Great column Brad. I agree with many of your points and suggestions. Finding quality multiplay sessions is like searching for gold. Sometimes you are lucky but most times you are not.

I have all but abandoned multiplay gaming. My last was a Counterstrike session some 4-5 months ago. Single Play is my continuing preference.

Brad has some interesting ideas of how to make the experience better. Certainly there have to be better ways of getting strangers to play nice with each other even if it's only a one or two hour game?

Until then though, and even beyond that, I'll just continue to play among friends. It's not that hard to find like-minded gamers to consort with regularly. Obviously, you can't always get together with your buds online when you're dying for a game. But I'd argue it's even more hit or miss when you're just hoping to find someone in a game lobby. So for now, I'll continue to play when time and schedules allow. This goes for strategy games...first person shooters are often a different story provided you're not playing strictly team-based games.

--Dave

The problem with a karma system is that players can abuse it. Say I spank you in a game of Starcraft. If you're an idiot, what's to stop you from making up lies about me and reporting me, and maybe getting a few friends to do the same? Before you know it I have "bad karma" and people don't want to play me.

Hell, players will get reported because they're good. "That guy had to cheat. No way could he get that many tanks that quickly. I'm reporting him."

True, but for people who play online a lot, the reports of a few idiots -- and I have to believe that they're not all idiots -- won't have much of an affect, because you'll play guys like us, too, who will rate you positively.

Only problem is I think most online gamers ARE idiots. At least 90% of the ones I run into are. I've pretty much backed off all online games unless I know the people playing.

Too many bad experiences, too much cheating, too much trouble, can't be bothered.

And isn't the whole "super users" just like the various volunteer programs in the MMORPG's? And didn't they run into labor problems with that? If a company depends on volunteers in order for their gaming system to work, then they're deriving revenue from other people's work. It doesn't matter if people want to work for nothing or not, various government agencies (and unions) are going to come down on you. That's why all the Guide programs were shut down in UO, EQ, and (I'm less sure of this one) AC.

The only other problem, aside from those already mentioned, is nepotism among super users. If you ever read Lum you'll see stories of GM's using their powers for Less Than Good, GM's promoting relatives, GM's giving their nephews super characters, and all sorts of other shenanigans. It doesn't take much to break a system like the one you describe.

Great column Brad. In it, you write: "I�m in the beta for a pretty good game whose final version will have literally hundreds of different units. It�s practically a half dozen strategy games rolled into one. I can�t even imagine how scary multiplayer is going to be in that."

This is so true, and is one of the many problems I have with multiplayer RTS'. Do we really need hundreds of different unit types? Do we need a tech tree that goes deeper than the Library of Congress? Personally, I don't care to invest the time to study all this stuff. I think Blizzard is so successful because they keep their games simple, and accessible to the masses, yet with enough depth to be interesting to the serious gamer. They have a good balance.

I am excited by the prospect of GalCiv, and it comforts me to know that it's being developed by a team of guys who are in touch and communicating with the gaming community.

Jeff (proud Drengin.net member)

One problem I've always had in single player which multiplayer games (when played nicely with friends) fix, is the AI tends to give up. I cant count the times I've played Age Of Empires for an hour against the AI (I like base building and long games) when all of a sudden the AI just stops attacking.

It's almost as if the AI in some games decide you should win because you've been playing for so long! Also the AI's never attempt to break you properly, they always tend (and this is observed over about 10 different games) to send a stream of units at you of varying difficulty but never utilise the strengths of the units.

On the other note of using AI based on other players, can I just put in a big YES vote please, not so much so I can play other peoples personas so much as I'd love to play my self! Sort that out and you've got another Drengin.net subscriber right here.

Brad posted on this in the c.s.i.p.g groups and I replied but I cant seem to find my reply so here it is reprinted:

Hey Brad, another excellent column. I happen to think your recent
"Bastards!" article was one of the best treatments of online gaming done
yet. That said, I am not sure that a karma rating system would help much.
My fear? The hardcore win-oriented min/max "bastards" would apply their
hardcore min/max analysis to the karma ratings and figure how to "game" the
system which means ratings might end up meaning the polar opposites of what
people intended.

My own solution is to simply avoid playing with the vast horde. In
StarCraft I opted out of Battle.net and played online with a small group of
like minded types on a private server we set up. I've played several other
games (Age of Kings, Diablo 2) with that same group of people on private
servers.

