游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

论述社交&硬核MMO游戏的社交互动机制

作者:Matt Ricchetti

谈到在线社交游戏,我们通常会立即想到两类内容:休闲社交游戏和硬核MMO游戏。虽然传统游戏设计师不满休闲游戏,称其依靠条件反射作用促使我们进行强制性操作,但这些游戏在Facebook和手机平台极度风靡。MMO游戏虽然备受追捧,但其已顺利运作许多年,获得非常忠实的粉丝群体。促使两类游戏获得成功的一个共同因素在于他们的独特社交机制,这可以总结为如下内容:

休闲社交游戏:

* 邀请“邻居”,赠送礼物,拜访好友的体验空间

* 非对称松散关系的异步体验模式

硬核MMO游戏:

* 形成党派及加入公会,同公会成员聊天,协调即时团体战斗

* 属于着眼于能够促成密切联系的对称关系的的同步玩法

作为Kabam硬核策略MMO游戏设计师/制作人及Zynga休闲社交游戏前任设计师/制作人,我非常熟悉这两类社交机制。我发现二者都能够带来富有粘性的玩法体验,表现都不相上下。

事实上,免费(F2P)、在线和多人体验在整个游戏市场中占较大份额,如今有越来越多的作品巧妙地将休闲和硬核题材的社交机制结合起来。《英雄联盟》就是很好的例子:Riot的返回DotA通过结合MMORPG PvP战斗、RTS决斗及更具休闲性的F2P游戏社交机制创造全新题材,多人在线战斗空间(MOB),从中获得丰厚收益。

Lobby screen in League of Legends from gamasutra.com

Lobby screen in League of Legends from gamasutra.com

“社交”元素的发展大多受到F2P商业模式的推动。传统零售游戏只涉及一个用户决策:购买或不购买。而F2P游戏则需要玩家和开发者持续进行互动。由于准入门槛很低,玩家对于F2P游戏的忠诚度不是很高。这意味着开发者和发行商需要尽自己所能让玩家保有较高粘性,定期访问游戏。这可以通过核心玩法和高效创收机制实现;离开你已投入大量时间和金钱的游戏的机会成本相当高。

但“众包”粘性和留存率Vs.吸引眼球的社交功能依然是促使游戏既富有粘性又趣味横生的有效方式之一。单人游戏是种游戏,社交游戏则是包含各种有趣人际关系的社区:竞争、合作、同伴压力、叛乱、嫉妒及同情等更多因素。在电脑上体验《Scrabble》和《Words with Friends》所存在的差异体现在消磨时间和流行文化现象之别。

所以就今天的F2P在线社交游戏来说,“社交性”关乎用户体验和商业模式(游戏邦注:二者不可分离)。游戏设计师得判断哪种社交机制适合其作品的目标市场、玩法和商业模式。这些机制是在休闲Facebook游戏,还是硬核MMO游戏中出现无关紧要。

本文将基于3种一般探索方法分析用户互动,而不是通过有限二元透视方式。此方法的优点在于,这些探索方法能够运用至任何在线多人游戏中。在从特定游戏设计内容中释放出后,他们的功能价值变得更加突出。开发者因此得以选择最适合游戏设计的互动方式。

归类社交机制的3种探索方式

有关3种我们即将探讨的社交机制,一种是社交互动的时机,两种涉及社交关系类型。总的来说,这些机制概括多数在线游戏的社交互动内容:

* 同步Vs.异步用户互动:互动是即时同步发生,还是像回合游戏那样呈现于不同时间段?

* 对称Vs.非对称关系模式:形成关系是需要双方的输入内容,还是能够由单方构成?

* 紧密关系Vs.松散关系的发展:关系是会变得深刻而持久,还是浅显而短暂?

Three heuristics for social game features from gamasutra.com

Three heuristics for social game features from gamasutra.com

下面我们将依次分析这些探索方法。

同步vs.异步

同步玩法的理念非常直观——玩家即时而不是依次进行互动。同步社交互动的例子包括文本聊天、视频聊天、用户vs.用户(PvP)战斗(游戏邦注:PvP属于一种社交互动方式)。同步玩法的覆盖范围从两位用户的正面交锋(例如耳语和决斗)到庞大团队交互活动(例如,大厅团体和突袭)。

下面就来具体谈谈聊天功能,因为这是提高休闲和MMO游戏用户粘性和留存率的强大同步工具。

* 新玩家会通过聊天功能结交朋友及询问基本问题。

* 经验丰富的玩家可以通过聊天功能炫耀自己的游戏成就,获得真正的友谊(游戏邦注:同时又通过各种活动消磨时间)。

* 硬核玩家通过聊天功能协调复杂团队体验(例如公会/联盟)及管理紧张局势和竞争关系。

无论这是用于经营《旧共和国》的主要公会,还是协助完成有关Pogo.com的徽章书籍,聊天都存在相似效果:提高用户粘性及长期留存率。如游戏存在活跃的支撑社区,玩家就会更频繁返回游戏,比较不会转而选择其他作品。在Kabam,我们发现这点弥足珍贵,因为我们尝试将更多硬核元素带入Facebook和网页游戏。

异步互动

“异步游戏”首先容易让人联想到较为缓慢或不那么稳固的内容,但异步玩法也可以和同步玩法一样富有粘性——不妨想想和好友玩国际象棋,或是基于邮件的外交手腕。异步玩法各式各样,常见类型如下:

1. 基于回合模式的共享游戏:这类题材的例子包括《With Friends》系列,及我的最爱《卡卡颂》。它们在社交性方面表现突出,原因如下:

* 每个操作都是个迷你游戏

* 存在返回游戏,完成下个回合的社交压力

* 正面竞争的挑战

* 小规模玩法容易适应日程安排

* 玩家能够同时体验多种游戏

Asynchronous head-to-head play in Carcassonne from from gamasutra.com

Asynchronous head-to-head play in Carcassonne from from gamasutra.com

2. 基于回合挑战的游戏:从根本来说,这包含两个独立组合:我玩你的AI,你玩我的AI;基于总计分数判断赢家。一个典型例子就是Facebook平台的足球游戏《Bola》。他们的社交性体现在如下方面:

* 回馈挑战内容所存在的社交压力

* 正面竞争

* 相比共享回合模式,内容包含较少等待机制,因为各玩家能够独立完成整个游戏内容。

* 进攻和防御的各种策略极大丰富体验内容

3. 基于分数的挑战游戏:这是传统的“击败我的高分”模式,如《宝石迷阵闪电战》。这些游戏存在社交性,原因如下:

* 回馈挑战内容的社交压力(需要高人一筹的做法)

* 正面竞争,及遍布游戏的排行榜元素。

* 比回合模式的游戏融入更少等待因素,因为玩家会随时争取获得高分。

* 从另一方面来看,这些类型的游戏其实不那么具有社交性。

4. 开放世界的异步游戏:从很多方面看,这是标准的Facebook游戏模式,被运用至《FarmVille》之类的游戏中。这也是包含较深刻社交互动元素的新颖游戏所采用的游戏模式,如《Empires & Allies》和《Backyard Monsters》。他们具有社交性是因为:

* 模型支持各种游戏模式,包括单人和多人PvE及PvP。

* 能够在没有引入即时体验技术挑战的前提下朝MMO模式靠拢。

* 依然呈现休闲游戏的方便特点——能够在不同时间段进行较短的体验。

对称vs.非对称

能够促进我们把握此探索方法的最佳范例要数Facebook vs.Twitter社交关系的形成。

Facebook社交关系具有对称性:我请求变成你的好友,你需要给予同意回复,此关系方能形成:

* 核心社交单元:“好友”

* 优点:

—互相认可带来信任感

—允许更深层次的共享

* 弊端:

—属于仅限于好友的现场互动

—好友关系需要管理工具(游戏邦注:有时相当复杂)

Twitter社交关系具有非对称性:我可以在无需对方回复的情况下“关注”任何人:

* 核心社交单元:“粉丝”

优点:

—允许广泛传播

—促进信息的快速传播

* 弊端

—核心社交单元的投入性较低

—不那么具有私人空间,更多是平淡无奇的内容,因为传播筛选设备不是很复杂。

在线对称社交互动的例子包括交友、邻居机制、馈赠礼物、私人聊天及基于团体的帮派、联盟及手动多人配对。非对称社交互动包括个人范围内的关注、消息发布、发微博及撰写博客,以及团体规模的斗阵任务、帮派及随机配对。

下面就来深入探讨在线游戏的对称和非对称关系模式。

对称互动

在线游戏对称关系的典型范例就是MMORPG帮派。在MMORPG中形成团体需要同时获得邀请者和受邀请者的同意,通常是邀请者想要控制和自己共同探险的对象。

虽然这意味着受邀请者有时会只收到很少的邀请(或很多被忽略的请求),但这使得邀请者能够在组建团队时区分优劣。这令团队成员建立更牢固的关系,在PvE中创造有形“敌我”心理,形成高效的类组合,促进玩家进行符合关卡的道具和信息交易。

虽然Facebook游戏不是以这类对称关系著称,但这些元素确实存在于许多平台游戏中。例如,广泛存在于《FarmVille》这类游戏中的邻居机制就是个对称社交关系。就连置身同款游戏,已是FB好友的玩家也需要互相建立“邻居”关系。这种额外的社交障碍造就持续性的“利益朋友”互动关系,其中玩家互相赠送更多礼物,互相解锁“社交关口”(游戏邦注:例如,“你需要将5位好友安置于此建筑中”,或者“你需要10个解锁门的密钥”)。

Friend ladder in Cityville from from gamasutra.com

Friend ladder in Cityville from from gamasutra.com

非对称互动

Facebook游戏还存在许多非对称社交活动。和邻居机制不同,许多游戏允许玩家直接将自己的Facebook好友添加至体验空间中,无需征得好友的同意(例如《宝石迷阵闪电战》)。在我们Kabam的作品《Dragons of Atlantis》中,玩家可以选择任何一位Facebook好友充当军队的将军,即便他们没有频繁体验这款游戏。

这些类型的游戏比上述邻居机制更为浅显,但由于它们涉猎广泛,因此能够降低互动障碍,在玩家间建立密切关系。在《宝石迷阵闪电战》中,允许玩家查看好友的高分,从而产生追逐心理非常重要。游戏若未融入显眼的排行榜就无法实现此目标。在《Dragons of Atlantis》中,邀请非玩家好友充当将军的优点是,能够通过墙面公告以个性化方式提高游戏在潜在新玩家中的曝光度。

非对称关系也存在于MMO游戏中。典型例子就是《Warhammer Online》中的“斗阵任务”功能。这类团体PvE旨在促使游戏自动基于斗阵任务点附近的所有玩家建立临时帮派,从而避开对称团体结构的常规障碍。例如,若某地已被恶龙统治,附近人员就会自动加入斗阵任务,将龙杀死。玩家能够轻松感受到团队体验模式,然后在随后的过程中按照自己的方式进行操作。低社交障碍让玩家能够进行更频繁的合作,虽然这意味着游戏需要放弃常规团队元素,如聊天和道具买卖。

紧密联系vs.松散联系

对称vs.非对称描述关系形成方式,但未呈现其发展模式。例如,居于在线游戏约会地点的“Long-term Relationships Only”区域遇见的玩家比在“Casual Encounters”区域遇见的玩家结婚率更高——但情况并不总是如此。最终关系还是取决于初次见面后所发生的情况。密切联系vs.松散联系是衡量社交关系发展情况的简单探索方式,其焦点在于互动深度。

密切关系的覆盖范围从1:1模式(例如双人合作体验模式和RPG玩家)到团队团队(公会、联盟和社团)。松散游戏关系同样也是小到1:1模式(如游戏邻居),大到团队规模(帮派、级别和比赛模式)。

