Helping the Underdog
A Complaint From: Falkoner

---

The Problem:
Almost every popular map has one fatal flaw, and while this flaw may vary slightly from map to map, the majority of the time, they all come down to a single base error: Once you are down, you can never get back up.
One player or team almost always pulls ahead of the others, and while the game is extremely fun for that player, it becomes much less interesting for those who are left in his dust. No matter what type, this flaw comes out nearly every game.

In a defense, one player may get all the kills, allowing him to get a larger defense, so he can get even more kills, stealing even more from his fellow players. The other players simply become secondary defenses waiting for a small leak from the powerful leader.
In RPGs, one player pulls ahead and is able to push farther into the game, killing units that would have given the other players more money, but taking it all for himself, and then getting even more stronger, leaving the stragglers further and further behind him.

In maps such as Storm the Fort or Hero Wars, one player becomes so powerful, that the other players stand no chance of confronting him to fight him, so he gets all the time he needs to build up even stronger, as there is no opposition, and in becoming stronger, he becomes even more untouchable than he was previously.

No one offers help to the underdog. For years this has bugged me, and I've found that the only way to truly enjoy such maps is to make sure that you don't become the loser. Maps like these are the ones where players will leave prematurely, as soon as the tide begins to turn against them, because they know that there is no way for them to pull back against their enemy who is gaining power exponentially.

---

The Solution:
Solving a problem like this adds a lot more triggers than you would require otherwise, but the outcome of doing so creates a game that is replayable, and makes new players want to try again, instead of walking away from a game, thinking how badly they just got beaten.
Some maps, such as Astrogears, solve this problem just by the nature of the map. Being so complex and full of so many possible avenues to advance forward, if a player is beaten down in one strategy, they can simply pick up another and push through with the new one.

However, simpler maps don't have this option, the main problem with simple maps like this, is that the map maker makes it extremely difficult for the opposing forces to truly finish each other off. A losing side can hang on for ages, hiding behind overpowered defenses and just holding the enemies off. This makes for hours of boring gameplay where there is truly no hope of revival, just a want to go down with a struggle.

In maps like this, the turning point occurs near the middle, however the end of the map is prolonged and slow, this is a problem that can easily be solved by making the final goal of the map more easily achieved, so rather than wasting an hour trying to wear down defenses, the goal of the map becomes hitting that turning point in the map, and coming out on top. A game like this, while it's often shorter, is much more exciting. However, don't make a map become a repetitive series of actions in order to win each game, make the middle of the map last longer, the point where both sides are struggling to be the more powerful.
Some maps that are extremely simple implement a system where the losing player is just randomly given some extra cash to boost them, this is unprofessional looking and a bit silly, but it gets the job done.

Another solution, that is rarely used in maps, is to increase the income of the losing player. This method is trigger intensive and requires a solid understanding of Death Counts, but it provides a seamless and professional looking method to keep the players on an even playing field. Perhaps double the income of the losing player, this makes it so that the losing player quickly catches up and surpasses the previously leading players, but then these players will receive the income, boosting them.
This method will keep all the players on equal levels, making a game more intense and making every move count.


I would love to see more maps help the underdog, it's very annoying to play a map and to become the losing side, knowing that there is no way to get back up, but that you just have to keep playing to be a good sport. Implement features like those I said in maps, and it will result in a map that is more enjoyable overall and that the player wants to see again.

-Falkoner

One thing I've always liked is when you gain less XP the higher your level is. Basically the same effect.

Yeah, but when you do that, the game eventually gets to a point where it's ridiculously hard to get any better, so while it works for some games, others is becomes so slow it's boring.

I thought about such problems myself... I see the solution in versatile balanced strateges players could implement in the game, like in Astrogears. SC itself gives a brilliant implementation of this.

Increasing the income of the loosing side is nice, but are you sure players would be able to ever win?

In RPG players are motivated to kill enemies to gain EXP and to become even better to kill better mosters and to gain even more EXP and so on... Another interpretation of an RPG-like maps might be: players are not motivated to kill more enemies, because when doing so they become weaker. Why not? In my opinion the main goal of RPG maps shouldn't be "kill to gain EXP". The main goal should always be completeing quests, with EXP as a side-effect.