So far this year, I've been playing a lot of Kohan online on the public
servers. So far Kohan.net is small enough that a sense of community has
developed and there is a moderate level of "sportsmanship". Cheese tactics
do develop but the devs have been pro-active in patching to address these.
Sure every patch prompts some complaints, but the game is a fairly good one
even so. One bad thing on Kohan.net is when people act like jerks:
sometimes these are newbies or outsiders to the community who are ignorant
of basic sportmanship and sometimes they are just jerks =). If its a name I
see often I just avoid that player. Given the small size of Kohan.net and
the dedicated nature of the following that has worked well enough. For a
larger scale or more popular game I suspect I would simply find a good group
and retreat to a private server.

Rather than set up rating systems my proposed solution would be better tools
for players to find each other, set up private playing areas, and self
select who they want to play with. I think if players have enough tools to
identify who they are playing they can police themselves. Some groups will
tolerate extremely aggressive "bastard" style winners and some won't. That
will be up to the players.

I think there is one big point that is implied in your columns but not
explicitly stated: A few people playing like Bastards can bastardize the
game for everyone. I may not WANT to play TA map you've mentioned as a
non-naval map but once I've been brutalized by the non-naval strat I have to
adopt it or lose every game on that map. But IF the other player also
shared my disdain of such "cheesy" tactics and I had a faith that he would
not be playing the cheese strat then I would likely try to win another way
that I find fun. The same thing applies to various rushes in RTS: if you
KNOW the other side is going to rush due to its efficiency then your only
choice is either counter-rush or rush right back at him. This reduces the
game to the level of the bastard. However if you know the group you play
with considers rushes cheesy and doesn't use em much, then you don't HAVE to
rush if you are not a win-at-all-costs gamer. In other words, if the few
bastards can be screened from the community I play in, I don't have to worry
about bastard tactics. But if I leave it open, then a few bastards make
everyone play like bastards.

Dan (aka Sharpe on Kohan.net)

"Rather than set up rating systems my proposed solution would be better tools for players to find each other"

I couldn't agree more, Sharpe. I think this is what is sorely needed. The ablility for mature, decent people to find each other for matchups.

The grownups don't want to be thrown in the same pool as the teenagers.

Why don't we see more gaming services? Like anything else, you get what you pay for. What about a service who's goal it is to provide quality gaming for mature adults? You could charge for the service (I think a simple credit card requirement would solve 50-75% of the problem, as most teens don't have them).

Of course, there are jerks over the age of 25 that have credit cards, so there would need to be more involved in the filtering process, but I think something could be done to greatly minimize the current state of things.

'One problem I've always had in single player which multiplayer games (when played nicely with friends) fix, is the AI tends to give up. I cant count the times I've played Age Of Empires for an hour against the AI (I like base building and long games) when all of a sudden the AI just stops attacking.'

Lots of RTSes have this, I'm assuming, because the decision tree as the game progresses becomes too large for the inferior AI code in most games to handle. So, they do pretty well early on when there's not much to pick between, but just kind of coast after that.

AI is the ass-end of modern videogaming.

There are other problems with Karma systems. eBay and (American) public schools both have developed the problem of score inflation. By definition an average score should be perfectly acceptable, but on eBay and for kids, a C may as well be a failing grade. If you don't have a nearly perfect record, you're as screwed as the ones with a bad record, and it becomes too easy to earn a positive. On eBay you have 3 grades, bad, neutral, average. Giving someone an average will outrage them, it is an unwritten rule that unless you were robbed you give a positive, nomatter that the person on the other side was rude or slow or whatever. Theft is bad, everything else is good. The system no longer (and hasn't for years really) provides the information it was intended to provide. As well, where's the protection against a person simply changing accounts? I play Diablo II online a lot, and I know how easy it is to get a new character to high level. Blizzard is just learning. It takes about a dozen hours to play though the whole game from stat to finish if you really know your stuff, and you'll come out about 30th level. When they reset their ladders they had over 2,000 players hitting level 80 in less than 7 hours. They had help from seven friends with characters of already high level. I was friends with two people in the Asheron's Call beta test and I saw the same thing happen there. I've played MUME and I know how fast you can level with the right help in that game too. In RTS and FPS games, there's no levelling, I make a new account and instantly I'm as annoying as ever. In the level-based games you lable my character bad, I delete him, make a new one, and before dinner, the new one is just as dangerous, and not labled bad. Plus my friends have given me a whole slew of positive remarks.