帮派vs.公会

紧密联系通常具有对称性——这有其道理,对称模式的必要条件就清楚表明其中关系瞄准更深层次的共享。相反,松散关系则属于非对称性,虽然这并不是绝对情况。

公会vs.帮派是MMORPG紧密关系vs.松散关系的典型例子。玩家通常会在游戏开始选择自己的帮派(例如,非对称性)。帮派关系在决定玩家体验的核心要素方面扮演重要角色,例如玩家将会接触到的类别,他将在何处进行自己的探险活动,以及他将遇到什么关卡。就社交性方面来看,它就像是遍布各处的胶质,将“我们”同“他们”分隔开来,或是将“好伙伴”和“坏伙伴”区分开来。所以即便玩家遇见某位和自己毫无共同之处的伙伴,共同帮派也会给他们的关系形成奠定基础。

公会则截然不同,它们通常不会影响玩家的核心体验,所以从根本角度看,它们也不是初期游戏体验的关键要素。但只要玩家参与至优秀公会,它所带来的直接社交益处就会直接转变成游戏变化。公会是玩家买卖道具、学习最佳策略及技巧,以及获得法术及其他益处,当然还有结交朋友的地点。我们可以谈论众多有关《Chronicles of Merlin》联盟(例如,公会)成员的个人信息,尽管我们并不知道他们的名字或者从未见过他们。我们甚至还有自己的Facebook页面,会在游戏之外同其他玩家进行互动。

Alliance leaderboard in Chronicles of Merlin from from gamasutra.com

Alliance leaderboard in Chronicles of Merlin from from gamasutra.com

帮派vs.邻居

松散关系并不总是属于非对称模式。上面提到的Facebook邻居其实就是对称松散关系的典型例子。邻居关系旨在共享礼物和少量虚拟货币,而不是为了进行广泛聊天,制定战略或进行合作。这里对称关系只是为了更好地充分发挥Facebook平台的传播性。要求玩家确定邻居关系能够促使他们互相发送请求,这是值得鼓励的游戏初期重要操作。

类别细分化

松散关系并不总是等同于较低游戏影响。就如上面所提到的,帮派在塑造玩家体验方面扮演重要角色。另一松散关系的典型范例是类别细分化。类别细分化显然具有社交性;它促使团队战斗存在相互依赖性,定义MMO经典的受攻击者/治愈者/DPS三元组。

但它并不是紧密联系。你我都是魔术师并不代表着我们将变成可靠的朋友。相反,和帮派一样,类别细分化是定义玩法结果的宽泛恒定元素。有趣的是,由于类别细分化具有非对称性,你最终也许会得到过多的同类玩家。虽然多数游戏都具有平衡性,但从在全球范围内来看就不是如此,我们多数人体验的依然是糟糕的PvP战斗,其中一方由于缺乏“___”或拥有过多“___”而重复进行摧毁操作(游戏邦注:你可以在上面的横线中填入受攻击者/治愈者/DPS内容)。

案例学习:《亚瑟王国》

综述

为更好说明如何通过这些探索方法把握社交机制内容,我将把这些方法具体运用至一款我再熟悉不过的游戏——《亚瑟王国》。

我们刚着手《亚瑟王国》时雄心勃勃:制作一款Facebook MMO游戏。我们意图将硬核策略玩法同Facebook的内置社交/传播渠道及深层次的免费模式用户粘性和创收模式结合起来。

凭借技能、运气和毅力,我们最终实现自己的目标,制作出一款相当成功的Facebook游戏。《亚瑟王国》在2年后的表现依然相当突出,如今游戏依然是各个平台的热门策略游戏之一,目前有49万的MAU,所以我们的理念完全正确—–尤其是在社交性方面。

下面就来看看游戏的表现突出之处,及我们能够在MMO和Facebook社交元素方面做出什么调整。

Facebook游戏《亚瑟王国》

《亚瑟王国》在Facebook的表现相当突出,游戏中玩家可以扮演单人模式的任务推动型城市建设者。适合Facebook的主要社交机制包括异步战斗、邀请/请求之类的好友梯子、资源赠予及针对建造帮助等活动的病毒式传播内容。

战斗:《亚瑟王国》中的战斗属于异步模式:攻击者针可以对任何玩家发动战斗(游戏邦注:即便是离线玩家),他的军队会朝地图上的目标迈进,随后战斗情况和结果就会在操作完成后以公告形式发送至玩家的收件箱。此简单定时机制既支持小规模的Facebook体验模式,又接受有趣的PvP模式。

《亚瑟王国》也属于非对称模式,其中玩家可以锁定任何目标。这款游戏的空间是开放的战地,并没有像某些PvP机制那样融入大厅或配对元素。“始终在线”功能也受到极大削弱,因为初始玩家能够避开进攻,玩家可以将自己的军队隐藏至“避难所”,防止自己在离线时失去这些人员。

Battle report screen in KoC from from gamasutra.com

Battle report screen in KoC from from gamasutra.com

邀请/Request机制(异步,非对称):和所有Facebook游戏一样,玩家爱可以向好友发出邀请,创建好友阶梯。你可以邀请好友充当领导军队的骑士,你可以向好友赠送资源礼物和军队。玩家可以随时和离线好友互动(异步),但好友需接收邀请和请求(对称)。

社交消息公告(异步,非对称性):《亚瑟王国》的消息公告和其他游戏类似,但更着重物质元素,即游戏奖励(游戏邦注:主要通过炫耀)。例如,玩家可以通过分享Merlin的魔法盒符号赢得免费虚拟商品或发布病毒式传播消息“Build with Help”请求,在此玩家的Facebook好友只要进行点击,玩家就能够缩短建筑创建时间、调研耗费时间或军队训练时间。

补充内容

可取之处:

* 通过添加异步战斗内容进一步发展Facebook城建题材

* 植入能够提高病毒式传播/粘性的Facebook核心渠道

提升空间:

* Facebook渠道的植入方式不像其他游戏那么深入

* 没有“好友拜访”或满足虚荣心的社交状态

* 好友邀请和馈赠没有同游戏进程或游戏资源绑定

* 消息公告只被运用至若干功能中,旨在限制病毒式传播。

除了基于核心的Facebook整合机制,《亚瑟王国》的创造性还体现在它就像是一款真正的MMO:包括社交和战斗功能中的突发性行为都带给玩家深刻的沉浸式体验。游戏的战斗系统突出了开放世界的PvP模式,比赛以及排行榜,正如以玩家为主导的MMO游戏那样。而其中所包含的传统MMO社交功能还有:联盟,聊天,发送信息以及交易。

