On this board, many people come with ideas or complains, mostly counting on the number of people who will support them, rather than pure analysis, without a lot of consideration for the overall game making process.
But did you ever considered you could be a good game designer?
Here is a way to prove it (to yourself, mainly, as I'm not offering certifications
)
Here is the challenge: design a game instance model where the main activity will focus on pvp.
It would have to attract players for a pvp activity at some place(s), in a similar way CG attract players for a commune achievement.
It would be a kind of public arena where every player can join. The challenge would be to define a mecanism allowing player to participate
I’m not supported by frontier in any way, but who knows what can happen if we come with an interesting concept in the end? (honestly, I’m so pessimist I even doubt anyone will answer this thread)
Base concepts – solution perimeter:
- The solution should be an instance (probably fixed instance, if you want people to find it) in the open world of live servers, using real ships. The instance should be reached with ship. The instance is on normal space. Supercruise is not involved (except to join and leave instance)
- The activity must be based for more than 99% on pure pvp, including dogfight, race, and other fighting strategy, allowing 100% pure pvp ships. No traveling, no mining, no trading, etc.
- The activity must be open to any kind of playable ships. No module can be forbidden, as player can come with them, but a dissuasion mechanism can be provided.
Evaluation criteria
Game integration criteria :
- Simplicity: if the concept is harder to get and describe than powerplay, you definitively did it wrong.
- Respect to current rules: if it need to modify many other aspects of the game for the concept to work, that’s not good. If a current game flaw (like ship balance) provide impact on your solution, this is not considered, as the flaw is coming from the game, not from your solution.
- Development costs: it is mostly the sum of simplicity and respect for current game rules. But obviously, if a procedural generation is involved, it will cost a lot of time of development and testing. But any interesting original solution will require some work anyway.
This also include running costs (community management ?), if any.
- Respect of game lore: the situation should be easily justified by elements of the game lore, while including the fewer possible new elements (targoids capital ship doesn’t exist for now, giant ship do exists). Artificial mechanisms (typically: magic credit rain) must be avoided/justified as much as possible.
- Respect for game balance: obviously, the idea should not provide a shortcut for a current activity turning it completely useless. For example, only Frontier World offer a full outfitting availability. Other example: a new player cannot fly a corvette until he reaches several achievements.
- Consideration for other functionnalities: ED allow a wing system, a multi-crew system, small fighters, engineered components, etc... Theses should be taken in account.
Player attractivity criteria
: this game element should be interesting for as many players as possible. But making it compulsory is definitively the wrong way. The interest for players should be driven by pleasure of participating, not by rewards.
- High playtime ratio: along with attractivity, the solution should offer the maximum period when the player can actually participate, rather than prepare, or wait.
- High service level: along with attractivity, it would be better if the player can easily, and quickly reach the service he will need, rather than waiting/struggling.
- Fight balance: the solution should allow different kind of players (veteran along with newbies), while avoiding a too competitive solution which would exclude new players. A smooth solution involving cooperation to allow different level of players to fight against would be much more interesting.
- Reward balance: the solution should allow different kind of players (veteran along with newbies), and reward them fairly per their experience and the involved ship, compared to other activity, just to make it competitive to other activities (no more, no less). The average reward should take account of ammunition/ship repairs/ship insurance costs, while the effective costs difference between ships can be used as a regulation mechanism against most expensive ships/weapons.
No balance between efficient and inefficient ships is expected. (it’s ok if the player waste time and money if he’s using a non-pvp oriented ship)
Resilience:
- Fairness: reward should be given corresponding to player participation. Any possibility to get the reward while not really participating (running away for example) would be a proof of bad rewarding system. While success and skill can increase the reward, the average reward should be based on participation rather than kills, allowing players to join, participate, and leave before they get killed, without denying other player their reward, neither denying their own.
- Exploit resilience: the solution shouldn’t provide obvious or numerous risks of game exploits. Relying on testing is both costly, and an effective quality loss in the end. The possibility of creating team when the solution expected free for all situation is an obvious exploit, along many others. Griefing possibilities should be prevented as well.
- Bug resilience: this concept is mostly related to solution simplicity. More development or design complexity would provide more bugs. This should be avoided.
