Mixing
Persistent elements of offline players interacting with online players
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
For a long time I was thinking about a quite abstract game design problem, to which I didn't see a good solution yet. In abstract: How can a player have owned bases, units and infrastructure in a persistent multiplayer world, which can be interacted or attacked by other players, all the while the owning player may be offline and unable to give his input?
As a concrete example:
Assume you have a very large 2D world, in which you can build bases and have units guarding them. The bases can be visited or used by other players as automated trading stations, in which you represent the vendors. But the bases should also be able to be contested by hostile players - be it plundering or outright destruction.
How can I solve the issue that the owner of the base may be offline during an attack? Or that a player attacks at times where people are usually sleeping? Or that a player may actively go or stay offline in order to exploit potential protection mechanisms? How can I avoid forcing players to go online for a certain time at certain time ranges in order to maintain such protection?
Ideas (which are not satisfactory though):
- Bases cannot be attacked in normal ways. People can send "troops" with a delay hopefully long enough to ensure the other player can give his optional input. The outcome of these battles is an automatically calculated result. Such sieges may go over multiple days.
- Bases can only be attacked while their owners are online - or have been offline for too long. The explanation why those cannot be attacked is severely lacking though - given that trading should still be possible.
- When a player intends to attack, both players somehow have to make an appointment in order for both to be online and to start the battle. This is a bad solution for obvious reasons.
- Bases are inactive and invulnerable while their owners are offline or setting it inactive, and trading/other activities continue only temporarily based on the previous online/active time. This raises issues with visible bases and ongoing infrastructure, as they'd essentially need to be hidden or hideable, and other players may get bothered by it becoming inaccessible.
What other methodology do exist or could be employed in order to tackle this online-offline issue with persistent elements? I am also open for mathematical or systematic solutions. Be reminded that other players should be able to assist either side as well.
game-design
asked 2 hours ago
Battle
1486
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
For a long time I was thinking about a quite abstract game design problem, to which I didn't see a good solution yet. In abstract: How can a player have owned bases, units and infrastructure in a persistent multiplayer world, which can be interacted or attacked by other players, all the while the owning player may be offline and unable to give his input?
As a concrete example:
Assume you have a very large 2D world, in which you can build bases and have units guarding them. The bases can be visited or used by other players as automated trading stations, in which you represent the vendors. But the bases should also be able to be contested by hostile players - be it plundering or outright destruction.
How can I solve the issue that the owner of the base may be offline during an attack? Or that a player attacks at times where people are usually sleeping? Or that a player may actively go or stay offline in order to exploit potential protection mechanisms? How can I avoid forcing players to go online for a certain time at certain time ranges in order to maintain such protection?
Ideas (which are not satisfactory though):
- Bases cannot be attacked in normal ways. People can send "troops" with a delay hopefully long enough to ensure the other player can give his optional input. The outcome of these battles is an automatically calculated result. Such sieges may go over multiple days.
- Bases can only be attacked while their owners are online - or have been offline for too long. The explanation why those cannot be attacked is severely lacking though - given that trading should still be possible.
- When a player intends to attack, both players somehow have to make an appointment in order for both to be online and to start the battle. This is a bad solution for obvious reasons.
- Bases are inactive and invulnerable while their owners are offline or setting it inactive, and trading/other activities continue only temporarily based on the previous online/active time. This raises issues with visible bases and ongoing infrastructure, as they'd essentially need to be hidden or hideable, and other players may get bothered by it becoming inaccessible.
What other methodology do exist or could be employed in order to tackle this online-offline issue with persistent elements? I am also open for mathematical or systematic solutions. Be reminded that other players should be able to assist either side as well.
game-design
asked 2 hours ago
Battle
1486
Why do you think you need to implement a solution? What is the problem? Why are automated guard units and the ability of players to co-operate not sufficient?
– Jack Aidley
2 hours ago
1
Because it may lack interaction and input from the player if he is offline. In theory the attacked player could either take part in the battle (if the game mechanics would allow it), or make strategic decisions. And if the attacker attacks at times where most people sleep, the help of other players would be minimal to non-existent (not that it would be something reliable anyway). So being online or offline might be an advantage or disadvantage.