MMO战斗(同步,紧密联系):因为《亚瑟王国》的战斗系统是基于开放世界群组的PvP,所以能够驱动同步且紧密联系的社交互动行为。尽管个体攻击都是异步的,但是如果玩家能够结成联盟,便能即时进行规划,谋略并发动一系列攻击。

游戏中定期举办比赛并让玩家能够从中获得奖励并进入全新世界,如此不仅能够创造更多不同的PvP竞争模式,同时也能够鼓励玩家反复回到游戏中进行挑战。而个体和联盟排行榜作为游戏战斗的测量杖,有利于进一步提高玩家在游戏中的社会地位感并增强其竞争意识。

联盟(同步,紧密联系):游戏的联盟结构和社交工具能够促成玩家间的紧密联系。

游戏中的“联盟外交”功能让游戏联盟能够将其它联盟当成朋友,敌人或中立者,并创造一种对称(即联盟双方必须遵守共同的外交标准),异步(联盟双方不需要同时在线才能进行外交)且紧密联系(永无止尽地争夺地位)的联盟社交游戏元素。

同一个联盟中所存在的不同社会地位和力量差距也产生了一种紧密的联系。即每个联盟中都有一些精英玩家扮演着领导者的角色,如“Chancellors”和“Vice Chancellors”,并由他们决定谁有资格加入该联盟。

对于玩家来说,被一个联盟拒绝就像是被一所名校或者一份好工作拒绝一样:这将激励他们更加奋进,并努力组建一个更强大的敌对联盟而让之前的联盟后悔自己的决定。

而联盟与其它同步且紧密联系的社交工具(游戏邦注:如聊天,发送信息和战斗报告)的区别就在于前者还允许联盟之间进行相互交流,制定策略并即时传递信息。比如一个联盟的玩家与其它联盟玩家的相互描述可能完全不同于他们之间的外部交流。

聊天(同步):《亚瑟王国》中的聊天功能是一种重要的同步社交功能,能够让游戏世界更加生动且更具有实时性。三种不同层次的聊天功能让玩家能够通过三种不同的方法进行交流。联盟聊天和私聊渠道(对称,紧密联系)让玩家能够在等待建造过程中培养彼此间的关系。全球化聊天渠道(紧密或薄弱的联系)允许新手提出各种问题,并且能够鼓励不同联盟之间进行言语上的挑衅。

《亚瑟王国》联盟聊天系统(from gamasutra)

《亚瑟王国》联盟聊天系统(from gamasutra)

发送信息和交易(异步):发送信息(对称,紧密联系)是用于传达机构信息和后勤情报:联盟规则,公告,战斗计划,敌人信息等。资源交易(对称,薄弱的联系)属于非战斗的游戏层面,是关于玩家间买卖商品的社交互动行为。

可借鉴之处

《亚瑟王国》为Facebook社交游戏注入了同步且紧密联系的MMO游戏元素,在此平台上创造了一种全新的游戏体验。

可取之处:

*基于Facebook游戏的分层同步MMO PvP战斗模式

*将紧密的联盟关系作为游戏基础

*以社交工具支持着战斗系统,从而造成对同步/异步以及对称/不对称关系的影响

提升空间:

*通过添加额外的战略/战术而加深战斗系统(如PvP模式外还有PvE模式)

*进一步延伸联盟的社会结构(例如,除了工具和分享资源外还支持更广泛的游戏形式)

*提供额外的交流工具(例如,对于关键事件/交互的离线通知,联盟军官及其下属的额外交流渠道等)

结论

当在线游戏变得越来越单调时,我们有必要进行更多社交创新。而当我们在Facebook上创建了早期硬核MMO《亚瑟王国》时,我们更加清楚地意识到这款游戏与之前游戏的区别。从那以后,Facebook越来越倾向于MMO,并且出现了越来越多PvP游戏。甚至一些休闲游戏开发巨头如Digital Chocolate和Zynga也加入了这一行列,分别推出了《Army Attack》和《Empires & Allies》。

《亚瑟王国》场景(from gamasutra)

《亚瑟王国》场景(from gamasutra)

与此同时,一些非Facebook游戏场景也变得越来越“休闲”(或者更加具有社交性)。现在的玩家希望所有在线游戏能够同时提供完整的多人游戏功能以及交互式功能。特别是在近来的AAA级MMO社交游戏机制中表现得更加明显。

举些例子来说,《魔兽世界》在最近更新内容中将“灾难”场景添加到公会袭击功能中,而让玩家更容易接近PvE模式。《星球大战:旧共和国》这款MMO游戏让玩家既能够单独进行探索也能够加入混合类别的派系中进行冒险。

不同类别的故事探索是《旧共和国》与早前游戏的最大不同,并且也体现出了游戏对于社交易用性的明显妥协。

最后,免费游戏模式也开始影响游戏元素。大多数早前的订阅MMO,如《龙与地下城OL》,《科南时代》,《指环王OL》也都开始向F2P模式转移。而一些非MMO的硬核游戏,如《军团要塞2》也开始使用F2P模式。世嘉不久前也公开了他们针对于PlayStation Vita平台的第一款真正F2P游戏《Samurai & Dragons》,这款游戏取材于畅销iOS游戏《王国征服》。

如此变化也意味着我们的游戏更难凸显于众多竞争对手中,但是也正是如此,独创性变得越来越重要了。

利用这些探索法

我们所描写的三大探索法并非适用于所有社交游戏设计,但是它们却具有很强的教育性。你可以使用这些方法去评估现有的游戏或设计新游戏。

对于现有的游戏,你可以基于这些探索法分解你的社交机制,判断这些同步/异步,同步/对称以及紧密联系/薄弱联系功能的使用是否合理。并自问所使用的方法是否真的适合玩家,游戏玩法以及目标平台。例如,年长的玩家可能不喜欢同步玩法,而年轻玩家则钟情于这种玩法;“充满紧张感”的街机游戏不适合紧密联系;手机游戏就必须具有足够的社交性等等。并问自己:你会做出何种改变,为什么?

