99% of the real life games (soccer, basketball, hockey, handball, football, rugby) are centered around a round object. Why is that ? Why are these games so popular ? What is the "ball factor" ? And how can we translate the "ball factor" into non ball related computer games ? My thougts on this : The ball factor : - victory and defeat are conditioned by the ball - team games; personal glory is important, but team victory is what ultimately counts. - all players can and do get the ball - better players get it more often - the player that controls the ball always has chances to create a sudden and great success (score a goal, a three points hit, a great pass) - the player that controls the ball always has chances to create a total catastrophy - there is a smooth transition between skill and chance - every enemy tries to get the ball, so if you dont pass, you''ll surely lose it - time runs out : you must play the ball - all players plan ahead and try to guess what will happen, what are the other teams plans, etc. One computer game that _is_ ball : Counterstrike. Games that are _not_ ball but should be : RPGs, RTSs

Interesting way of looking at things. Ill try and see how it could be applied to an RTS.

The current state of things:

The ball is resources. There are lots of balls at the start of the game, by the end, there are none left. Hence ball play is only of any significance at the earlier stages of the game. (whoever mines the most resources usually wins)

What I would like to see:

The ball is territory. Possession and control of the ball is essential to victory. Choosing good tactically advantageous terrain is akin to good ball skills.

Great post, Diodor! VERY insightful.

The ball is the sole object of focus that has to be manipulated in the right way to win the game. So in this way in CS the hostages or the bomb is the ball. All the points you mentioned directly apply. Capture the Flag games work this way as well.

I guess I have a problem applying this to RTS games, though. There''s no real "central object of focus," which to me the ball is. In every RTS game I know, things are a lot more diffuse.

And beyond resources, there''s rarely any object or objects to obtain (like hostages or the flag or whatever). In this way, the central object of focus is the player''s base and armies, and that doesn''t trade hands. Maybe like Sandman said, though, it should, and territory would then become the ball? Starcraft and any game where you have to build expansion bases ALMOST works this way, but the territory doesn''t mean enough.

The player with the better tactics and strategy is supposed to win. Maybe in this way, an army is the ball? Hmmm... that doesn''t seem right.

I also see problems with the analogy in that RTS games aren''t always team games. Free-for-all games are more like Deathmatches.

But I see many of the other points (skill, time, better player = victory) holding true. (You''ve given me something to think about! )





--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

The ball is a constant source of gameplay.


In non-hack & slash centred RPGs, the main problem that occurs is that aside from combat there is no constant source of Gameplay and conflict in the game.

IE. When not fighting, sneaking or doing quests, the player is walking around, finding characters to talk to, or managing their inventory.


Edited by - Ketchaval on June 14, 2001 3:04:18 PM

I suppose the ball theory can really apply to a game of Quake 3. The ball is the quad damage.

Settlers (any version, 1-4) is very territory-centered. you can only build on territory that you control and certain resources are more or less abundant depending on the area. For example, different kinds of ore, fish in the sea, fields of rock etc. they are all scattered about the map, making it crucial to control certain areas. And for example taking over the land where the enemys primary ore-source is located means he won''t be able to forge new weapons, which means he won''t be able to train new soldiers etc.

Overall the Settlers series is great

(BTW, in some countries (USA?) I believe it is called "Serf City" instead of "The Settlers")

This is interesting..
I''d say in a hack and slash RPG (lets say Diablo II for example) the player (at least for me) not only plays on for the great feeling after beating a quest, but for the amazing items which come at later levels. These "balls" allow the player to become more "skilled" at what they do (along with the stat level ups) then when the difficulty of the game rises higher, newer "balls" are there for the player to get (better and better items). This can also apply to a not-so-hack-and-slash RPG such as Baldur''s Gate I/II. Very interesting concept, good thinking.

Peace.

Mohotmoz

First off, let me say that I''m consistently impressed by the level of discourse in this particular forum (Game Design).

However, this time around it becomes obvious that the contributors don''t play much in the way of sports games, or "ball" sims. In a ball sim, there is only one ball (and with all due respect, Diodor, the ball isn''t always round: the pigskins of rugby and football are nearly ellipsoid, but I''m just nitpicking), and the object of the game is to accumulate as many point as possible for manipulating the ball cleverly into the opponents goal.

This establishes the precedent of the game: each team (or player in games such as tennis) has a goal, an area or territory (thanks, Sandman) that must be defended while simultaneously attacking the opponent''s goal. The area of play is also limited, and there are almost always time restrictions (in tennis you receive a warning from the umpire for dawdling, and it''s considered "unsportsmanly" in golf, as in other sports) which motivate attempts to "score".

(Brief history: basketball probably has the most timing rules of any sport. Prior to their introduction, hour-long games often ended with scores like 3-2, 4-0 or even 1-1, like soccer).

There are also restrictions on movement: you must serve crosscourt in tennis, and must be below the baseline when receiving a serve; you have ten seconds to proceed from backcourt to frontcourt in basketball (move to the fore), and you cannot spend more than 3 seconds in the colored area beneath the opponents basket when on offense; in soccer you have "bounds" which the ball must not cross, as well as off-side violations.

The point to all this rambling is that the urgency and challenge of sport arises from working within so many limitations, while RPGs, RTSes and FPSes are attempting to remove limitations. In other words, it is not the ball in an of itself, but rather the rules and regulations as to what must be done to and with the ball - and what can not - when, where and how. This can be useful to the designer of games of other genres if he/she is willing to impose restrictions (which may be removed as the game advances) as well as furnish a constant pressure/competition (save the hostages/defuse the bomb/destroy the enemies before they kill them/it blows up/they destroy you).

I do trust, however, that someone will find a novel application of this information that will yield spectacular results, and this is as good a place as any to look for it (if not better).

If your game has a simple, definable gameplay, then the ball analogy is probably very adept and correct. With RTS/RPG, though, wouldn''t you have either multiple "ball" elements for land / mana / magic / weapon skill / agricultural production, etc. or have more of a carrot? The carrot theory is just another way to state the typical Quest 1 > Objective 1 > Quest n > Objective n chain of events. The meaning of "ball" changes with respect to the world, but not the game.

-----------------
-WarMage
...and by the time I was done, my right arm was three inches bigger than my left!

great observation. I think one of the keys to the ball concept is that you don''t die. In a game like Counter-Strike you don''t spend too much time thinking about the bomb or hostages, you mostly concentrate on surviving while picking off the opponents. In a fast respawn game like more normal capture the flag games you get a more ballish experience. However in capture the flag you are usually trying to get the flag back to your base instead of the other way around. I don''t think this concept really applies to other genres. Maybe a little to variant RTSs but not the mainstream.