– Battle
2 hours ago
1
To be honest, I wouldn't want my stuff at the mercy of strangers in a game while I am not there.
– The Mattbat999
13 mins ago
@The Mattbat999 - Some trivia why this question concerns me personally so much - I once played Travian for some days, then over night my village got assaulted ~30 times by the same guy, while I was still a beginner. After I wrote an angry message I dropped the game like a hot potato, never to be touched again, forever to be remembered as a prime example of how not to design a game.
– Battle
7 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
For a long time I was thinking about a quite abstract game design problem, to which I didn't see a good solution yet. In abstract: How can a player have owned bases, units and infrastructure in a persistent multiplayer world, which can be interacted or attacked by other players, all the while the owning player may be offline and unable to give his input?
As a concrete example:
Assume you have a very large 2D world, in which you can build bases and have units guarding them. The bases can be visited or used by other players as automated trading stations, in which you represent the vendors. But the bases should also be able to be contested by hostile players - be it plundering or outright destruction.
How can I solve the issue that the owner of the base may be offline during an attack? Or that a player attacks at times where people are usually sleeping? Or that a player may actively go or stay offline in order to exploit potential protection mechanisms? How can I avoid forcing players to go online for a certain time at certain time ranges in order to maintain such protection?
Ideas (which are not satisfactory though):
- Bases cannot be attacked in normal ways. People can send "troops" with a delay hopefully long enough to ensure the other player can give his optional input. The outcome of these battles is an automatically calculated result. Such sieges may go over multiple days.
- Bases can only be attacked while their owners are online - or have been offline for too long. The explanation why those cannot be attacked is severely lacking though - given that trading should still be possible.
- When a player intends to attack, both players somehow have to make an appointment in order for both to be online and to start the battle. This is a bad solution for obvious reasons.
- Bases are inactive and invulnerable while their owners are offline or setting it inactive, and trading/other activities continue only temporarily based on the previous online/active time. This raises issues with visible bases and ongoing infrastructure, as they'd essentially need to be hidden or hideable, and other players may get bothered by it becoming inaccessible.
What other methodology do exist or could be employed in order to tackle this online-offline issue with persistent elements? I am also open for mathematical or systematic solutions. Be reminded that other players should be able to assist either side as well.
game-design
asked 2 hours ago
Battle
1486
For a long time I was thinking about a quite abstract game design problem, to which I didn't see a good solution yet. In abstract: How can a player have owned bases, units and infrastructure in a persistent multiplayer world, which can be interacted or attacked by other players, all the while the owning player may be offline and unable to give his input?
As a concrete example:
Assume you have a very large 2D world, in which you can build bases and have units guarding them. The bases can be visited or used by other players as automated trading stations, in which you represent the vendors. But the bases should also be able to be contested by hostile players - be it plundering or outright destruction.
How can I solve the issue that the owner of the base may be offline during an attack? Or that a player attacks at times where people are usually sleeping? Or that a player may actively go or stay offline in order to exploit potential protection mechanisms? How can I avoid forcing players to go online for a certain time at certain time ranges in order to maintain such protection?
Ideas (which are not satisfactory though):
- Bases cannot be attacked in normal ways. People can send "troops" with a delay hopefully long enough to ensure the other player can give his optional input. The outcome of these battles is an automatically calculated result. Such sieges may go over multiple days.
- Bases can only be attacked while their owners are online - or have been offline for too long. The explanation why those cannot be attacked is severely lacking though - given that trading should still be possible.
- When a player intends to attack, both players somehow have to make an appointment in order for both to be online and to start the battle. This is a bad solution for obvious reasons.
- Bases are inactive and invulnerable while their owners are offline or setting it inactive, and trading/other activities continue only temporarily based on the previous online/active time. This raises issues with visible bases and ongoing infrastructure, as they'd essentially need to be hidden or hideable, and other players may get bothered by it becoming inaccessible.
