非对称游戏服务器设计_非对称游戏设计

非对称游戏服务器设计

When it comes to delivering unique multiplayer experiences, asymmetrical game design is both one of the best and one of the worst approaches. To be more specific: it can be difficult to figure out how to create a sense of balance when the fundamental goal of asymmetrical game design is to achieve deliberate imbalance. It’s certainly a big design challenge, and it warrants a specific focus.

它涉及到提供独一无二的多人体验W¯¯母鸡，不对称的游戏设计是最好的两个之一，最糟糕的方法之一。 更具体地说：当非对称游戏设计的基本目标是实现故意的不平衡时，很难想出如何创造一种平衡感。 这无疑是一个巨大的设计挑战，需要特别关注。

部分不对称与完全不对称 (Partial versus full asymmetry)

Let’s start by taking a step back and looking at today’s multiplayer experiences: these are mostly built upon some form of asymmetry. What this means is that while each player might be operating from the same fundamental rules or gameplay elements, there are in-built variations in the game that spice things up by creating deliberate asymmetry between players. Fighting games, team-based shooters, and even MOBAs are examples of this.

让我们先退后一步，看看当今的多人游戏体验：这些体验大多建立在某种形式的不对称性之上。 这意味着尽管每个玩家可能都使用相同的基本规则或游戏玩法元素进行操作，但游戏中存在内置的变化，这些变化通过在玩家之间造成故意的不对称性而使事情变得更糟。 格斗游戏，基于团队的射击游戏，甚至是MOBA就是这样的例子。

Partial asymmetry provides a basis for the designer to balance gameplay around a single loop and then add tweaks on top. Working from such a baseline allows creators to imagine different ways to “stretch” the design in order to create different characters, builds, and so on.

部分不对称性为设计人员提供了一个基础，使其可以围绕单个循环平衡游戏玩法，然后在顶部进行调整。 从这样的基准开始，创作者可以想象出不同的方法来“拉伸”设计，以创建不同的角色，构造等。

Full asymmetry, on the other hand, is where you have players taking advantage of completely different gameplay loops while they are engaging with each other at the same time. I can think of a handful of games that went this route: Left 4 Dead, Natural Selection, Evolve, and Dead by Daylight come to mind. I’m sure there are other examples, too. In this context, full asymmetry provides a unique experience for different groups of players. Typically, group A has to complete some kind of task while group B is attempting to stop them. In Natural Selection’s case, both groups are trying to kill each other, but they each have different game mechanics available to them to achieve this goal.

另一方面，完全不对称是指玩家在彼此互动的同时充分利用完全不同的游戏循环。 我可以想到一些遵循这种方式的游戏：想到了Left 4 Dead ， Natural Selection ， Evolve和Dead by Daylight 。 我敢肯定，还有其他例子。 在这种情况下，完全不对称为不同的玩家群体提供了独特的体验。 通常，在B组尝试停止它们时，A组必须完成某种任务。 在自然选择的情况下，两个小组都试图互相残杀，但是他们各自拥有不同的游戏机制以实现这一目标。

Both kinds of asymmetry can lead to genuinely unique and innovative game experiences — however, the effort that goes into making these titles feel appropriately “balanced” (so that neither group on either side of the asymmetrical divide feels inherently disadvantaged), can be never-ending.

两种不对称性都可以带来真正独特和创新的游戏体验，但是，使这些游戏获得适当“平衡”的努力(以至于不对称鸿沟两侧的任何一方都不会遭受固有的不利影响)，这是永远不可能的。结尾。

当事情没有加起来 (When things don’t add up)

There’s a lot to unpack here — definitely more than is possible in a single article. But if I take the single biggest challenge as a focal point, it would be this: how do you, as a developer, balance player choices that have no directly-comparable elements?

这里有很多需要解压缩的东西-绝对比单篇文章中可能提到的要多。 但是，如果我将最大的挑战作为一个重点，那就是：作为开发人员，您如何平衡没有直接可比元素的玩家选择？

When you play a collectible card game (CCG) that contains different factions/builds, each of these purposely contains choices and options that are unique. If I’m playing Hearthstone, I don’t expect the mage to start buffing cards like the paladin and vice-versa. This is why so much work is done when it comes to balancing the stats of unit cards and mana cost, because they’re universal across all factions.

