2 player vs browser game

[hallsofvallhalla]

I have been working with ajax quite a bit and getting allot of multiplayer techniques down. I started toying with the idea of a 2 player turn based war game like Magic the card game, Chess, Warhammer, ect.. Could be much like the collectible games. You battle players for points and with those points you get more cards, miniatures, ect... One player would take their turn and the screen would update for both, then end his turn and the next would go.

Wondering though if it would even be popular. What would I do when not enough players were online to play? DO people really enjoy 1 on 1 battles?

[Jackolantern]

There would have to be some kind of player vs. AI, which can be very hard in strategy games like that. Without it, the game would be a catch 22 where players will only stick around if there are other people online to play against. For a huge game like Magic, it was no problem to get enough players in the beginning to have enough players online, but for a smaller indie game, it could be a problem.

[Callan S.]

I thought for a moment you meant two people playing on the same computer...I'll keep that idea, even though it wasn't applicable.

Does it have to be real time? Or can someone post their move and then come back the next day to see the other guys move? People have played chess by snail mail (the old internet!) in much this way.

In terms of providing AI, taking Jackolanterns idea further, each player could have an AI they can set up to some extent. So it'd have a box where they could set it's percentage chance to use X power at a certain time, if you get what I mean. If their AI wins or does well, they get some points or such, so it's worth setting up.

When it draws on an AI, it picks one randomly from the player database, so in a way you are kind of playing against a player (his AI version!)

[Rastan]

I think if marketed in the right place the idea could go someplace. A lot of people enjoy those type of games. I was never big on them myself but my wife is. I think if it was presented in a place where you'd catch those people it wouldn't be a problem getting games to fill.

[PaxBritannia]

It would work provided there were enough people. Or else it turns into like one of those mmo's where you need a few player to start a battle. Players only login when they think there are people. If there aren't any, then you have a problem

Pax.

[hallsofvallhalla]

Agreed, i would have to come up with a real good AI. Blah, would take longer to code than the whole rest of the game

[Jackolantern]

Agreed, i would have to come up with a real good AI. Blah, would take longer to code than the whole rest of the game

Very true. Unfortunately, making solid AI for games like Magic the Gathering is extremely hard. Most commercial games just cheat with their AI and give the computer whatever cards the computer can easily figure out how to use. You could also do that, though. If the human player doesn't know what is in the computer's deck, you could just make a large database of triggers, where player lays down X card, and the computer will lay down X, Y, or Z to try to counter it. Not the most random or imaginative system, but it should be fairly randomized based on the player's strategy. Might be enough to keep it interesting while no other players are logged in.

[Achilles]

Actually if you check out the game Tactics Arena, it is a similar concept. Each player controls a set of units on a checkered board and they take turns attacking each other. There is quite a bit of people playing the game but the main problem is that they give an unfair advantage for paying players.

I would be very interested in how to make this type of game because I would like to build one myself.
A game focused on 1v1 strategic gaming and progression through player battle.

[Callan S.]

Agreed, i would have to come up with a real good AI. Blah, would take longer to code than the whole rest of the game

I don't think so - you could have quite poor, random AI - it's just a place filler between human players. Further, make it they can only have X number of AI matches per hour, so they can't just keep playing off agains the weak AI.

Anyway, in the end, make a game you would want to play Kind of like building a house - make one you'd want to live in

[Jackolantern]

Agreed, i would have to come up with a real good AI. Blah, would take longer to code than the whole rest of the game

I don't think so - you could have quite poor, random AI - it's just a place filler between human players. Further, make it they can only have X number of AI matches per hour, so they can't just keep playing off agains the weak AI.

The problem is getting the game community started. Unless you have a couple hundred thousand dollars to dump in to marketing, you will not have a flood of players in the beginning. And a game that relies almost totally on player vs. player interaction needs to have an abundance of players online, ready to play matches. A weak AI may be able to keep people's attention for a little while, but probably not long enough to keep people sticking around to expand the online population.

Although when you say to limit the player's ability to play the computer, that kind of gave me an idea. You could have a weak, punching bag AI where victories let the players build up points somewhat slowly for gaining new cards or abilities. Don't limit them at this however, so that they will stick around for long periods, thinking that they are doing extremely well and getting somewhere by repeatedly beating it (or maybe even think they are pulling one over on the game). That way, an AI may actually be able to keep people logged in long enough to expand the community. Then just offer another, more powerful kind of progression for playing against players, so that you can actually pull them away from beating up the AI for a PvP match. You just need a way to get people to stick around long enough to build up the community