What other methodology do exist or could be employed in order to tackle this online-offline issue with persistent elements? I am also open for mathematical or systematic solutions. Be reminded that other players should be able to assist either side as well.
game-design
game-design
asked 2 hours ago
Battle
1486
asked 2 hours ago
Battle
1486
edited 2 hours ago
asked 2 hours ago
Battle
1486
asked 2 hours ago
Battle
1486
asked 2 hours ago
Battle
1486
1486
Why do you think you need to implement a solution? What is the problem? Why are automated guard units and the ability of players to co-operate not sufficient?
– Jack Aidley
2 hours ago
1
Because it may lack interaction and input from the player if he is offline. In theory the attacked player could either take part in the battle (if the game mechanics would allow it), or make strategic decisions. And if the attacker attacks at times where most people sleep, the help of other players would be minimal to non-existent (not that it would be something reliable anyway). So being online or offline might be an advantage or disadvantage.
– Battle
2 hours ago
1
To be honest, I wouldn't want my stuff at the mercy of strangers in a game while I am not there.
– The Mattbat999
13 mins ago
@The Mattbat999 - Some trivia why this question concerns me personally so much - I once played Travian for some days, then over night my village got assaulted ~30 times by the same guy, while I was still a beginner. After I wrote an angry message I dropped the game like a hot potato, never to be touched again, forever to be remembered as a prime example of how not to design a game.
– Battle
7 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Why do you think you need to implement a solution? What is the problem? Why are automated guard units and the ability of players to co-operate not sufficient?
– Jack Aidley
2 hours ago
1
Because it may lack interaction and input from the player if he is offline. In theory the attacked player could either take part in the battle (if the game mechanics would allow it), or make strategic decisions. And if the attacker attacks at times where most people sleep, the help of other players would be minimal to non-existent (not that it would be something reliable anyway). So being online or offline might be an advantage or disadvantage.
– Battle
2 hours ago
1
To be honest, I wouldn't want my stuff at the mercy of strangers in a game while I am not there.
– The Mattbat999
13 mins ago
@The Mattbat999 - Some trivia why this question concerns me personally so much - I once played Travian for some days, then over night my village got assaulted ~30 times by the same guy, while I was still a beginner. After I wrote an angry message I dropped the game like a hot potato, never to be touched again, forever to be remembered as a prime example of how not to design a game.
– Battle
7 mins ago
Why do you think you need to implement a solution? What is the problem? Why are automated guard units and the ability of players to co-operate not sufficient?
– Jack Aidley
2 hours ago
Why do you think you need to implement a solution? What is the problem? Why are automated guard units and the ability of players to co-operate not sufficient?
– Jack Aidley
2 hours ago
1
1
Because it may lack interaction and input from the player if he is offline. In theory the attacked player could either take part in the battle (if the game mechanics would allow it), or make strategic decisions. And if the attacker attacks at times where most people sleep, the help of other players would be minimal to non-existent (not that it would be something reliable anyway). So being online or offline might be an advantage or disadvantage.
– Battle
2 hours ago
Because it may lack interaction and input from the player if he is offline. In theory the attacked player could either take part in the battle (if the game mechanics would allow it), or make strategic decisions. And if the attacker attacks at times where most people sleep, the help of other players would be minimal to non-existent (not that it would be something reliable anyway). So being online or offline might be an advantage or disadvantage.
– Battle
2 hours ago
1
1
To be honest, I wouldn't want my stuff at the mercy of strangers in a game while I am not there.
– The Mattbat999
13 mins ago
To be honest, I wouldn't want my stuff at the mercy of strangers in a game while I am not there.
– The Mattbat999
13 mins ago
@The Mattbat999 - Some trivia why this question concerns me personally so much - I once played Travian for some days, then over night my village got assaulted ~30 times by the same guy, while I was still a beginner. After I wrote an angry message I dropped the game like a hot potato, never to be touched again, forever to be remembered as a prime example of how not to design a game.
– Battle
7 mins ago
@The Mattbat999 - Some trivia why this question concerns me personally so much - I once played Travian for some days, then over night my village got assaulted ~30 times by the same guy, while I was still a beginner. After I wrote an angry message I dropped the game like a hot potato, never to be touched again, forever to be remembered as a prime example of how not to design a game.