I challenge anyone to propose a system of ratings that will not be defeated by the formation of clans/guilds. With or without the support of the designers, clans will form around any online game, and they will ruin the atmosphere of the online community. But they are as integral to online gaming as political parties are to America's government. Even what you propose about forming a community of like minded mature gamers is just forming a guild/clan without attaching the slang name for it.

No the ideal system is not user ratings at all, but to have the servers record and rate the user and to have no human input whatsoever. Not from anyone. If I play starcraft, let it list the average play time of my games, and the total number of games. The stats will show if I'm a rusher or not. If I'm playing Diablo or Everquest, let it show the number of times this character has attacked other players, and let it show the number of times OTHER ACCOUNTS WITH THE SAME CD KEY have done so. So even if I change names and accounts, my history follows me. The servers have a record of how I act, even if the person who I PK dies so fast that he doesn't even have a chance to read my name on the screen to know who killed him. No nepotism, no clans giving eachother false positive scores. The downside is demonstrated by Ultima Online, you have to have a tight game. For example, their reputation system lets you attack someone who is a known PKr and have it improve your reputation. Working in groups and helping others also improves your reputation. Going PK yourself (except against known villains) drastically impairs your reputation and it takes many hours of cooperative online hours to repair. But some jerk learled that stationary spells aren't considered attacks. So it became a popular tactic for supposed heroic characters (with the highest possible reputation in the game) to trap someone inside walls of stone, and then lay a wall of fire on them. Techinically, it wasn't a PK, so the "hero's" reputation never dropped. Then they made such acts count as PK and suddenly truely noble characters were branded criminals when they accidentally misjudged the area of effect of their spells. A new brand of jerk arose who would deliberately walk into a good guy's wall of fire and die, then his buddies would kill the "known crimial" who had commited the PK. Can you design a game where this kind of abuse is avoided? Yes, but most of the current crop of game designers aren't up to the task.

Will your "mature gamers" group keep you away from jerks? Some, but the worst online jerks I know are a collection of 50 retired (I.E. over 65) frenchmen who played Mankind (www.mankind.net) in the Settlers clan. They went so far as to hack the servers and use heinous bug exploits and take advantge of the perpetual RTS setting and their ability as retired folk to play 24 hours a day unlike their employed and school-bound opponents to launch offline attacks against others. For those who don't know, Mankind is what you would get if you turned Command And Conquer and Homeworld into a MMORPG without changing the interface and had 75,000 people in one galaxy with literally 500 million planets each with a map roughly 40 times the size of command and conquer's largest. When you log off your worlds still have your buildings, ships, and so forth. So you have "your systems." Gee, of course grandpa, you can join our mature gamers group. Holy @#$%! that old geezer's a creep! He's worse than any teenager! What do you mean there's more of them where he came from??? There are jerks in every age group, you should all know this, you work with and went to school with them. They haven't changed, nowadays they just have more money, but the old class bully who you hated in elementary school is still the same jerk under that 3-piece suit.

On the comment that AI is the ass-end of modern videogaming, I think it's a problem inherent to modern game production. Often, the AI routines are tied very closely to the game mechanics, and so it sometimes suffers from last minute game balance tweak. Another part of the problem is the allocation of developer resources. Given the choice to assign additional people to graphics or to AI, it seems that the AI loses out.

About the ratings issue, I remember a friend telling me that her high-school cheerleading camp handed out ratings on the following scale: good, excellent, outstanding. Also reminds me of the difficulty settings in Thief, which were: normal, hard, and expert. It's all relative.

Finally, on the topic of MMOGs, I'm still waiting for a game which downplays the discrepancy between high level and low level characters. This could be as simple as giving "high level" characters access to a larger variety of skills/abilities. The new skills need not be better, just different. As is it, a level 20 character is twice as powerful as a level 10 character. I can deal with twice as cool, but twice as powerful just throws off the balance.

- Alan

"A new brand of jerk arose who would deliberately walk into a good guy's wall of fire and die, then his buddies would kill the "known crimial" who had commited the PK."

Lol. The ingenuity of human nature is limitless.