特别是当你从头开始创造一款社交游戏时,更能深刻体会到这些探索法的价值性。如果你能够合理使用这些方法,便能够在原本的二进制休闲/硬核游戏设计方法中添加新颖的多层次社交互动元素。比起将一些新的社交功能移植到现有的游戏,在设计游戏之初就创建一个强大的社交层面,并将其融入游戏玩法中的这种做法更加简单。

当你的项目运营和用户目标转移到游戏功能时,你需要更加关注于那些特殊玩家所频繁接触到的社交机制。尽管你精心设计的社交功能不一定会对用户或者项目产生明显影响,但是它们却能够深刻影响游戏界面以及核心游戏玩法。

同时你还需要记得,混合型社交机制更有效。如果《亚瑟王国》只体现出Facebook元素或MMO的社交机制,它便不可能取得如此巨大的成功。不管是对于开发者还是玩家,Facebook的病毒式用户获取渠道和早期用户留存渠道,加上MMO更深层次用户粘性和盈利性的社交互动才是最完美的组合。

最后需要牢记,这些探索法只是经验法则,并非绝对真理。你需要好好学习这些法则并以此造福游戏和玩家!

本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

What Makes Social Games Social?

by Matt Ricchetti

When people think about online social gaming, two broad categories of games immediately spring to mind: casual social games and hardcore MMOs. Despite the criticisms leveled by traditional game designers at casual games for their Skinner Box-like appeals to our core psychic compulsions, these games have become wildly popular on Facebook and mobile devices. MMOs, while never as broadly appealing, enjoy multi-year runs and rabidly loyal user bases. One common contributor to the success of both types of games is their unique social mechanics, which might be summarized as follows:

Casual social games:

* Inviting “neighbors,” sending gifts, visiting your friends’ playspaces

* Asynchronous play with asymmetrical, loose-tie relationships

Hardcore MMOs:

* Forming parties and joining guilds, chatting with guild members, coordinating real-time group battles

* Synchronous play with emphasis on symmetrical relationships that build strong ties

As a current designer/producer of hardcore strategy MMOs at Kabam and former designer/producer of casual social games at Zynga, I’ve become intimately acquainted with both sets of social mechanics. And I find both are very useful in developing sticky, engaging gameplay experiences. Neither is necessarily better than the other.

In fact, as free-to-play (F2P), online, multiplayer experiences make up an increasingly large share of the overall games market, we’re seeing titles emerge that mix and match social mechanics from both the casual and hardcore lineages to great effect. League of Legends is a great example of this: Riot’s DotA redux came from out of nowhere to make tens of millions of dollars by combining social mechanics from MMORPG PvP battles, RTS duels, and more casual F2P games to create an entirely new genre, the multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA).

Much of this evolution of what comprises “social” is being driven by the F2P business model itself. Traditional retail games equate to a single consumer decision: to buy or not to buy. F2P games, on the other hand, feature an ongoing courtship between the player and the developer. Because of the low barrier to entry, players are inherently less committed to any given F2P game. This means developers and publishers must do everything they can to keep players engaged deeply and regularly with their games. This can be done with core gameplay and an effective monetization system; the opportunity cost for leaving a game in which you’ve invested substantial time and money is high.

But “crowdsourcing” engagement and retention to the players themselves via compelling social features remains one of the surest ways to make a game both sticky and fun. A single-player game is a game, but a social game is a community, with all the fascinating human relationships one expects: competition, collaboration, peer pressure, rebellion, jealousy, compassion, and more. The difference between playing Scrabble against the computer and playing Words with Friends is the difference between killing time and a pop culture phenomenon.

So, for today’s F2P online social games, “social” is about the user experience AND about business — the two are inseparable. Game designers must determine which social mechanics fit their game’s target market, gameplay, and business model. Whether these mechanics are traditionally found in casual Facebook games or hardcore MMOs is irrelevant.

Instead of viewing social through this limited, binary lens, this article will analyze player interactions using a set of three general heuristics. The advantage of this approach is that these heuristics can be applied to any online multiplayer game. Freed from a specific game design, their functional value becomes more apparent. Developers can then choose the interactions they feel will best serve their game’s design.

Three Heuristics for Categorizing Social Mechanics

Of the three social mechanics we’ll examine, one relates to the timing of social interactions and two involve the type of social relationship. Together, these mechanics encapsulate the social interactions of most online games:

* Synchronous vs. Asynchronous player interaction: do interactions occur simultaneously in real time or at different times as in a turn-based game?

* Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical relationship formation: does forming a relationship require input from both parties or can they be formed unilaterally by a single party?

* Strong Tie vs. Loose Tie relationship evolution: do relationships tend to become deep and long lasting or are they more likely to be light and transitory?

Let’s break down each of these heuristics in turn.

Synchronous vs. Asynchronous

The stereotype is that MMOs feature synchronous, real-time play while casual social games are asynchronous with interaction occurring at disconnected times. However, all MMOs also feature important asynchronous features (in-game messages, for example) and some Facebook games employ synchronous features (such as chat). Rather than an absolute proposition, current social games tend offer a mix of synchronous and asynchronous interactions. Some games may highlight one or the other, but there are many that utilize both to establish a richer layer of engagement and retention.

Synchronous Interaction

The concept of synchronous gameplay is intuitively obvious — players interact in real time rather than taking turns. Examples of synchronous social interactions include text chat, voice chat, video chat, and player vs. player (PvP) battles (yes, PvP is a type of social interaction!). Synchronous interactions can scale from two players head to head (e.g., whispering and duels) to large groups (e.g., lobbies and raids).

