Multiplayer Free-For-All "Arena" Mode Discussion

Oneye

Walt Really liking this idea. I have grown to not like playing LPS battles because of the lack of action, and the cheap kills that people get all too often. This would also be a much more hectic and fun game mode than team vs team, making them less alike. But as @IVIemories said, kill stealing will probably be a big problem, maybe basing the kill off of who did the most damage would be better. (No I have not read the whole discussion)

Oneye

I am also wondering if/when a player ranking system (leaderboard) is added to the game, will total points obtained throughout all arena games or total arena games won be displayed?

Mc2

Oneye

I am also wondering if/when a player ranking system (leaderboard) is added to the game, will total points obtained throughout all arena games or total arena games won be displayed?

Well, in case that for any statictic will be only total of FFA points counted, that the best player will be that one, who will have most time and play with noobs over and over.

Maybe points / number of games + same players game count only once per day?

Dalas120

Walt nop I don't think anyone would complain if the next game mode were PvE/co-op?

I hear you. The problem is that most interesting PvE/co-op modes require multiplayer ship building, which is gonna be a lot of work

Maybe allow players to buy/sell/repair prebuilt ships, but not design new ones? IMO that would work pretty well with most types of pve. (And nobody wants to wait for their teammate to design mid-match anyway)

jbox1

Walt mandate some way for players to be able to respawn themselves.

You actually already have this! It’s the ship wide “self destruct” feature. See? Easy!

jbox1

Walt Question #2: When is a ship "killed"?

Since ships without control rooms can still “fight”, it would seem fair that ships without control rooms could stay in play. As I said before though, the free ship self-destruct feature should be available for players, even if they have no control room. This would mean players could choose to consider themselves unable to fight, and respawn as they choose. To have reactors destroyed, however, would mean you would have no way of powering weapons, sheilds, and even control rooms, so you would eventually run out of power anyway. To respawn once your reactors are destroyed seems most consistent with bounty hunter, and also has the best outcomes.

jbox1

Walt Question #3: Who is given credit for the "killing blow"?

Perhaps if you keep track of what players have done the most damage in the last 10 seconds to a ship? This way the person who has been doing the most damage gets the points, but the points are still divided to all players involved, dependent on the damage they did. There would be no need to track chain explosions or fire damage delt, and there won’t be any “cheap kills” either.

Walt Question #4: How to credit points for partial kills?

See above

jbox1

Walt Question #5: Can players self-destruct to respawn themselves?

As I see it, self destruct should be a feature for players. It negates any problems with players being left freely floating in the arena, waiting to get killed. However, like you said, it could be cheaty to deny points by self destructing themselves.

However, my solution to question 3 and 4 could negate the problem of denying points, as players will recieve points based on the damage they did in the last ten seconds, meaning a player finishing off a ship, still gets the points even in a self destruct.

My other solution would be to have a 5 - 10 second (physics time, not real time) delay before self destruct sequence starts. This would mean it would be impossible to start self destruct sequence without anticipating battle, and since most battles will last no more than 5-10 seconds between any far superior ships.

jbox1

Walt Question #6: Can players repair themselves?

Mabey some 50% value of the ship they targeted will be repaired after getting a kill? This rewards seeking good kills and not just rewarding players for treating small fighters as life packs.

jbox1

Walt Question #7: Can players have whole fleets or just single ships?

Although I enjoy leading my fleet of ships into battle, it will mean micromanaging all your ships just a big pain, as well as causing huge amounts of lag for players.

The issue is that players with limited sized ship loadouts might have issues with filling price gaps in different games, as is my favorite reason for having multiple ships, I can mix and match different price tags to meet a certain criteria.

jbox1

Walt Question #8: Can players choose a different ship or fleet when respawning?

I like the idea of setting a "loadout" of ships to choose from prior to battle, and switching out to any one after death. This will mean you can switch out to adapt to a changing battlefeild, while still allowing games to be adjusted and to keeping an amount of ships available to use.

IVIemories

Walt The reason for turtling is that the chance of gaining points is not worth the potential risks of getting into a fight.

If I were to play in a battle of this format, my strategy would be to wait for two players to start fighting - and then swoop in to fight two weakened ships. Not only would I have a chance to steal the kill from the player that's winning the fight, I can potentially kill the winning player's ship as well since I'll have a chance to pick my angle of approach.

Now from the perspective of the player who is winning, you don't really have any good choices.

You can either turn and confront the (undamaged) enemy ship swooping in, but that'll leave fighting one ship that's in prime condition, and still getting shot by the ship you haven't finished off
You can keep fighting the ship you were trying to kill before in hopes of killing it before the I (the KSer) can steal the kill. But I (in the undamaged ship) would probably still have a chance of getting a lucky shot to steal the kill, and in the event you do get the kill, I have a good chance of scoring a point by defeating you.

Mc2

IVIemories

Now from the perspective of the player who is winning, you don't really have any good choices.

•You can either turn and confront the (undamaged) enemy ship swooping in, but that'll leave fighting one ship that's in prime condition, and still getting shot by the ship you haven't finished off

•You can keep fighting the ship you were trying to kill before in hopes of killing it before the I (the KSer) can steal the kill. But I (in the undamaged ship) would probably still have a chance of getting a lucky shot to steal the kill, and in the event you do get the kill, I have a good chance of scoring a point by defeating you.

Yes. this is happening very often in MP, and both choices you suggested are bad for players in combat, it is always better not to fight and wait for better situation.

So, proposed solution that rewarded points from damaging undamaged ship are much higher than points form damaging damaged ship sounds good, if the third came to badly damaged ships which gained lost of points from combat, he will not get enough points to be winner.

IVIemories

@Walt So instead of an objectives based system, how about having AI controlled ships that spawn and target the player with the lowest score? This way you are constantly in combat, either because you're trying to attain points or just fighting the AI.

To ensure the player with the lowest points can still come back into the game, AI ships should give some points (far less than a player) when destroyed. They certainly shouldn't be worth enough points to purposefully go hunt down though.

Alfraks

IVIemories :3

nop

Walt Unsure exactly how well a traditional KotH mode would work unless the player on the hill could repair really quick.

We have one ring to keep players from getting too far from the center, maybe add one that rewards them for being near the center? A green "Ring of Life" that does exactly the opposite of the "Ring of Death". Or a "Ring of Points". "Ring of Mana Regeneration"? Move the ring to a random location periodically?

Walt The problem is that most interesting PvE/co-op modes require multiplayer ship building, which is gonna be a lot of work.

I don't think it's a requirement.

SpaceCat

Walt

Hi, ok:

Q#1: i would mostly agree with "4" but maybe only award Credits (not points) for critical parts ie: weapons, defensive parts, thrusters, reactors, control rooms etc ...
This includes NOT intruducing points into the game but rather make players earn Credits that can be used for repairs (see: Q#6 & Q#8)

Q#2,3&4: no idea - but other answers will cover this.

Q#5: The whole concept of (Auto)Respawning seems odd for me in this game - i feel there should be an emphasis on survival as well as beeing rewarded for taking risks. Respawning brings the danger of exploitability (rush respawn repeat).

Q#6: Repairing in multiplayer seems very desireable, allthoug i think it would work better for long epic fights then for "quick" game modes (like ffa arena). Also i think autorepair would lead to fleeing from battles even more and is also something that is too "easy" (as in takes no player effort) and exploitable.

The way i see Repairing in Multiplayer is very close to Singleplayer = linked to credits:

You gain credits by destroying other ships parts and then can use that as budget for your own repairs! This would lead to making it more attracitve to get into battle and collect credits rather then fleeing and simply wait for autorepair.
(alternatively you could set a "repair Budget" in the lobby like 1x, 2x, 1/2 etc. the ships cost or set a budget for it directly.)

This idea also is meant for an answer/replacement for Q#1.

Q#7: Yes multiple ships should be allowed - as support ships and "fleets" are an integral gameplay element.
Singel ship battles can be fun but limiting the number of ships should be a player choice definately.

Q#8: Here i would NOT do "autorespawning", similar to NOT doing "autorepair".
The idea would be that you can actually also buy ships for your "collected" credits rather then using credits for repair.

In a nutshell (tldr):

Earn Credits by destroying others Ships Parts then Players can use Credits for either Repairs or buying Ships! (Rather then a new point system, autorepair and autorespawning.)

I guess what i'm prospecting here is how many players forsee Credits, Repairs, Buying or even Building in multiplayer.
And maybe it would also be easier to programm/code because it utilizes structures that are allready there!

Mc2

Dalas120

Maybe abandoned ships slowly take damage (like in the ring) until they're gone?

That causes lot of lags, disappearing at once is better for more stable gameplay.

Mc2

nop

A "demolition derby" race around a circuit of checkpoints? You would respawn outside the track and have to fly back if destroyed/self-destructed.

Yes, this could be one of very fun MP kind of game. Just addind some NPC ships , stationary in several spots which must players pass, to force people not have thrusters only, but defense and offense as well.

Mc2

Walt

•Juggernaut (one player is super-powerful, fights other players, the player that does the most damage takes over when the juggernaut is defeated)

Boss fight is pretty common in MP and people like it, so mod like this is welcome.

Mc2

Walt

I hear you. The problem is that most interesting PvE/co-op modes require multiplayer ship building, which is gonna be a lot of work.

Well, I saw MP battles where IA driven ship was team 1,( and usually boss kind) while several players coop to defeat it, why MP build is needed for single battle?

BH coop is in plan for future, but 1 battle coop is easy to make ( you choose that mode, and game choose AI controlled ship in budget range given by host, and players get budget with much lower per ship value and with some handicap from 0-50% of credits?).