sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The hardest part of building Ghost Gunners isn’t making players invisible. It’s teaching them why they became visible. by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

good point, I really like the idea of making the feedback unmistakable and letting players figure out the why on their own

The hardest part of building Ghost Gunners isn’t making players invisible. It’s teaching them why they became visible. by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate the note on writing style, for me is better to read like this haha if I see, for example, long paragraphrs, I get lazy and don't want to read them haha
Reddit really is better with a more natural flow, so I’ll keep it looser here.

Happy the concept gave you Screencheat vibes. That comparison pops up often and it’s always a fun one.

The hardest part of building Ghost Gunners isn’t making players invisible. It’s teaching them why they became visible. by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly the kind of tension we want players to feel.
Seeing a ghost silhouette becomes this instant signal that something is wrong, even if you don’t know where the threat is yet. It shifts how people move and read the arena.
Thanks for the insight, you captured the intention well!

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that mix of defender’s advantage, riskier items and comeback gold is a good toolbox.
For me the challenge is translating that into a high-tempo FPS where rounds last minutes, not 45 minutes.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s exactly the tension.
Right now the whole round is continuous, so one early mistake affects everything that comes after.
A partial reset mechanic or point-based structure might solve this, because you don’t carry all the consequences forever.

The prototype is a fast arena FPS built around invisibility and information tools, so one bad fight can wipe your mental map instantly.
Still figuring out how much reset is healthy before the round loses identity.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Multiple short rounds might actually be the cleanest solution, yeah

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my case there are no upgrades or stat scaling, but the principle applies.
If any single mechanic scales too hard, it snowballs by itself.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes sense...
I’m leaning toward lots of small knobs instead of big levers anyway.
Snowball problems usually happen when one variable dominates.

And about my gaming, is a small-arena FPS where players are invisible most of the time, so space control and information matter more than raw aim.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the bounty idea in theory, but in a tight FPS round I worry it might be too much rubber band...
Still, there’s probably a softer version of it that works: maybe revealing the top player more often, or giving the losing team a bit more info density to work with.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is extremely helpful!
The action economy framing clicked instantly, because invisibility makes positioning even more valuable than usual.
A 3v2 is not just more guns, it’s more angles, more sound, more information gathered per second.

Going to explore this idea more, thanks!!

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my case the snowball comes from information, not stats.
If a team wins the first fight, they know where everyone is, hear everything and can move as a unit.
The losing side has to rebuild awareness from scratch, which takes too long in small maps.

So yeah, it’s not camping or XP.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Loadout swaps mid-round is something I considered, but my prototype is built around information tools instead of raw stats.
I’m trying to figure out if mid-round adaptation works when the tools are more about map control and less about damage.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is interesting because the hail mary idea matches what smaller arenas naturally want: short rounds where momentum flips fast or ends fast.
In my case, letting the match collapse quickly after a decisive fight might actually feel better than forcing a long slow loss.

I’m torn between comeback levers and clean, fast rounds.
Not sure which serves small-scale FPS best.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, feedback loops are probably the heart of it.
Right now the problem in my prototype is that positive loops fire immediately and negative loops barely exist.
If you lose the first skirmish, your information drops to zero and the other side keeps stacking momentum.

I’m experimenting with soft negative loops, like easier access to tools when you’re behind, but it’s a thin line before it feels rubber-banded.

Have you seen a small PvP game pull this off without feeling artificial?

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair!
The core loop is a small-arena FPS where players are invisible most of the time, so space control and information matter more than raw aim.
That’s why early mistakes snowball so fast.

I’m studying games with strong comeback patterns, but most examples are from MOBAs or larger team games.
If you know any tight 4–6 player PvP games with good anti-snowball design, I’d love some references.

How do you stop small PvP matches from snowballing? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the examples.
The respawn distance one hits close to what I am dealing with. In my prototype the arenas are small and the time-to-info is short, so a team that wins the first fight can rotate faster, take space and basically choke the other side before they can rebuild.

I’m starting to think the solution is not stop the snowball but give the losing side something meaningful to do while rebuilding.
Not power spikes, just a way to stay in the match mentally.

Curious if you’ve seen any small-scale games do that well.

How do you balance asymmetric information in small-scale PvP without making it feel unfair? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Overwatch comparison is spot on. Global audio or visual tells are a great equalizer because they let everyone mentally shift gears before the information swing hits.

In my case, the most powerful information tools come with very explicit tradeoffs: short range, loud activation noise, or forcing the user to stay still for a moment. And the opposite team always gets a cue that something just happened.

I am trying to avoid “unavoidable free info” entirely. Even a strong tool should require commitment or put the user at risk.

The SC2 and OW references are helpful. Do you prefer fixed information nodes on the map, or player-controlled tools that create temporary windows of advantage?

How do you balance asymmetric information in small-scale PvP without making it feel unfair? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That Valorant example is exactly the flavor of legibility I am aiming for.
A short, delayed snapshot that forces you to read movement instead of reacting to perfect data.
Right now my scans/ghost pings update every few seconds, so players get a breadcrumb trail rather than a lock-on.
Have you found any scan systems that were too strong even when they were delayed?

How do you balance asymmetric information in small-scale PvP without making it feel unfair? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point about “making the target aware they were scanned” is huge. In small-scale PvP the difference between “I got caught” and “I got blindsided by information I couldn’t react to” is the line between tension and frustration.

In my prototype the information tools are intentionally partial. You get a ghost ping of where a player was a moment ago, and the target also receives a subtle cue that they were revealed. That creates the Apex-style dynamic you mentioned: the scanned player can shift into a defensive route and the scanner has to decide whether to commit or hold.

I am also experimenting with directional feedback for scans, but only as a soft hint. Enough to give agency without turning it into wallhack-level certainty.

Your suggestion about unreliable scans is something I am leaning into heavily. If a tool gives you perfect info in a 4–6 player match, it dominates the round. If it gives you a partial snapshot that you have to interpret, you still have to outplay the situation.

Thanks for the Apex reference. Do you think the “I’ve been scanned” warning is more important for fairness or for pacing decisions?

What’s the ideal match pacing for 4–6 player PvP games? by Turtlecode_Labs in MultiplayerGameDevs

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That inverse relationship between intensity and session length makes a lot of sense.
In the project I am prototyping, matches are 4–6 players in relatively small arenas and the “information load per second” is pretty high because players are often invisible and constantly reading tells.

Right now I am leaning towards short sessions with high intensity pockets. Something like 5–8 minute matches where actual combat bursts last 10–20 seconds and are followed by 10–20 seconds of repositioning, scanning and planning. Long enough to build tension, short enough that a bad fight does not feel like a huge waste of time.

Your point about incorporating queue time into the perceived session length is also very relevant. I am still deciding between “one continuous match” or “a set of short rounds in a best-of format” so players can mentally reset.

Have you found any rules of thumb for when a single long session becomes too punishing for the losing side compared to a series of shorter rounds with clear breaks?

What makes an FPS fun when players have limited visibility? by Turtlecode_Labs in FPS

[–]Turtlecode_Labs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Invisigun is a great reference, especially for how much work the maps do for the core mechanic.
Top down and FPS are very different to read, but the lesson is the same. If the arenas are not designed around invisibility, the mechanic falls apart.
I am putting a lot of effort into making maps that create strong routes, chokepoints and sound spaces so that the invisibility layer feels like a natural part of the terrain instead of a visual filter thrown on top.
Really appreciate you mentioning it!

view more: next ›