– Battle
7 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Players have lives outside of the game, so you can not expect them to protect their property 24/7. You can be a bit more cruel about this when properties are not owned by individual players but collectively by large groups of players, because if the group is large enough then at least someone will be online most of the time. But this still creates a lot of unnecessary pressure for players to play more than they want to.
So if you want online PvP battles for the control of property, then you have to balance some conflicting interests against each other:
- The interest of the defender to defend the property when it is convenient for them and not lose property because their life outside of the game came in the way.
- The interest of the attacker to be able to conquer any property they want as long as they are strong enough to do so.
- The interest of the game to have both attacker and defender present for the battle, so you have a fair contest of skills.
- The interest of everyone to play your game when they want to and not neglect their life outside of the game.
In order to balance these interests, you need some game mechanic which allows players to negotiate a date for when the battle is going to take place. The negotiation mechanic must be designed in a way that it is in the interest of both parties to have the battle as soon as possible (so no party can win or grief by biding time), but still allows both parties some degree of control in order to find a time window where both parties are present.
A good study case in this regard might be Eve Online. Disclaimer: I read a lot about Eve Online, but I never played the game myself. So please write a comment if I misunderstood something.
Players can own stations, which still exist while the player is offline. Other players can attack these stations. But as soon as the station drops to 25% shield strength, it enters what is called Reinforced Mode.
While the station is in reinforced mode, other players can not damage it anymore, but the station also loses functionality and starts to consume a resource which can not be replenished while in this mode. When there is enough of that resource in stock, then it can last for more than a day.
So when the attacker wants to take the station, they either need to wait until the station runs out of resources or until the owner shows up to defend it.
The effect of this game mechanic is that the defender decides when to fight for the station. The attacker is the one who needs to stay online and prevent the defender from refueling. But it is still in the interest of the defender to react early, because while the station is reinforced, the station consumes resources without doing anything productive.
A mechanic I have seen in another MMO game (unfortunately I don't remember the name) was that the owner of a base can explicitly set time windows in which they are vulnerable to attacks. So the player can make sure that they are only attacked during times where they are usually online.
answered 1 hour ago
Philipp
74.5k19172223
1
Good example. In a fantasy context the attacking army could "siege out" the attack, if the defending player does not try to break the siege, the city resistance breaks. Depending on how long that took, the attacker may raid less food and/or people, but maybe other produced goods as those couldn not have left the city.
– PSquall
1 hour ago
This answer is quite helpful, especially the part about disrupting the functioning of a base and the resource mechanics (along with the inability to refuel during a siege). This still leaves one issue - if I understand correctly - the attacker would have to siege for 12-36 hours, meaning he would have to be continually online especially in the time in which defenders are as well. That would be a lot of continuous online time required for the attacker(s), possibly way too much.
– Battle
12 secs ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Players have lives outside of the game, so you can not expect them to protect their property 24/7. You can be a bit more cruel about this when properties are not owned by individual players but collectively by large groups of players, because if the group is large enough then at least someone will be online most of the time. But this still creates a lot of unnecessary pressure for players to play more than they want to.
So if you want online PvP battles for the control of property, then you have to balance some conflicting interests against each other:
- The interest of the defender to defend the property when it is convenient for them and not lose property because their life outside of the game came in the way.
- The interest of the attacker to be able to conquer any property they want as long as they are strong enough to do so.
- The interest of the game to have both attacker and defender present for the battle, so you have a fair contest of skills.
- The interest of everyone to play your game when they want to and not neglect their life outside of the game.
In order to balance these interests, you need some game mechanic which allows players to negotiate a date for when the battle is going to take place. The negotiation mechanic must be designed in a way that it is in the interest of both parties to have the battle as soon as possible (so no party can win or grief by biding time), but still allows both parties some degree of control in order to find a time window where both parties are present.
A good study case in this regard might be Eve Online. Disclaimer: I read a lot about Eve Online, but I never played the game myself. So please write a comment if I misunderstood something.
Players can own stations, which still exist while the player is offline. Other players can attack these stations. But as soon as the station drops to 25% shield strength, it enters what is called Reinforced Mode.