One side would eventually beat the other, due to smarter microing and just overall better tactics, it makes the map continue to be a constant struggle. And when you pull ahead, that's when you do the permanent pushing, where you wear down defenses, so it becomes a struggle to pull ahead for a short time in order to do as much damage as you can during that time.

I see... you suppose realizeing the income needs some time, right?

I was working on an rpg about a month ago that uses shared experience. Best way to ensure the equality of players? No because one player would want to go out all defensive, while the other is all attack. Which is why I made one hero a defensive (or tank) unit, while the other was the attacker.

Yeah, the player isn't just given the money, they have to earn it, but since it's more difficult for them to earn it, they're given more of it.


Shared experience is a good way of balancing it, however, it only works in some games, when there are two opposing forces it doesn't really work, since one side can still get way ahead of the other.

Well in classic maps like HGMA, it doesn't matter if one player is ahead of the other. The point of the games was to use strategic units and placements to even get close to beating the game.

in rpgs, why not make each creature they fight really strong and shared exps? and so far maps i've made doesn't have that devastating tide turn where if you fall behind and you can't come back XD even if the experience points are way behind, the strategy can lead a lower experience points player beating the higher one. although i know what you mean, there are indeed a lot of maps like that, so yeah shared exp maybe? and if theres less players in the game perhaps lower the hp% of the monsters they fight IE: 5 people in game - 100% hp monsters, 4 people in game - 80% hp monsters, 3 people in game 60% hp monsters... and so on.

Helping the noobs would only make more of them.

There are triggers designed specifically for this purpose.

They are known as:
Command the Least (<unit>, Any unit, Men, Buildings, Factories)
Command the Least At (<unit>, Any unit, Men, Buildings, Factories)
Least Kills (<unit>, Any Unit, Men, Buildings, Factories)
Lowest Score (Buildings, Units, Units and Buildings, Custom, Kills, Razings, Kills and Razings, Total)
Least Resources (Ore, Gas, Ore and Gas)

You could also use extended units in conditions and get
Most Deaths (<unit>) // Using Command the Most, or most kills, to overflow into the Deaths table

Or root games in an equal playing field with minimal bonuses earned to try to stress strategy and skills.

Example: in my upcoming map 'Duelz!' the player's goal may be to get 50kills first, but no matter if you have 10 or 45 kills, getting additional is the same level of difficulty.

The Strong are Strong for a Reason.

They played it fast and well. Blitzkrieg style.

I hate maps that overdo this as well, you get ahead and suddenly the other team has more upgrades than you do because of some lame catch-up feature, and then you're screwed.

With competitive PvP games, this really doesn't qualify as a problem in my opinion. If someone is ahead, they're ahead because they were smarter, luckier, or more skilled. In PvE, it also doesn't really matter because you're on the same team as the high-powered player.

Defenses yes, but this isn't a problem in a game like TS as long as they are all pros. I believe a bigger problem is not how a losing team can be permanently stuck behind(almost never in TS, I've had tons of upset games), but how new players can ruin the game. I believe that the PLAYERS should have a handicap option that they can give a certain player on an enemy team extra minerals or experience as much as they see fit till they feel it makes up for their lack of knowledge.

The problem is, they are not always all pros, and FaZ, if you do it properly, the other team will never pull ahead due to this, at best they can only catch up.

I definitely agree that this problem exists and hurts gameplay most of the time. The idea is, with an early mistake or two, the opposing team can pull ahead easily, even if skill is equal otherwise. This is the nature of games like Zone Control where you at first have some weird "skill" involved or waiting for a slip-up, and then it's just cleanup and not doing anything stupid. This isn't to say there aren't times when upsets happen, but rather they are not favored much, and the game's mostly lost already. that begs the question as to why you're still playing.

