Re: When do games become boring?

From: gunzler@netcom.com (Mitch Gunzler)

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 09:01:51 +0000

In article <troyer.746413548@cgl.ucsf.edu> troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer) writes:
>
>		When will players get tired of Arena?
>			 (or more generally)
>		 When do players get tired of games?
>

Generally, I agree with the sentiments/experiences of this post, and
want to expand a little...

>I ask mostly because I think this kind of game is fairly uninteresting
>to begin with. Since there is little interactivity, you are mostly
>interested in if you win or not.

Which *may* be an interesting thing in and of itself, if the underlying
game is a good one.  Most of the following, however, has to do with
the metagame, the details of how one plays that have as much or more
to do with the experience of play.

>So with instant turn around, I could see someone (like myself) sending
>hundreds of turns in over the next few days, and coming out next week
>bored with the whole process. (Or with a 'killer' gladiator design that
>I now don't have to tinker with at all.)

Aboslutely.  Some kind of minimal time passage is essential.  I think
ultimately one fight per day would work fine, but if we want to allow
a bunch of experimentation while ironing out the model, how about an
hour between matches?

A critical thing for making time interesting is allowing a fighter
to benefit from his time in some method other than fighting if he
so chooses.  Training so one can hone skills (and avoid injury)
right before the Big Tournament would add great color.  Working for
a day instead of fighting because you really want the spare cash for
that new weapon would be a nice touch.

Oh, money:  accumulating indefinitely is boring.  It's one thing for
a kid from the countryside to go on bread and water for a month while
he scrimps up to buy that broad sword and strike it rich in The Arena
(tm)(c)(virally protected), but once he DOES start winning and making
some money you can bet he's gonna start boozing, buying nice clothes,
picking up a heftier mortgage, maybe (if he does REAL well) try
putting a kid or two through college.
So give the poor bastards a realistic cost-of-living, say, 2% of lifetime
earnings every day.  And if you can't pay your debts, well, let's just
say players won't have to worry about how to dispose of losing fighters.

Also, I would recommend that some kind of classification ("level")
system be enforced.  You can challenge up (and accept challenges from
below), but won't be randomly matched with anybody with, to pick an
obvious criterion, fewer promotions (bonus points) than you.

I would allow a player multiple characters, with some kind of restriction.
The one that springs to mind is one character per class; that is, once
you get a character to "second level" (fill in colorful term at your
leisure), you can start up a new one as well if you care to.  Make it
a reward for progress.

>2. longer turns facilitate greater role playing. In Atlantis 1, the
>players demanded weekly turns so that they could get in all their
>diplomatic email. There's not as much coordination required in Arena,
>but there certainly is much taunting to be done.

Consider interspersing regular play with "tournaments" run automatically
by the host.  Winner of each tournament gets some privilege (I have
ideas, <grin>) until the next rounament is held.
Of course, the winner of the Monthly Tourney gets to keep this
advantage longer than the winner of the Weekly Tourney, so you may
be able to get more turnout/effort for the one than the other, if
the model leaves room for it.

>3. game structures can facilitate role playing. Duelmasters gives the
>top fighter in each arena/league special privileges. There is also a
>newsletter.  This fosters more role-playing/grudges/factionality, and
>keeps up player interest.

Woops, started answering that in the previous paragraph.

In addition to tournament schemes, I would suggest having several
different cities with Arenas, each with a genuinely different character.
E.g. in the tropical city, the heavy sun doubles the energy drain of
armor, heavily favoring lightly armored fighters.  In the Bamboo Woods,
thick shoots every few metres somewhat penalize horizontal swings.
In the high altitude city, every one runs out of breath faster than
they may be used to (with, perhaps, an acclimation effect possible).
In the Grey City, fighters are allowed to stop and take a few seconds
to rest between rounds.  In the Black Cathedral, healing i snot allowed,
and any injuries suffered will take the fighter out of action for
a significant number of real-time days.
This not only gives room for separate pecking orders and styles of play,
it can provide something of a laboratory for experimenting with rules shifts
and letting the game evolve (if noone fights in The Garden anymore, well,
close it down...)

>
>4. long-term goals keep up interest. There is nothing to do in Arena
>with your money except buy more weapons, and after 18 wins I can buy
>the most expensive weapon + armor there is. Having the best record
>gives you no other reward except bragging rights, and there is no
>place to brag. (No newsletter.)

I've already suggested "tax"ing money, allowing weapons and armor
to age and break (and be purchased in expensive long-lasting versions)
is a standard way of sucking up money.

Training skills, both secondary (attack, parry) and specific weapons,
might be interesting.  It would certainly add room for both growth and
character differentiation.

As for long term goals, having several types of arena (city) allows
the goal of doing well in several.  Consider creating "archetype"
computer fighters, whose stats and strats are known, and players
can have the goal of beating as many drastically different kinds as possible
with any given character (a great way to learn the system!).

I would suggest allowing torunament winners to define their own styles,
which are all the rage (anyone can use them) until the master is defeated
in a later tournament.  This would work best if you allowed training,
but only at a school run by a current tournament champion (he gets to
study there for free:), teaching is a GREAT way to study techniques).

>
>Note that I'm not slagging on Arena. I was just thinking about doing
>something similar myself, and so have been pondering these questions

Ditto.  I've even been running genetic algorithms to see if the
different rules sets I've played with have relatively easy "good
strategies" (they generally do, nothing quite as disgusting as
a mindless algorithm coming up with a MegaFighter in your oh-so-subtle
system).

Thank you, Scott, for sitting down and putting this thing together!

Mitch

References

When do games become boring?
troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer)
Fri, 27 Aug 1993 01:05:48 +0000

Referenced By

When do games become boring?
troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer)
Fri, 27 Aug 1993 01:05:48 +0000