当您玩一个包含不同派系/构造的收藏卡游戏(CCG)时，每个目标故意包含独特的选择和选项。 如果我在玩《 炉石传说》 ，我不希望这名法师开始像圣骑士那样开始抛光牌，反之亦然。 这就是为什么要在平衡单位卡和法力值的统计上进行大量工作的原因，因为它们在所有派系中都是通用的。

But unique gameplay elements are different, because there is no 1:1 relation between different options. From a design standpoint, is it more beneficial to teleport around or summon minions, for example? The problem with that question is that it’s not possible to answer in a vacuum. A more concrete example might be the asymmetrical gameplay present in titles like Left 4 Dead and Dead by Daylight. Here, there are two very different gameplay loops occurring simultaneously. Changing the stats or dynamics of one group could negatively impact the other — thus removing (or reducing) the incentive for people to join a particular side.

但是独特的游戏元素是不同的，因为不同的选项之间没有1：1的关系。 从设计的角度来看，例如传送或召唤小兵会更有益吗？ 这个问题的问题在于不可能在真空中回答。 一个更具体的例子可能是在《 Left 4 Dead》和《 Daylight Dead 》等游戏中出现的不对称游戏玩法。 在这里，同时发生两个非常不同的游戏循环。 更改一组的统计信息或动态可能会对另一组产生负面影响，从而消除(或减少)人们加入特定方面的动机。

So, how to address this problem? Well, ultimately, I think the answer is related to how one group is able to respond to the other; the interplay between asymmetrical groups.

那么，如何解决这个问题呢？ 好吧，归根结底，我认为答案与一个群体如何回应另一群体有关。 不对称群体之间的相互作用。

与数字无关 (It’s not about numbers)

When thinking about this interplay between different groups in an asymmetrical gameplay context, it’s important to consider the impact that individual tactics have in-game. For example, if a particular tactic is available that enables players to quickly win every time (and that’s easy to pull off), it could imbalance the game to the point where it’s broken. On the other hand, an ultra-powerful tactic that requires a great deal of work to execute might be fine because it acts as a reward for players learning — and perhaps mastering — the game.

在不对称的游戏环境中考虑不同群体之间的这种相互作用时，重要的是要考虑各个战术对游戏的影响。 例如，如果有一种特殊的战术可以使玩家每次都能快速获胜(并且很容易实现)，那么这可能会使游戏失去平衡，直至崩溃。 另一方面，需要执行大量工作才能执行的超强大策略可能很好，因为它可以作为玩家学习(甚至可能精通)游戏的奖励。

When thinking about the design of these gameplay mechanics, the important point is that it’s not about ensuring a perfect 1:1 balance between two asymmetrical sides. Rather, it’s more about enabling a stable back-and-forth involving a reasonable action-and-response flow.

在考虑这些游戏机制的设计时，重要的一点是，这并不是要确保两个不对称侧面之间的完美1：1平衡。 而是要实现涉及合理的操作和响应流的稳定往返。

(Ed: This reminds me of the way many asymmetrical multiplayer games contain a kind of “rock-paper-scissors” attribute that might affect weapons, items, or even special abilities. Although each side of the asymmetrical divide might have different specific capabilities, it’s actually possible to design a sensible back-and-forth system that allows for an asymmetrical “conversation” to happen. I think this is actually one thing that works really well in games like Apex Legends and other well-balanced online shooters).

(编者：(这使我想起了很多非对称多人游戏)包含一种可能会影响武器，物品甚至特殊能力的“剪刀石头布”属性的方式。尽管非对称鸿沟的每一面可能具有不同的特定功能，实际上，有可能设计一个合理的来回系统，以允许不对称的“对话”发生。我认为这实际上是一件事情，在《 Apex Legends》 和其他平衡良好的在线射击 游戏中确实很有效 。

One of the biggest design issues in the original Left 4 Dead was that the zombies (who formed a single, asymmetrical group) were far too weak when it came to facing a well-coordinated team of survivors (the players were, of course, the opposing group, with their own unique abilities). There were some natural dead-ends here: the zombies were simply unable to respond to a group of survivors who were hunkered down, for example. Valve’s answer in Left 4 Dead 2 was to introduce new, special kinds of zombies that were deliberately designed to break up a survivor group (the spitter, jockey, and charger).