Overall proposal:
- Synthesis: the concept description must be short, detailing only critical elements. A precise description of every aspect is pointless. Major aspects can be described by a short pitch before clearly detailed.
- Coherence: the whole solution must appear natural. All criteria don’t have to be met all together, but rather seem provided by a natural solution. An approach driven by solving each problem separately mostly lead to generate more problems elsewhere.
- Originality: if a solution is obviously the same than another one with few changes on secondary details, you cannot get much of the credit for it. If your solution start with “same than xxx, but”, it’s not a proposal, it’s a comment.
Other aspects to consider :
If you want to participate, remind that design thinking principles suggest you can’t make it all alone, and you have a huge process of exploration, analysis, and rejection… If you just come up with the first idea, you should probably think twice, or ten time more
You probably do not want to read other proposals, to avoid limiting your own creativity/originality, but it’s up to you.
The most difficult aspect and main element of thinking will concern the players and reward balancing solution. Other aspects would just follow.
As CQC is currently separated from the live game, simply consider it doesn’t exist only as your general gaming experience.
Every element not listed above are completely open. I wont even make a list, as it would drive (and then reduce) your creativity
If you come up with a problematic I didnt point out in the criteria list, it's still possible to enrich it, or provide bonus for solutions who provide a solution to it. (and yet, pvp provide MANY insoluble problems)
For example, it’s up to you to define what pvp means for you. (hint anyway: on Elite Dangerous, pvp mostly involves player controlled ship attacking player controlled ship while in space... If you are describing an FPS or RTS involving vegetables, you are probably gone a bit too far away)
It’s totally ok if the idea includes popular game concept (like leveling), as long as the solution actually include something else, as it will be the only idea to evaluate.
For readers who will later comment:
- Consider that no proposal will be perfect, as they will always have some flaws
- Anyway, a serious proposition will be the result of several hours of thinking, and should be respected for the work it represents
- Do not point remarks on details, as they aren’t supposed to be refined (it’s days of work, if done seriously)
- Limit as much as possible the comment based on subjective position. (like new players again old, caring vs struggling, etc.)
- Open your mind: anyone can come with a good solution, even if it’s name is not Carmack, or if he isn’t a pvp recognized master.
Here we are!
Have fun!
But did you ever considered you could be a good game designer?
Here is a way to prove it (to yourself, mainly, as I'm not offering certifications
)Here is the challenge: design a game instance model where the main activity will focus on pvp.
It would have to attract players for a pvp activity at some place(s), in a similar way CG attract players for a commune achievement.
It would be a kind of public arena where every player can join. The challenge would be to define a mecanism allowing player to participate
I’m not supported by frontier in any way, but who knows what can happen if we come with an interesting concept in the end? (honestly, I’m so pessimist I even doubt anyone will answer this thread)
Base concepts – solution perimeter:
- The solution should be an instance (probably fixed instance, if you want people to find it) in the open world of live servers, using real ships. The instance should be reached with ship. The instance is on normal space. Supercruise is not involved (except to join and leave instance)
- The activity must be based for more than 99% on pure pvp, including dogfight, race, and other fighting strategy, allowing 100% pure pvp ships. No traveling, no mining, no trading, etc.
- The activity must be open to any kind of playable ships. No module can be forbidden, as player can come with them, but a dissuasion mechanism can be provided.
Evaluation criteria
Game integration criteria :
- Simplicity: if the concept is harder to get and describe than powerplay, you definitively did it wrong.
- Respect to current rules: if it need to modify many other aspects of the game for the concept to work, that’s not good. If a current game flaw (like ship balance) provide impact on your solution, this is not considered, as the flaw is coming from the game, not from your solution.
- Development costs: it is mostly the sum of simplicity and respect for current game rules. But obviously, if a procedural generation is involved, it will cost a lot of time of development and testing. But any interesting original solution will require some work anyway.
This also include running costs (community management ?), if any.
- Respect of game lore: the situation should be easily justified by elements of the game lore, while including the fewer possible new elements (targoids capital ship doesn’t exist for now, giant ship do exists). Artificial mechanisms (typically: magic credit rain) must be avoided/justified as much as possible.
- Respect for game balance: obviously, the idea should not provide a shortcut for a current activity turning it completely useless. For example, only Frontier World offer a full outfitting availability. Other example: a new player cannot fly a corvette until he reaches several achievements.
- Consideration for other functionnalities: ED allow a wing system, a multi-crew system, small fighters, engineered components, etc... Theses should be taken in account.
Player attractivity criteria
: this game element should be interesting for as many players as possible. But making it compulsory is definitively the wrong way. The interest for players should be driven by pleasure of participating, not by rewards.
- High playtime ratio: along with attractivity, the solution should offer the maximum period when the player can actually participate, rather than prepare, or wait.
- High service level: along with attractivity, it would be better if the player can easily, and quickly reach the service he will need, rather than waiting/struggling.
- Fight balance: the solution should allow different kind of players (veteran along with newbies), while avoiding a too competitive solution which would exclude new players. A smooth solution involving cooperation to allow different level of players to fight against would be much more interesting.
- Reward balance: the solution should allow different kind of players (veteran along with newbies), and reward them fairly per their experience and the involved ship, compared to other activity, just to make it competitive to other activities (no more, no less). The average reward should take account of ammunition/ship repairs/ship insurance costs, while the effective costs difference between ships can be used as a regulation mechanism against most expensive ships/weapons.
No balance between efficient and inefficient ships is expected. (it’s ok if the player waste time and money if he’s using a non-pvp oriented ship)
Resilience:
- Fairness: reward should be given corresponding to player participation. Any possibility to get the reward while not really participating (running away for example) would be a proof of bad rewarding system. While success and skill can increase the reward, the average reward should be based on participation rather than kills, allowing players to join, participate, and leave before they get killed, without denying other player their reward, neither denying their own.
- Exploit resilience: the solution shouldn’t provide obvious or numerous risks of game exploits. Relying on testing is both costly, and an effective quality loss in the end. The possibility of creating team when the solution expected free for all situation is an obvious exploit, along many others. Griefing possibilities should be prevented as well.
- Bug resilience: this concept is mostly related to solution simplicity. More development or design complexity would provide more bugs. This should be avoided.
Overall proposal:
- Synthesis: the concept description must be short, detailing only critical elements. A precise description of every aspect is pointless. Major aspects can be described by a short pitch before clearly detailed.
- Coherence: the whole solution must appear natural. All criteria don’t have to be met all together, but rather seem provided by a natural solution. An approach driven by solving each problem separately mostly lead to generate more problems elsewhere.
- Originality: if a solution is obviously the same than another one with few changes on secondary details, you cannot get much of the credit for it. If your solution start with “same than xxx, but”, it’s not a proposal, it’s a comment.
Other aspects to consider :
If you want to participate, remind that design thinking principles suggest you can’t make it all alone, and you have a huge process of exploration, analysis, and rejection… If you just come up with the first idea, you should probably think twice, or ten time more
You probably do not want to read other proposals, to avoid limiting your own creativity/originality, but it’s up to you.
The most difficult aspect and main element of thinking will concern the players and reward balancing solution. Other aspects would just follow.
As CQC is currently separated from the live game, simply consider it doesn’t exist only as your general gaming experience.
Every element not listed above are completely open. I wont even make a list, as it would drive (and then reduce) your creativity
If you come up with a problematic I didnt point out in the criteria list, it's still possible to enrich it, or provide bonus for solutions who provide a solution to it. (and yet, pvp provide MANY insoluble problems)
For example, it’s up to you to define what pvp means for you. (hint anyway: on Elite Dangerous, pvp mostly involves player controlled ship attacking player controlled ship while in space... If you are describing an FPS or RTS involving vegetables, you are probably gone a bit too far away)
It’s totally ok if the idea includes popular game concept (like leveling), as long as the solution actually include something else, as it will be the only idea to evaluate.
For readers who will later comment:
- Consider that no proposal will be perfect, as they will always have some flaws
- Anyway, a serious proposition will be the result of several hours of thinking, and should be respected for the work it represents
- Do not point remarks on details, as they aren’t supposed to be refined (it’s days of work, if done seriously)
- Limit as much as possible the comment based on subjective position. (like new players again old, caring vs struggling, etc.)
- Open your mind: anyone can come with a good solution, even if it’s name is not Carmack, or if he isn’t a pvp recognized master.
Here we are!
Have fun!
Last edited:
