Alternative Methods

One topic that I have been musing about a lot recently but doesn't seem to get much discussion is that of Alts. An Alt, or alternative character, is a second or third or twentieth in game avatar, usually requiring multiple accounts. These are most common in MMOs as there are a few things that push players towards them. But it doesn't seem like developers always take into account the impact of Alt nor if they are healthy for the game.

Players start Alts for many reasons. Usually there is some limit on character abilities. Hence players need multiple characters to have full flexibility of activities in game. In games like World of Warcraft this takes the form of actual character classes which restrict your character so they are distinct from other classes. in other games like EVE it is simply more efficient to train many specialized characters than on generalist. This is mostly a function of the fact that to have multiple characters training in any game you have to pay for multiple accounts.

From the developer perspective, Having players train alts makes things easier on them. If pa player is training more than one character, they are clearly invested in the game and will probably stay for a longer period of time. In addition, the developer is making multiple subscription fees from one person instead of needing to find new subscribers. So for developers alts are useful in capturing more revenue from invested players.

Unfortunately Alts have at least 2 major downsides. First they decrease the impact of reputation. It is very easy to have an Alt for doing unscrupulous acts. Then once the penalties have built up, simply switch to another character and ignore the consequences. In games like EVE which emphasize that actions have consequences, Alts really damage this philosophy. The other downside is they decrease social interaction. There is no need to coordinate with other players if you have enough alts to run a production empire. Or why group up if you can play multiple characters at once and do group content by yourself? This seems counter to games called Massively Multiplayer Online.

One recent example of a game company thinking about alts and doing them well, in my opinion, is Bungie with Destiny. Each account gets 3 character slots, which is conveniently the number of classes in the game. So you only ever need one account to have access to all play options. In addition, individual characters do not have unique names like WOW. Instead the account has one name that is displayed no matter which character is used. This mitigates the reputation problem as the reputation is for the account instead of the character.

The other interesting feature of Bungie's implementation of Alts is they share storage space. So instead of having to do some convoluted process to get gear from your Warlock to your Titan, all you have to do is deposit the gear in the vault. Then any character on your account has access to it. So all your characters always have access to all of your best gear, so you can quickly swap to the one you want to play and go. Granted Destiny is no where near as complex as EVE, but it shows that when developers think about Alts and how players interact with them, you get a much better gaming experience.

Dungeon Run Review Part 2

I was thinking more about my Dungeon Run review and something was bugging me about the suggestions I made. Overall my impression of the PvP portion of the game was that the incentives were horribly off and it should be removed. Though I am not sure that what is left holds up. A game that is a simple 15-20 minute dungeon crawl doesn't really sound that exciting and probably doesn't have too much replay value unless there is a large variety in the monster and treasure cards. Even adding an escape from the dungeon probably won't quite have the needed feel as it would be hard to do the monster control and attacks well without a GM. So in retrospect the PvP should be the selling point of the game, unfortunately I found that the weakest aspect. Which means a way to fix it is in order.

Before getting into concrete suggestions for fixing the PvP I wanted to talk briefly about a way to test balance and why. The best way to test PvP is to skip the first part of the game and just playtest the end game. This is the part that needs to be working first as you can always tone the monsters and traps to the appropriate level of challenge based on where the PvP balance ends up. (See slide 96) Simply let each player pick their character, give them 1-2 levels, 2-3 random items and then have them quickly build a map just by moving through with no monsters. Once the map is complete, randomly give a player the stone and start the endgame. This way you can get lots of iterations of the PvP, which should be the strongest point of the game, as it is in Betrayal at House on the Hill.

Now the question is, how to both encourage PvP and make it fun in the endgame? Honestly I think the basic PvP combat system is solid. It is resolved with two simple roles and the attacker has an advantage as they are the only player who can assign dice to block. This incentivizes attacking over defending. Further the way the first player is always the one with the stone and that player controls the monsters helps focus attention on them and gives them and edge when everyone is gunning for them.

In the last post, I talked about how the characters really are not equal in terms of stats or abilities, which clearly needs to be fixed for the end game. Further all characters gain a super ability when they have the stone, which usually means they are far more deadly than the Boss. These abilities should be toned down, if not removed as the player with the stone already goes first and controls the monsters.

There also needs to be more ways to restrict movement. Both by removing the ability to move that extra square and through some system to make leaving a player's square hard if they don't want you to move. I suggested that some roll based on the Skill stat should fix this and provide an incentive to choose high Skill characters for the endgame PvP. Map size and the type of tiles might play into this. They should be distributed so that all areas are reasonably reachable when the end game starts, but getting to the entrance should take multiple turns to prevent people simply running away.

The other big problem is there is no reason for the person holding the stone to engage in PvP, as they win if they reach the entrance. Something more needs to be added to the game so they have a reason to attack. Maybe they need to get to some other tile to activate the stone or each player gets some sort of key and multiple are needed to escape. The one thing to watch out for is requiring a death match as this will result in very degenerate behavior during the PvE portion of the game. Honestly the first thing that I would try is to have the Stone drop in the Boss Room when the Boss dies, instead of directly from the Boss. This adds more strategy to the game, ensures that the player with the stone has the maximum number of tiles to move, and that there is at least on choke point due to the Boss room having one exit.

Overall I think the PvP in Dungeon Run deserves to be explored more. I think the incentives in the current iteration leave a lot to be desired, but am optimistic that they can be improved with appropriate testing.