最初的《 Left 4 Dead 》中最大的设计问题之一是，僵尸(组成一个单一的，不对称的群体)在面对一个协调良好的幸存者团队时过于脆弱(当然，玩家是对立的群体，具有自己的独特能力)。 这里有一些自然的死胡同：例如，僵尸根本无法应对一群被迫死的生还者。 Valve在《 Left 4 Dead 2》中的答案是引入新的特殊类型的僵尸，这些僵尸被故意用来分解幸存者群体(飞溅者，骑师和充电器)。

Consider what Valve did there. They could have just raised the stats on the original game’s zombies, making them more powerful — but this wouldn’t have solved the problem. It wasn’t about numbers per se, it was a fundamental design issue related to the interaction between game mechanics/abilities on two sides of the asymmetrical divide.

考虑一下Valve在这里做了什么。 他们本可以提高原始游戏的僵尸的统计数据，使其更加强大-但这无法解决问题。 这与数字本身无关，它是一个基本的设计问题，与非对称鸿沟两侧的游戏机制/能力之间的相互作用有关。

技能元 (The skill meta)

There’s another important element here that needs to be mentioned: player skill level. No matter what systems you design, you’re always going to be dealing with many players experiencing the game at different levels of skill and experience. Certain design features might not seem balanced to novices, but might be perfectly acceptable to high-level players.

这里需要提及的另一个重要因素是：玩家的技能水平。 无论您设计哪种系统，您都将始终与许多经验丰富，经验丰富的玩家打交道。 某些设计功能对于新手来说似乎并不平衡，但对于高级玩家来说可能是完全可以接受的。

There are at least some remedies to this, though: tutorials and matchmaking are good starting points. On the latter point, it’s important to point out that you never want both experts and newcomers grouped together in a quick match, because in that case, neither group is going to have a good time. It’s important to consider how to appropriately funnel players of different skill levels down paths that make sense for them, because you don’t want to be in the position of adjusting the core game mechanics just to suit a novice audience — this could easily lead to major imbalances at high-level play (and vice-versa).

不过，至少有一些补救措施：教程和配对是很好的起点。 关于后一点，重要的是要指出，您永远都不想让专家和新手同时参加快速比赛，因为在这种情况下，两个小组都不会度过愉快的时光。 重要的是要考虑如何适当地将不同技能水平的玩家分配到对他们有意义的路径上，因为您不想只是为了适应新手受众而调整核心游戏机制，这很容易导致高水平比赛中的严重失衡(反之亦然)。

Speaking of this, Dead by Daylight is something of a curious case here. When you play as a beginner, the killer has a major advantage (especially if they are experienced). But a team of expert survivors — with fully upgraded perks — will have a much easier time. This is perhaps a case where the nature of the game changes in a fun and interesting way as players of different skill levels are brought together.

说到这一点， “死于日光”在这里是一个奇怪的案例。 当您作为初学者玩耍时，杀手有很大的优势(尤其是有经验的人)。 但是，由专业幸存者组成的团队将充分享受特权，他们的时间将会轻松得多。 在这种情况下，由于技能水平不同的玩家聚集在一起，游戏的性质以一种有趣的方式发生了变化。

Actually, speaking of different skill levels, it’s worth noting that you should pay attention to games that assign a “leader” to a group — always make sure you give players the option to decline or pass the baton. One of the most stressful things I experienced when playing Natural Selection 2 was being assigned the commander role and having no idea what I was doing.

实际上，在谈到不同的技能水平时，值得注意的是，您应该注意将“领导者”分配给组的游戏-始终确保您为玩家提供了拒绝或传递接力棒的选择。 我在玩《 自然选择2》时遇到的最紧张的事情之一是被分配为指挥官角色，却不知道我在做什么。

Asymmetrical game design is very difficult to successfully pull off; and again, I think that’s why so few games go this route. When it works — as in Left 4 Dead — it can provide a truly awesome, unique multiplayer experience.

非对称游戏设计很难成功实现。 再说一次，我认为这就是为什么很少有游戏能走这条路的原因。 当它工作时(如《 Left 4 Dead》中一样) ，它可以提供真正令人敬畏的独特多人游戏体验。

I hope you enjoyed this article. I’d like to leave you with a question (please feel free to comment below): can you think of some great examples of asymmetrical gameplay, and perhaps some not so great ones?

希望您喜欢这篇文章。 我想提一个问题(请在下面随意评论)： 您能想到一些非对称游戏性的好例子，也许不是那么好吗？

Game-Wisdom. Edited and re-published with permission. Game-Wisdom提供 。 经许可编辑并重新发布。

翻译自: https://medium.com/super-jump/asymmetrical-game-design-2d3ccbc2b4ab

非对称游戏服务器设计