While the station is in reinforced mode, other players can not damage it anymore, but the station also loses functionality and starts to consume a resource which can not be replenished while in this mode. When there is enough of that resource in stock, then it can last for more than a day.
So when the attacker wants to take the station, they either need to wait until the station runs out of resources or until the owner shows up to defend it.
The effect of this game mechanic is that the defender decides when to fight for the station. The attacker is the one who needs to stay online and prevent the defender from refueling. But it is still in the interest of the defender to react early, because while the station is reinforced, the station consumes resources without doing anything productive.
A mechanic I have seen in another MMO game (unfortunately I don't remember the name) was that the owner of a base can explicitly set time windows in which they are vulnerable to attacks. So the player can make sure that they are only attacked during times where they are usually online.
answered 1 hour ago
Philipp
74.5k19172223
1
Good example. In a fantasy context the attacking army could "siege out" the attack, if the defending player does not try to break the siege, the city resistance breaks. Depending on how long that took, the attacker may raid less food and/or people, but maybe other produced goods as those couldn not have left the city.
– PSquall
1 hour ago
This answer is quite helpful, especially the part about disrupting the functioning of a base and the resource mechanics (along with the inability to refuel during a siege). This still leaves one issue - if I understand correctly - the attacker would have to siege for 12-36 hours, meaning he would have to be continually online especially in the time in which defenders are as well. That would be a lot of continuous online time required for the attacker(s), possibly way too much.
– Battle
12 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Players have lives outside of the game, so you can not expect them to protect their property 24/7. You can be a bit more cruel about this when properties are not owned by individual players but collectively by large groups of players, because if the group is large enough then at least someone will be online most of the time. But this still creates a lot of unnecessary pressure for players to play more than they want to.
So if you want online PvP battles for the control of property, then you have to balance some conflicting interests against each other:
- The interest of the defender to defend the property when it is convenient for them and not lose property because their life outside of the game came in the way.
- The interest of the attacker to be able to conquer any property they want as long as they are strong enough to do so.
- The interest of the game to have both attacker and defender present for the battle, so you have a fair contest of skills.
- The interest of everyone to play your game when they want to and not neglect their life outside of the game.
In order to balance these interests, you need some game mechanic which allows players to negotiate a date for when the battle is going to take place. The negotiation mechanic must be designed in a way that it is in the interest of both parties to have the battle as soon as possible (so no party can win or grief by biding time), but still allows both parties some degree of control in order to find a time window where both parties are present.
A good study case in this regard might be Eve Online. Disclaimer: I read a lot about Eve Online, but I never played the game myself. So please write a comment if I misunderstood something.
Players can own stations, which still exist while the player is offline. Other players can attack these stations. But as soon as the station drops to 25% shield strength, it enters what is called Reinforced Mode.
While the station is in reinforced mode, other players can not damage it anymore, but the station also loses functionality and starts to consume a resource which can not be replenished while in this mode. When there is enough of that resource in stock, then it can last for more than a day.
So when the attacker wants to take the station, they either need to wait until the station runs out of resources or until the owner shows up to defend it.
The effect of this game mechanic is that the defender decides when to fight for the station. The attacker is the one who needs to stay online and prevent the defender from refueling. But it is still in the interest of the defender to react early, because while the station is reinforced, the station consumes resources without doing anything productive.
A mechanic I have seen in another MMO game (unfortunately I don't remember the name) was that the owner of a base can explicitly set time windows in which they are vulnerable to attacks. So the player can make sure that they are only attacked during times where they are usually online.
answered 1 hour ago
Philipp
74.5k19172223
1
Good example. In a fantasy context the attacking army could "siege out" the attack, if the defending player does not try to break the siege, the city resistance breaks. Depending on how long that took, the attacker may raid less food and/or people, but maybe other produced goods as those couldn not have left the city.
– PSquall
1 hour ago
This answer is quite helpful, especially the part about disrupting the functioning of a base and the resource mechanics (along with the inability to refuel during a siege). This still leaves one issue - if I understand correctly - the attacker would have to siege for 12-36 hours, meaning he would have to be continually online especially in the time in which defenders are as well. That would be a lot of continuous online time required for the attacker(s), possibly way too much.
