default header


Asymmetric mechanics

Moderator: JC Denton

Asymmetric mechanics

Unread postby icycalm » 10 May 2019 21:52

ReyBiz brought this up on Discord, and we discussed it in some depth.

Had a high level game idea, wondering if there is any merit to it: Multiplayer game where one person plays something like a "titan", versus a group of players who play "humans". For example, titan needs to destroy a city, humans need to protect it.
The titan game is very difficult, player needs great reflexes as well as good tactics. He is greatly overpowered vs. any single human, but he is alone. The human game is focused more on teamwork and grindy aspects (think of something like in WoW where in certain battlefields lower level players could go grind NPC mobs to buff the fighting high level players).
Since lag and cheating would certainly kill this game, I thought about it more in an e-sports setting.

There have been several games like this released in recent years. It sounds like you haven't been playing VSMP games recently
Hold on, I'll find some links for you
This is the most recent one I am aware of: ... 18-pc.html
They are called "asymmetric multiplayer games"
Left 4 Dead was one of the original ones
Dead by Daylight is another recent popular one by the same dev as the one that made Deathgarden
There was another one where it was 1 monster vs 4 players, but I forget the name

I'm going to read the review. Seems I'm a bit behind what is available in the marketplace lol.

The only original idea in your idea is the city-destruction
Like King of the Monsters Neo Geo
I wanted that in my Ubergame
But instead of 1v4 it would have been thousands of players FFA
(but they could form teams)
And it would take place on the entire earth, spherical PA style, plus the solar system
It would be an Overman free-for-all a la Highlander

I just wonder, and it's a bit like my question about movies for higher men, a high budget game has to always tend to a big group of mediocre players. That's how I came to my seemingly not so original idea. I'm also curious to see whether the asymmetrical mp games will be pushed further, because I was thinking of like 100 vs 1.

CULT|before tigers
"There was another one where it was 1 monster vs 4 players, but I forget the name"


Are you still working towards this particular Ubergame idea?
Evolve sounds very interesting, anyone play and liked it?
I'll have to get back into modern gaming at some point, I'm missing the good stuff and it's evolving quite fast.

Yeah, Evolve, thanks
I don't see 100 vs 1 working
As for the budget stuff, it's not as simplistic as you say
Blade Runner was pretty high budget and it's the best movie ever made
Braveheart too etc.
Lots of these movies also get high acclaim, and lots of profit etc.
So it's not a simple equation like "great artwork = unpopular"
If it was that easy we wouldn't need critics
As for my Ubergame idea, I would need five Ubisoft studios to make it, so no, I am not working on it
The reason I don't see 100 vs 1 working is because in that case you are turning the 100 players into movie extras. Into pop-corn enemies in a shooting game
Even with 4v1, it is obvious that each of the four players will be in the game for less time than the single player (otherwise the single player would never be able to win)
So the more players you want the weaker side to have, the smaller the role that each of these players will end up having in the game
4v1 is feasible, and so is perhaps 10v1
But by the time you get to 100v1, you might as well use AI bots for the 100 players, which is indeed what single-player games have been doing since the beginning of time
So finally your discussion reached the theory stage, because my reply to it is now deep enough. I will make an asymmetrical thread in the Theory forum
See, when you are discussing a game idea, that's not theory, that's a game idea. But when the discussion reaches a general idea like "asymmetric mechanics", that's when it becomes theory
I think I have an aphorism on Orgy about that somewhere. Not sure if on the frontpage or the forum (or my notes). It goes something like, "Whether an issue is philosophical depends not on the nature of the subject, but on the depth of the answer"
Everything can be philosophical if analyzed deeply enough

So I was an AI bot in World of Warcraft all along

MMORPGs are not asymmetric
They are FFA, not 1v100
I.e. they are symmetric, i.e. every player is worth the same as every other

Oh you had this particular battleground where low levels couldn't fight but help out gathering resources

In asymmetric, you have to give one player much more power than all the others, otherwise he can't defeat them
And the greater the asymmetry, the less power the many players have. Past a certain point it's not fun playing as them

Of course, everyone wants to be the hero in the story. But there is also something satisfying about being a cog in a machine that seems to work well. I have this sometimes. But this might be very much a herd animal sentiment.

There is a time and a place to talk with Nietzschean terms
And then there is shoehorning them everywhere for the sake of shoehorning them
Being a cog in a machine for 5v5 Siege is a different thing than being 1 out 100 players who will be taken out within 20 seconds of the game starting
You see that, right?
Your "herd" comment is completely unrelated
Unless you classify as "herd" every time 2 dudes try to cooperate

No, I'm talking about a feeling of being quite content to do janitorial tasks.
Like a cog in a big machine, knowing you're just small and insignificant but add a small bit of value.

Okay, you can sweep the Planetary Annihilation factories

Like the example in WoW, you were level 50 with bad gear, you collect items so the level 60 characters in top end gear get a 1% boost in damage.
And yet sometimes it felt comfy.

That's more grinding than 1v100
In 1v100, you die and you are out
You die in seconds
In WoW, I don't think anyone meaningfully dies
It's just another form of grinding
People just relax while clicking on things and looking at colors
It's closer to meditation than anything, since there is no challenge

Yeah, true, well it changes the tide of battle when resurrection timeouts kick in

The difference with me is that I relax with sports
That recharges me on all levels, so that when I fire a videogame, I am looking for excitement
If I want to relax I take a stroll and talk to girls
So for me, WoW etc. are for extremely weak people, who can't do sports or talk to girls or even read books etc.
Their whole "entertainment"/occupation has to come through the screen
I've known people like this and studied them deeply
I think it's genetic
They just don't like to move

Yeah, I'm sure. It's more of an addictive machine that substitutes real life victories with flashes of light, and faking social hierarchy too

When such a person pours his life into studying something useful, like e.g. insects or history, we call him cool. When he pours it into WoW we call him lame
So it's not the passivity itself that's disgusting. It's what he does with it that makes a difference to the rest of us
The scholar does not do sports or chat up chicks either, but he's at least useful to society, so I have no problem with him. The WoW gamer just consumes resources for no reason, which is why when the drone army is unleashed he will be among the first to be slaughtered

Have mercy on the poor souls

Poor Souls
The Dark Souls of politics
By then it might be as easy as unplugging them from the wall socket
So it might not be painful for them

So, do you place speedrunners in the same class, kind of?

Anyone autistic who doesn't use his autism for the benefit of society, yeah

People that become extremely good at 8bit game playthroughs and such

If the speedrunner does it for fun in his free time, while in his work he decodes Chinese communications for example, that's ok
What people do for recreation is up to them
As long as they are contributing to mankind
Every kind of animal has its own recreational needs
User avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Return to Theory