I am the SMM of the minecraft event for Russian-speaking content makers, although I am not a developer, but I still know a lot and learn about the development of mini-games for the championship. From my experience of developing new and reworking old PVP modes, I noticed one thing, every PVP game should be worth the risk. Any PVP game is a big risk in itself, many things in it depend on skill and teamwork, because it is PVP games at our event that bring the most coins. At the same time, there are two variables that have emerged the most during the development of two and the processing of two old mini-games: Balance and Purpose Everything is simple with balance, you need to ensure the game so that all players feel confident and on equal terms, it doesn't matter if he is alone or the whole team is still alive. But with the goal, everything is more difficult, PVP games require you to have sufficient skill, however, in order to be able to apply it correctly, you need some kind of worthwhile goal. The example of the Battle shows that players do not want to go to fight because they will lose with a better chance than if they just wait until Instant Death. The risk should pay off in most cases, and here the risk is not worth it at all. Let's imagine a situation where four teams are left in a similar situation. Team1 decided to fight with Team2, it makes sense for the other two to either wait for the end to pick up the rest of the players, or attack late in order to get more from both teams. BUT even so, Team3 reduces its chances, in case Team4 decides to wait. Like many people, I would prefer not to go to certain death, but just to wait for equal conditions. Still, 25/25/25/25 is better than 10/10/30/50 Okay, let's continue the topic with a goal, but in a different way. Battle Box, it seems to me, is an ideal game in terms of balance and goals, because various tactics can be based on it. BB has a clear goal and balance. The goal is to fill the center. Balance is provided by kits and a maps for the game. Yes, there are failures somewhere, such as with the last card for BB, where it was easy to get confused in the map while the opposing team fills the center absolutely without resistance. But that's why we are developers, to listen to the opinion of the players and create a more competitive and honest environment.
while it doesn’t fix the structural issues with any individual game, I feel like replacing vanilla minecraft borders with custom round borders like in MCC Sky Battle to prevent corner camping could go a long way to improve the endgame of any applicable melee pvp game
My take on battle royale pvp games is that they will never have fair scoring between teams because teams cant be balanced specifically by how good they are at pvp without being unbalanced in some other aspect, the problem that pvp specifically has for this is that games like battle or sg have so much more point differential than any other game
yeah, i think the sg / battle format just promotes so much passive play and risk aversion it just doesn't work in a tourney format. I think the battle box round robin format works a bit better, as it's much less campy, but still leaves some players having a really bad time. also the point you made about the gulag is actually a very good point, it doesn't actually give the average player a second chance, it just means that fruit get's another chance to bully the middle frags
12 днів тому+9
As an average Feinberg enjoyer, I have a warped sense of how good pvp games are, so as a viewer I like them, but I understand why most players have issues with them
pvp games can work but not if your just out after dying, big issue with sg is that some teams instantly die and have like 10 minutes of spectating, thats why bb for example is 100x better then sg imo
Why aren't there more PVP games with infinite respawns? It works well for Miner Mania but no other game does it, even though it prevents lower skilled players from being dead a lot of the time.
Not an event game, not even a Java minigame for that matter, but Chronos is exactly what you're looking for - while definitely not infinite, it gives enough respawns that it makes the game way better imo
and like, the "point differential" problem is quite possibly the easiest issue to solve out of all the issues with PvP games, which is to just change the scoring to be less swingy / make other games' scoring swingier
fixing pvp scoring is definitely not easy, because the gameplay is elimination based. Elimination based gameplay scoring means 1 person gets a reward for killing, and the other person gets 0 points for dying. Very hard to balance properly without kills feeling meaningless
here's a thought. what if battle scoring was only based on your team's best round? obviously, it doesnt have to be as extreme as that, but it would encourage aggression while also reducing swinginess
i like battle because its one of the few games where like. everyone is interacting with each other. naturally that comes with some unavoidable problems like the "cursed" free-for-all politics problem and skill differences suddenly mattering a lot more but without something like that in the roster it wouldnt feel the same. having 3 rounds in battle definitely helps a lot too by making it much less swingy. hitw has 3 rounds and nobody gives hitw any flak
I am the SMM of the minecraft event for Russian-speaking content makers, although I am not a developer, but I still know a lot and learn about the development of mini-games for the championship.