– Battle
12 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Players have lives outside of the game, so you can not expect them to protect their property 24/7. You can be a bit more cruel about this when properties are not owned by individual players but collectively by large groups of players, because if the group is large enough then at least someone will be online most of the time. But this still creates a lot of unnecessary pressure for players to play more than they want to.
So if you want online PvP battles for the control of property, then you have to balance some conflicting interests against each other:
- The interest of the defender to defend the property when it is convenient for them and not lose property because their life outside of the game came in the way.
- The interest of the attacker to be able to conquer any property they want as long as they are strong enough to do so.
- The interest of the game to have both attacker and defender present for the battle, so you have a fair contest of skills.
- The interest of everyone to play your game when they want to and not neglect their life outside of the game.
In order to balance these interests, you need some game mechanic which allows players to negotiate a date for when the battle is going to take place. The negotiation mechanic must be designed in a way that it is in the interest of both parties to have the battle as soon as possible (so no party can win or grief by biding time), but still allows both parties some degree of control in order to find a time window where both parties are present.
A good study case in this regard might be Eve Online. Disclaimer: I read a lot about Eve Online, but I never played the game myself. So please write a comment if I misunderstood something.
Players can own stations, which still exist while the player is offline. Other players can attack these stations. But as soon as the station drops to 25% shield strength, it enters what is called Reinforced Mode.
While the station is in reinforced mode, other players can not damage it anymore, but the station also loses functionality and starts to consume a resource which can not be replenished while in this mode. When there is enough of that resource in stock, then it can last for more than a day.
So when the attacker wants to take the station, they either need to wait until the station runs out of resources or until the owner shows up to defend it.
The effect of this game mechanic is that the defender decides when to fight for the station. The attacker is the one who needs to stay online and prevent the defender from refueling. But it is still in the interest of the defender to react early, because while the station is reinforced, the station consumes resources without doing anything productive.
A mechanic I have seen in another MMO game (unfortunately I don't remember the name) was that the owner of a base can explicitly set time windows in which they are vulnerable to attacks. So the player can make sure that they are only attacked during times where they are usually online.
answered 1 hour ago
Philipp
74.5k19172223
Players have lives outside of the game, so you can not expect them to protect their property 24/7. You can be a bit more cruel about this when properties are not owned by individual players but collectively by large groups of players, because if the group is large enough then at least someone will be online most of the time. But this still creates a lot of unnecessary pressure for players to play more than they want to.
So if you want online PvP battles for the control of property, then you have to balance some conflicting interests against each other:
- The interest of the defender to defend the property when it is convenient for them and not lose property because their life outside of the game came in the way.
- The interest of the attacker to be able to conquer any property they want as long as they are strong enough to do so.
- The interest of the game to have both attacker and defender present for the battle, so you have a fair contest of skills.
- The interest of everyone to play your game when they want to and not neglect their life outside of the game.
In order to balance these interests, you need some game mechanic which allows players to negotiate a date for when the battle is going to take place. The negotiation mechanic must be designed in a way that it is in the interest of both parties to have the battle as soon as possible (so no party can win or grief by biding time), but still allows both parties some degree of control in order to find a time window where both parties are present.
A good study case in this regard might be Eve Online. Disclaimer: I read a lot about Eve Online, but I never played the game myself. So please write a comment if I misunderstood something.
Players can own stations, which still exist while the player is offline. Other players can attack these stations. But as soon as the station drops to 25% shield strength, it enters what is called Reinforced Mode.
While the station is in reinforced mode, other players can not damage it anymore, but the station also loses functionality and starts to consume a resource which can not be replenished while in this mode. When there is enough of that resource in stock, then it can last for more than a day.
So when the attacker wants to take the station, they either need to wait until the station runs out of resources or until the owner shows up to defend it.
The effect of this game mechanic is that the defender decides when to fight for the station. The attacker is the one who needs to stay online and prevent the defender from refueling. But it is still in the interest of the defender to react early, because while the station is reinforced, the station consumes resources without doing anything productive.
A mechanic I have seen in another MMO game (unfortunately I don't remember the name) was that the owner of a base can explicitly set time windows in which they are vulnerable to attacks. So the player can make sure that they are only attacked during times where they are usually online.
answered 1 hour ago
Philipp
74.5k19172223
edited 53 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Philipp
74.5k19172223
answered 1 hour ago
Philipp
74.5k19172223
answered 1 hour ago
Philipp
74.5k19172223
74.5k19172223
1
Good example. In a fantasy context the attacking army could "siege out" the attack, if the defending player does not try to break the siege, the city resistance breaks. Depending on how long that took, the attacker may raid less food and/or people, but maybe other produced goods as those couldn not have left the city.
– PSquall
1 hour ago
This answer is quite helpful, especially the part about disrupting the functioning of a base and the resource mechanics (along with the inability to refuel during a siege). This still leaves one issue - if I understand correctly - the attacker would have to siege for 12-36 hours, meaning he would have to be continually online especially in the time in which defenders are as well. That would be a lot of continuous online time required for the attacker(s), possibly way too much.
– Battle
12 secs ago
add a comment |Â
1
Good example. In a fantasy context the attacking army could "siege out" the attack, if the defending player does not try to break the siege, the city resistance breaks. Depending on how long that took, the attacker may raid less food and/or people, but maybe other produced goods as those couldn not have left the city.
– PSquall
1 hour ago
This answer is quite helpful, especially the part about disrupting the functioning of a base and the resource mechanics (along with the inability to refuel during a siege). This still leaves one issue - if I understand correctly - the attacker would have to siege for 12-36 hours, meaning he would have to be continually online especially in the time in which defenders are as well. That would be a lot of continuous online time required for the attacker(s), possibly way too much.
– Battle
12 secs ago
1
1
Good example. In a fantasy context the attacking army could "siege out" the attack, if the defending player does not try to break the siege, the city resistance breaks. Depending on how long that took, the attacker may raid less food and/or people, but maybe other produced goods as those couldn not have left the city.
– PSquall
1 hour ago
Good example. In a fantasy context the attacking army could "siege out" the attack, if the defending player does not try to break the siege, the city resistance breaks. Depending on how long that took, the attacker may raid less food and/or people, but maybe other produced goods as those couldn not have left the city.
– PSquall
1 hour ago
This answer is quite helpful, especially the part about disrupting the functioning of a base and the resource mechanics (along with the inability to refuel during a siege). This still leaves one issue - if I understand correctly - the attacker would have to siege for 12-36 hours, meaning he would have to be continually online especially in the time in which defenders are as well. That would be a lot of continuous online time required for the attacker(s), possibly way too much.
– Battle
12 secs ago
This answer is quite helpful, especially the part about disrupting the functioning of a base and the resource mechanics (along with the inability to refuel during a siege). This still leaves one issue - if I understand correctly - the attacker would have to siege for 12-36 hours, meaning he would have to be continually online especially in the time in which defenders are as well. That would be a lot of continuous online time required for the attacker(s), possibly way too much.
– Battle
12 secs ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgamedev.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f164613%2fpersistent-elements-of-offline-players-interacting-with-online-players%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Why do you think you need to implement a solution? What is the problem? Why are automated guard units and the ability of players to co-operate not sufficient?
– Jack Aidley
2 hours ago
1
Because it may lack interaction and input from the player if he is offline. In theory the attacked player could either take part in the battle (if the game mechanics would allow it), or make strategic decisions. And if the attacker attacks at times where most people sleep, the help of other players would be minimal to non-existent (not that it would be something reliable anyway). So being online or offline might be an advantage or disadvantage.
– Battle
2 hours ago
1
To be honest, I wouldn't want my stuff at the mercy of strangers in a game while I am not there.
– The Mattbat999
13 mins ago
@The Mattbat999 - Some trivia why this question concerns me personally so much - I once played Travian for some days, then over night my village got assaulted ~30 times by the same guy, while I was still a beginner. After I wrote an angry message I dropped the game like a hot potato, never to be touched again, forever to be remembered as a prime example of how not to design a game.
– Battle
7 mins ago