Let’s look at chat specifically as it is a powerful synchronous tool for player engagement and retention in both casual games and MMOs:

* New players use chat make friends and ask basic questions

* xperienced players use chat to brag about in-game
accomplishments and form actual friendships (usually while killing time between events)

* Hardcore players use chat to coordinate complex group (e.g., guild/alliance) play and manage intense politics and rivalries

Whether it’s used to run a major guild in The Old Republic or help finish a badge book on Pogo.com, chat has a similar effect: boosting player engagement and facilitating long-term retention. When there is a real, vibrant support community present, players come back to a game more often and are less likely jump ship for another game. At Kabam, we’ve found chat invaluable as we’ve sought to bring more hardcore aspects to Facebook and web gaming — which we’ll discuss later.

Asynchronous Interaction

The term “asynchronous game” might at first conjure images of something slower or less robust, but asynchronous games can be just as engaging as synchronous ones — think of playing chess with a friend or Diplomacy by mail, for example. Asynchronous social games come in different basic flavors, with some of the more common being:

1. Turn-based shared games: Examples of this genre include the With Friends games and one of my favorites, Carcassonne. They work well socially because:

* Each move is a mini game

* There is social pressure to come back and complete your next turn

* Challenge of head-to-head competition

* Bite-sized gameplay is easy to fit into schedules

* Players can play multiple games at once

2. Turn-based challenge games: Essentially, this works out to be two separate matches: I play your AI and then you play mine; aggregate score determines the winner. A good example is the Bola soccer game on Facebook (which literally mirrors the traditional home-and-away format of international soccer matches). They work socially because:

* Social pressure to return challenge

* Head-to-head competition

* Less waiting than shared turn-based since each player can complete their entire game independently

* Different strategies for attack and defense enrich experience

3. Score-based challenge games: This is the traditional “beat my high score” format as exemplified in Bejeweled Blitz. These games work socially because:

* Social pressure to return challenge (one-upmanship)

* Head-to-head competition and often game-wide leaderboards

* Less waiting than turn-based since players can try for their high scores anytime

* On the flip side, these types of games can be less interactive

4. Open-world asynchronous games: In many ways, this is the standard Facebook game model, used in games like FarmVille and many others. It’s also the model for newer games with deeper social interaction such as Empires & Allies and Backyard Monsters. They work socially because:

* Model supports variety of game modes, including both single-player and multi-player PvE and PvP

* Can approximate MMO experience without incurring the technical challenges of real-time play (i.e., provides the living, persistent world of an MMO)

* Still offers convenience of more casual games — can play at different times and for short bursts

Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical

Perhaps the best example for understanding this heuristic is the formation of social connections in Facebook versus Twitter.

Facebook social relationships are symmetric: I ask to be your friend and you must agree in turn for the relationship to exist:

* Core social unit: “Friend”

* Pros:

—Mutual acknowledgement breeds trust

—Allows for deeper sharing

* Cons:

—Site interaction limited to friends

—Friend relationships require (sometimes complex) management tools

Twitter social relationships are asymmetric: I can “follow” anyone I want, without their reciprocation:

* Core social unit: “Follower”

* Pros:

—Allows for widespread broadcasting

—Facilitates rapid dissemination of information

* Cons:

—Less investment in core social unit

—Can be less private or more spammy because communication filters are less sophisticated

Examples of symmetric social interactions in online gaming include friending, neighbor systems, gifting, trading, and private chat on an individual scale and parties, alliances, and manual multiplayer matchmaking on a group scale. Asymmetric social interactions include following, broadcasting, tweeting, and blogging on an individual scale and public quests, factions, and random matchmaking on a group scale.

Let’s take a deeper look at a few examples of symmetric and asymmetric relationships in online games.

Symmetric Interactions

A classic example of a symmetric relationship in online gaming is the MMORPG party. Forming a party in an MMORPG requires explicit consent from both the inviter and the invitee, the assumption being that the inviter wants control of who exactly he or she goes adventuring with.

While this means the invitee is sometimes subjected to a disappointing lack of invites (or a pile of ignored requests) it does mean the inviter can separate the wheat from the chaff in composing their party. This ultimately results in a deeper bond between party members, creating a tangible “us vs. them” mentality during PvE, bringing out effective class combos and facilitating the trade of level appropriate items and information.

Although Facebook games are less known for such symmetric relationships, they do exist in many of the platform’s games. The neighbor system prevalent in games like FarmVille, for example, is a symmetrical social relationship. Even players who are in same game and are already FB friends still need to become “neighbors.” This additional social hurdle creates an ongoing “friends with benefits” interaction where players send more gifts to each other and help each other unlock “social gates” (e.g., “You need five friends to staff this building,” or “You need 10 keys to unlock this door”).

Asymmetric Interactions

Facebook games also feature numerous asymmetric social interactions. Instead of neighbor systems, many games simply add your Facebook social graph directly to your playspace without requiring the permission of your friends (e.g., Bejeweled Blitz). In our Kabam game Dragons of Atlantis, players can select any Facebook friend to serve as a general in their army, even if they’re not actively playing the game.

These types of relationships are admittedly shallower than the neighbor system above, but because they are so broad, they lower barriers to interaction and create a high-density of ties among the games’ players. In the Bejeweled Blitz example, it’s too important to let the player see his friends’ high scores to ask them for symmetry. The game just wouldn’t work without a highly visible leaderboard. In the Dragons of Atlantis example, invite a non-playing friend to be a general has the advantage of exposing the game to potential new players in a personalized way via a wall-to-wall feed.

Asymmetric relationships also exist in MMOs. A great example of this is the “public quest” feature in Warhammer Online. This type of group PvE was specifically designed to avoid the normal hurdles of symmetrical party formation by automatically creating a transient party of all players who are near a public quest site. If a dragon is terrorizing the area, for example, anyone who comes within a certain range is automatically considered to be participating in the public quest to kill it. Players can quickly and easily get a taste of group play and then go their own ways afterwards. The low social barrier allows for more frequent cooperation, even if it means forgoing usual party staples like chat and item trading.

Strong Tie vs. Loose Tie

Symmetry vs. Asymmetry describes how relationships form but doesn’t necessarily dictate how they evolve. For example, people who meet in the “Long-term Relationships Only” area of an online dating site are more likely to get married than those in “Casual Encounters” — but that’s not always the case. Ultimately the relationship depends on what happens after the first meeting. Strong tie vs. Loose Tie is a simple heuristic for gauging the evolution of a social relationship with a focus on depth of interaction.

Examples of strong-tie gaming relationships range from 1:1 scale (two-player co-op play and RPG parties) to group scale (guilds, alliances and leagues). Examples of loose-tie relationships also range from 1:1 (in-game neighbors, for example) to group scale (factions, classes, and tournaments).

Factions vs. Guilds

Strong ties are usually symmetric — which makes sense as the requirement for symmetry usually means the relationship was designed for deeper sharing. Conversely, loose-tie relationships are usually, though not always, asymmetric.

A look at guilds versus factions provides a classic example of strong versus loose ties in MMORPGs. A player usually chooses a faction at the very beginning of a game on his own (i.e., asymmetrically). The faction relationship plays a role in determining core aspects of the player’s experience, like which classes are available to him, where he will spending his time adventuring, and what quests he will encounter. Socially, it works as a broad glue, separating “us” from “them” or the “good guys” from the “bad guys.” So even if a player meets someone whom he has nothing else in common with, their common faction can still be a jumping off point for their relationship.

Guilds are quite different. They usually don’t affect a player’s core experience so fundamentally, nor are they as critical in the early game. But once a player gets involved in a good guild (via symmetric acceptance), the social benefits it offers can literally be game changing. Guilds are where players trade items, learn optimal strategies and tactics, receive buffs and other benefits and, most of all, make friends. I can tell you a variety of personal things about the folks in my Chronicles of Merlin alliance (i.e., guild), despite not knowing any of their names or having ever met them. We even have our own Facebook page and interact with one another outside the game.

Factions vs. Neighbors

Loose-tie relationships aren’t always asymmetric. Facebook neighbors, mentioned above, are in fact a good example of symmetric loose ties. The neighbor relationship is primarily designed for sharing gifts and small amounts of viral currencies, not for extensive chatting, strategizing, or cooperation. The reason for symmetry in this case is simply to better leverage the virality of the Facebook platform. Forcing players to confirm neighbor relationships engages them in sending requests to each other, an important behavior to encourage early in the players’ lifetimes.

Class specialization

Loose ties don’t always equate to low game impact. As mentioned above, factions can play a major role in shaping a player’s experience. Another ubiquitous (to RPGs at least) example of a loose-tie relationship is class specialization. Class specialization is certainly social; it forces interdependence in group combat and defines the classic MMO tank/healer/DPS triad.

But it isn’t a strong tie. Just because I’m a mage and you’re a mage doesn’t mean we’re going to be fast friends. Rather, like factions, class specialization is a broad, constant factor in shaping gameplay outcomes. Interestingly, because class specialization is asymmetric (no one consents to my class choice), you can end up with too many players of one class. Although most games are balanced such that this does not occur on a global level, most of us have experienced the unfortunate PvP battle where our side was repeatedly mowed down due to a lack of “___” or too many “___” (fill in the blank with any of the roles: tank/healer/DPS).

Case Study: Kingdoms of Camelot

Overview

In order to better explain how these heuristics can be used to understand social mechanics, I’m going to apply them in detail to a game I know well, Kabam’s Kingdoms of Camelot.

Our goal when we started Kingdoms of Camelot was ambitious: to create an MMO that also worked as a Facebook game. We wanted to combine hardcore strategy gameplay with Facebook’s built-in social/viral channels and a deeper level of free-to-play engagement and monetization.

By a combination of skill, luck, and perseverance, we hit our goals and created one of most successful games on Facebook. Still going strong after more than two years, Kingdoms of Camelot is now one of the top strategy franchises on any platform, with 490,000 monthly active users as of this writing, so we must have done some things right — particularly on the social side.

Let’s look at what went well and what we could have done better for the both game’s MMO and Facebook social components.

KoC as a Facebook Game

The core of KoC works fairly well as a Facebook game, since it can be played as a single-player, quest-driven city builder. Key social mechanics that work well with Facebook include asynchronous combat, a friend ladder with invites/requests, resource gifting, and viral feeds for things like building help.

Combat (asynchronous, asymmetric): Combat in KoC is asynchronous: the attacker initiates a battle against any player (even one who is offline), his armies march to the target on a map, the battle ensues, and results are then sent as reports to the inboxes of both players when it is complete. This simple, timer-based system supports bite-sized Facebook play patterns while still allowing for engaging PvP.

KoC’s combat is also asymmetrical in that a player can choose any target. The world is a real, open battleground and doesn’t use any lobbies or matchmaking like some PvP systems. This “always on” feature is mitigated by the fact that beginning players are protected from attacks and any player can hide his troops in a “sanctuary” to prevent losing them when offline.

Invite/Request system (asynchronous, symmetric): Like all Facebook games, players send friend invites and build a friends ladder. You can invite friends to be Knights that lead your armies and you can send gifts of resources and troops to friends. Players can interact with friends anytime, even when offline (asynchronous), but friends must accept invites and requests (symmetrical).

Social feeds (asynchronous, asymmetric): KoC’s social feeds are similar to other Facebook games but focus on material, in-game incentives (vs. “bragging”). For example, players can share a Merlin’s Magical Boxes token for a chance to win free virtual goods or post viral “Build with Help” requests that Facebook friends can click through to reduce the time to construct buildings, conduct research, or train troops.

Takeaways

What we did well:

* Evolved Facebook city building games by adding in asynchronous combat

* Leveraged integration with core Facebook channels for modest virality/engagement bump

Where we could improve:

* Facebook channels are not as deeply integrated as some games

* No “friend visits” or vanity social status

* Friend invites and gifting are not tied to game progression or in-game resources

* Feeds are only utilized for some features, limiting virality

Beyond its core Facebook integration, KoC’s innovation is that it plays like a real MMO: emergent behavior in both social and combat features drives deep immersion. The game’s combat system features open-world group PvP, tournaments, and leaderboards just like a client-based MMO. Other traditional MMO social features include alliances, chat, messaging, and trading.

MMO combat (synchronous, strong tie): Because KoC’s combat system is based around open-world group PvP, it drives synchronous, strong-tie social interactions. Even though any individual attack is asynchronous, alliances band together to conduct planning and strategy and coordinate waves of attacks in real time.

The game features regular tournaments with rewards and new worlds where players can start over, both of which encourage repeat play while refreshing PvP rivalries. Individual and alliance leaderboards provide a measuring stick for combat might, fueling a strong sense of both social status and competition.

Alliances (synchronous, strong tie): The game’s alliance (guild) structure and social tools enable extremely strong ties.

A feature known as “alliance diplomacy” allows alliances to set other alliances as friends, enemies, or neutral, giving rise to meta-alliance social play that is symmetrical (both alliances must agree to a diplomacy level), asynchronous (diplomacy doesn’t need to be done while both parties are online) and strong tie (the jockeying for position and status never ends).

Social status and power disparities within an alliance also generate strong ties. Each alliance has several leadership roles for elite players who serve as Chancellors and Vice Chancellors and decide who’s in and who’s out of an alliance.

Being rejected from an alliance can be like being rejected from a prestigious college or job: it can fuel a player’s game-long quest to prove the alliance wrong by forming a rival group that is more powerful.

Alliance-specific “slices” of other synchronous, strong-tie social tools such as chat, messaging, and battle reports also allow alliances to communicate and strategize while keeping the information “in the family.” For example, how players in one alliance describe players from another among themselves can be quite different from how they socialize with them externally.

Chat (synchronous): KoC chat is a key synchronous social feature that makes the world feel more dynamic and alive in real time. Three levels of chat allow players different ways to communicate. Alliance and private chat channels (symmetric, strong tie) foster relationships during the down time while waiting for builds to finish. Global chat (asymmetric, strong or weak tie) lets beginners ask questions while encouraging the trash talk that drives enmity between alliances.

Alliance chat in KoC.

Messaging and Trading (asynchronous): Messaging (asymmetric, strong tie) is used for communicating organizational and logistical info: alliance rules and announcements, battle plans, enemy information. Resource trading (symmetric, weak tie) adds an additional layer of non-combat, social interdependency as players buy and sell goods with each other.

Takeaways

Kingdoms of Camelot brought synchronous, strong-tie MMO play to Facebook social gaming to create a new experience on the platform.

What we did well:

Layered synchronous MMO PvP combat onto a Facebook game

Focused on strong-tie alliance relationship as gameplay foundation

Supported combat system with social communication tools that leverage both synchronous/asynchronous and symmetric/asymmetric relationships

Where we could improve:

Deepen combat system with additional strategy/tactics (e.g., support group PvE in addition to group PvP)

Develop social structure of alliances even further (e.g., support broader play styles beyond attacking and sharing resources)

Provide additional communication tools (e.g., offline notifications for key events/interactions, additional channels for communication between alliance officers and other subgroups, etc.)

Conclusion

As the online game landscape becomes less black and white, social innovation requires more work. When we established Kingdoms of Camelot as an early hardcore MMO on Facebook, we had a clear point of differentiation from previous games. Since then, the Facebook landscape has become more MMO-oriented, and there are more PvP games available. Even heretofore strictly casual game developers like Digital Chocolate and Zynga have joined in with titles like Army Attack and Empires & Allies.

Map screen in KoC.

At the same time, the non-Facebook landscape has become more “casual” (or at least more broadly social). Players now expect ALL online games to offer full multiplayer functionality and interactive support features. This is evidenced in recent developments in AAA MMO social mechanics.

For example, World of Warcraft made major updates to its raiding features with Cataclysm to make group PvE less onerous and more accessible. Star Wars: The Old Republic, the latest and greatest MMO on the block, allows players to work on their personal class quests even while adventuring in mixed-class parties.

This is an important concession to social accessibility, as class story quests are a key differentiator in SWTOR.

Lastly, the free-to-play business model is really flexing its gaming muscles. Most of the older subscription MMOs — Dungeons & Dragons Online, Age of Conan, Lord of the Rings Online — have all moved to F2P. Even some non-MMO, hardcore games like Team Fortress 2 are now F2P as well. In fact, Sega just announced the first true F2P title for the PlayStation Vita, Samurai & Dragons, based on the top-grossing F2P iOS game Kingdom Conquest.

This diverse landscape means that it’s harder to differentiate your social game (or should I say “your game, socially”) from the competition — yet more important than ever to do so.

Using These Heuristics

The three heuristics we’ve described are not a panacea for all social game design — but they can be very instructive. You can use them to both help evaluate existing games or design new ones.

For existing games, break down your social mechanics against these heuristics to determine your true mix of synchronous/asynchronous, symmetrical/asymmetrical and strong-tie/loose-tie relationship features. Ask yourself if your approach fits the needs of your audience, gameplay, and platform. For example, an older audience might not take to synchronous play, while a younger audience might demand it; a “twitchy” arcade game might not be suitable for strong-tie relationships; or a mobile game might be most social if relationships were low friction and thus primarily asymmetrical. So ask yourself: what would you change, and why?

The greatest value of these heuristics can be realized when designing new social games from scratch. Proper use can move your game beyond the binary casual/hardcore approach to incorporate novel, multilayered patterns of social interaction. It’s always easier to build a strong social layer into a new game, where it can be tied deeply into the gameplay, than to try to graft new social features onto an existing game.

In translating your business and user goals into game features, put the greatest focus on the social mechanics your particular players will interact with most often. Even a well-designed social feature will have a smaller impact on users — and ultimately your business — if it is buried in the interface or peripheral to core gameplay.

Also remember that a mix of social mechanics often yields the strongest results. Kingdoms of Camelot likely would have been less successful if we had used elements solely from the Facebook or MMO side of the social mechanics ledger. A mix of features leveraging Facebook channels for viral acquisition and early retention plus MMO social interaction for deeper engagement and monetization was what worked best for us and our players.

Finally, remember that these heuristics are rules of thumb, not absolute guidelines. Learn the rules then break them as long as it works for your game and your audience. Good luck!(Source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: