction from the play, the immersion, the challenge of thinking like other, especially in an RPG world.

And thus the challenge of satisfying both parties in an MP environment. Typically, RPGs strive to satisfy Suhiir's taste, and leave Poet's preferences to FPS and TPS.

The game that can satisfy both tastes and do it well, is pretty rare.

 

[Harthwain]

I think this could qualify:

http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1102035

That sounds a lot like acting --- and role playing! And here: no play pretend either! You have an actual goal and an actual incentive to play the role, in this case mutual funds salesman.

There is little need to pretend when you can play your role by doing what your role is supposed to do, in a way that suits you. I am not a trader by pretending to be one. I am a trader, because I do what traders do. However, in order to play a role - as a player, not as a class - you need to be able to interact and communicate. Otherwise you're just a class with no personality, like in "Skyrim". It was great, climatic experience of an open world that seemed to live its own life (with all its flaws), but there was no character building on mental level.

 

[Suhiira]

The essential difference here is one of perspective.

Poet plays to compete, to triumph or fail in the attempt. He derives satisfaction from the conquest, even in an RPG setting.

Suhiir plays to explore, to create, to share. She derives satisfaction from the play, the immersion, the challenge of thinking like other, especially in an RPG world.

And thus the challenge of satisfying both parties in an MP environment. Typically, RPGs strive to satisfy Suhiir's taste, and leave Poet's preferences to FPS and TPS.

The game that can satisfy both tastes and do it well, is pretty rare.

As rare as reasonable Québécois?

 

[Sardukhar]

As rare as reasonable Québécois?

Oh, look...a toe over the line. Bad Suhiir! Bad!

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Sard is from Quebec?

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

There is little need to pretend when you can play your role by doing what your role is supposed to do, in a way that suits you. I am not a trader by pretending to be one. I am a trader, because I do what traders do. However, in order to play a role - as a player, not as a class - you need to be able to interact and communicate. Otherwise you're just a class with no personality, like in "Skyrim". It was great, climatic experience of an open world that seemed to live its own life (with all its flaws), but there was no character building on mental level.

No I agree with you thats what I want also.

but I think an economy, lack of information on other player's character should about cover it.