Some factors that are important to consider are:
-Are each of the advantages you gain minimal to overall success? (large advantages obviously tip the scale too much)
-Do the advantages in turn create more advantages by nature? (eg, you kill for attack ups, getting more kills)
-is there only 2 opposing sides? (more allows for the smart to gang up on the strong, though I think that counts out most of greedy bnet)
---if no, are those players easily eliminated completely one by one? (strong goes for weakest first, cutting out part of the threat immediately)
---if yes, but multiple people on each side, same question, though it works out a little differently. Then it's, how easy is it to defend your own? (distance can be an issue, vision, etc.)

I tried to come up with some stuff against this problem quite a while ago... I might have the notes somewhere... but one idea was to give defensive help instead of offensive, if say, you were defending a base. Adding armor to yourself is similar to adding weapon, if it's pvp, so that won't work.

In my map, Dominance, the 2 teams have to control 7 beacons, with up to 4 ppl per team. The more you control, the more points roll in, but the harder it is to defend them. When a player dies, it's never permanent, but they lose points, which are required for a win (unless you hold all 7 beacons, which take some time to take over without interference). While the whole team loses points, the player that died gets a small mana compensation (upgrades and spells), and mana is constantly added at a fair rate, unchangeable otherwise. So basically, they don't get closer to winning, but they get closer to fighting harder for the win. I'd consider raising it more if it weren't for the possibility of milking it, though allyship makes it hard, and dying causes you to lose points and start away from the action.

In a beta map I disbanded (needed a revamping for gameplay reasons), You could discard 1 of your 16 reactors for money to fight with, or a strong infested terran if they spawn camped, or other things I didn't get around to implementing. So basically to prevent losing all of your protected targets, sacrifice one for an advantage. This map's called Life Force (based loosely off the old gradius-like shooter for the bio material that grows back after destroying it). [Aside from the topic, the idea was you had some growth protecting your entrance to your base, and you could warp in and out of your own. You bought an army of units that about half the time had "auto-spells" that made them fight funny, so basically no special manual casting system. Some units ended up having natural enemies, which was kinda spiffy, if you're curious.]

In another beta disband, Missile Command, It's co-op, and the biggest upgrade you can get from gaining points/money is one that affects the whole team, so really if someone pulls ahead, it's only for show of skill in score, rather than being overly powerful. [disbanded for getting too hard too quickly, but it's not bad as it is.]

When it comes to rpg's, team experience seems like a pretty acceptable way to go. It really depends on how the leveling system is set up. If it's simply raising attack and armor/hp, then i could see it getting a bit boring. Personally, I was hoping to someday implement a shared exp system based on locality (not split exp tho). That way, they can't just sap experience standing somewhere else, and healers get more for their help, or what have you. Everyone should have a role, after all... it's more fun, usually. This allows them to fulfill that role more so. And if you have enemies with spells or bosses, then that helps with the getting past targeting only one unit that tries to take all the hits. You can just randomly select a player, or prefer certain units over others, or what have you.

So yeah, sometimes it's just a matter of map design being too simple or not, more than adding a fix. But in the name of gaming, I say there's nothing that unprofessional in giving the lowing team a helping hand a bit, but please don't over do it, like "doubling" anything. THAT'S unprofessional and silly. If you're going for realism, then good luck, but in Dominance it has a game-like feel, so things like that are to enhance the game and acceptable.

Oh, and the getting weaker with exp thing.... i don't understand that at all. I don't know how it would easily work or make sense (except in very special story settings), nor do I see why that would be "fun." I'd rather not just run from enemies all the time.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 19 2009, 1:45 am by StrikerX22. Reason: colors for block of text.

Yeah, the doubling was just an hyperbolic example, I'd probably multiply it by a larger number based on how far behind they are, so if they got really far behind it'd be like they gain momentum the farther behind they go.

Yeah that sounds good, but just make sure the amount of help you give isn't equivalent to the help they'd need to make up for the difference in skill. As in, if the game is going at the rate of y = x^2 for difficulty of getting back in the game evenly, then the help you give should be y = x or y = 1/2*x^2 etc. Probably former, so it can still snowball eventually, but that depends on the map's style.