From my experience of developing new and reworking old PVP modes, I noticed one thing, every PVP game should be worth the risk. Any PVP game is a big risk in itself, many things in it depend on skill and teamwork, because it is PVP games at our event that bring the most coins. At the same time, there are two variables that have emerged the most during the development of two and the processing of two old mini-games: Balance and Purpose
Everything is simple with balance, you need to ensure the game so that all players feel confident and on equal terms, it doesn't matter if he is alone or the whole team is still alive. But with the goal, everything is more difficult, PVP games require you to have sufficient skill, however, in order to be able to apply it correctly, you need some kind of worthwhile goal. The example of the Battle shows that players do not want to go to fight because they will lose with a better chance than if they just wait until Instant Death. The risk should pay off in most cases, and here the risk is not worth it at all. Let's imagine a situation where four teams are left in a similar situation. Team1 decided to fight with Team2, it makes sense for the other two to either wait for the end to pick up the rest of the players, or attack late in order to get more from both teams. BUT even so, Team3 reduces its chances, in case Team4 decides to wait. Like many people, I would prefer not to go to certain death, but just to wait for equal conditions. Still, 25/25/25/25 is better than 10/10/30/50
Okay, let's continue the topic with a goal, but in a different way.
Battle Box, it seems to me, is an ideal game in terms of balance and goals, because various tactics can be based on it. BB has a clear goal and balance. The goal is to fill the center. Balance is provided by kits and a maps for the game. Yes, there are failures somewhere, such as with the last card for BB, where it was easy to get confused in the map while the opposing team fills the center absolutely without resistance. But that's why we are developers, to listen to the opinion of the players and create a more competitive and honest environment.
When will people understand that you need to make events fun for lower skilled players to be able to maintain a healthy roster
while it doesn’t fix the structural issues with any individual game, I feel like replacing vanilla minecraft borders with custom round borders like in MCC Sky Battle to prevent corner camping could go a long way to improve the endgame of any applicable melee pvp game
My take on battle royale pvp games is that they will never have fair scoring between teams because teams cant be balanced specifically by how good they are at pvp without being unbalanced in some other aspect, the problem that pvp specifically has for this is that games like battle or sg have so much more point differential than any other game
yeah, i think the sg / battle format just promotes so much passive play and risk aversion it just doesn't work in a tourney format. I think the battle box round robin format works a bit better, as it's much less campy, but still leaves some players having a really bad time. also the point you made about the gulag is actually a very good point, it doesn't actually give the average player a second chance, it just means that fruit get's another chance to bully the middle frags
As an average Feinberg enjoyer, I have a warped sense of how good pvp games are, so as a viewer I like them, but I understand why most players have issues with them
pvp games can work but not if your just out after dying, big issue with sg is that some teams instantly die and have like 10 minutes of spectating, thats why bb for example is 100x better then sg imo
Why aren't there more PVP games with infinite respawns? It works well for Miner Mania but no other game does it, even though it prevents lower skilled players from being dead a lot of the time.
respawns only work when games are designed around them. There hasn't been a lot of time to see events make a new pvp game besides PB
Not an event game, not even a Java minigame for that matter, but Chronos is exactly what you're looking for - while definitely not infinite, it gives enough respawns that it makes the game way better imo
and like, the "point differential" problem is quite possibly the easiest issue to solve out of all the issues with PvP games, which is to just change the scoring to be less swingy / make other games' scoring swingier
fixing pvp scoring is definitely not easy, because the gameplay is elimination based. Elimination based gameplay scoring means 1 person gets a reward for killing, and the other person gets 0 points for dying. Very hard to balance properly without kills feeling meaningless
here's a thought. what if battle scoring was only based on your team's best round? obviously, it doesnt have to be as extreme as that, but it would encourage aggression while also reducing swinginess
this is honestly a very interesting thought, but I'm not sure how we'd execute it properly
You forgot Skyblockle (joking)
i like battle because its one of the few games where like. everyone is interacting with each other. naturally that comes with some unavoidable problems like the "cursed" free-for-all politics problem and skill differences suddenly mattering a lot more but without something like that in the roster it wouldnt feel the same. having 3 rounds in battle definitely helps a lot too by making it much less swingy. hitw has 3 rounds and nobody gives hitw any flak
hello everybody welcome back to wolfeei extras
Sounds like the only solution is to make hole in the wall a pvp game😁👍
yeah I'm sorry but i don't want to watch 4 games of grid runners and 4 games HITW
valid
I love controversy said noone (actually said everyone in their mind)
Wolfeei Battle crashout D:
Koas will not like that
kaos is like polar opposite opinion of me lol its funny
the solution is fortnite storm surge.
An easy fix: the more Players there are the more damage is worth, the less players the less its worth
crashout from blockwars
Day 80 of asking to get my comment pinned
Day 12 of having my comment pinned
pvp
i agree with your takes
+1
the video was posted 10 minutes ago and your comment was 8. you watched this whole thing in 2 minutes?
@BozBoy101 prewatched
@BozBoy101 skill diff