Re: When do games become boring? (ARENA)

From: gunzler@netcom.com (Mitch Gunzler)

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1993 02:12:18 +0000

In article <srt.746570406@aerospace.aero.org> srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner) writes:
>Mitch Gunzler writes:
>>Absolutely.  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?
>
>I think it is interesting that almost everyone wants a time delay on
>Arena -- but if it isn't there, everyone plays as fast as they can.

I think I can explain this.
There are two interesting parts to playing a game like this; hacking
the model, and relating with other players.  Many of us would LIKE to
emphasize the latter, but as long as it's an option (and for now, the
only option) (well, right NOW, evne THAT'S not an option...)
... at least while doing preliminary playtesting, the overwhelming urge
is to try to "figure out" the model.  Not only how it works, in the sense
of knowing what Scott knows about the description of the model, but
seeing how it actually behaves.  Ant farm stuff.

>
>>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.
>
>Interesting.

Yeah, I like the idea of basing it on *life time* earnings, for obvious
reasons.  2% may or may not prove right.

>
>This is in the highly secret Arena internal design document.  Whether

Gee, can I get a copy?  :)
>
>>Thank you, Scott, for sitting down and putting this thing together!
>
>I'm glad you like it.

Certainly do.  Especially the fact that you actually *did it*.

Need more suggestions?  Use a Runequestish skill system, where every
opportunity to learn let's you roll percentile dice, and actually raise
your skill only if the roll is above your current skill.  That sort of
diminishing returns is critical for keeping characters from becoming
boringly powerful, while retaining a constant interest in growth and
participation.

I would allow different "styles" to be represented by different schools,
each of which allows you to make rolls against a different combination
of skills.  Training in Mad Vlad's Amphetamine Palace might allow you to
make several learning rolls against Initiative/Zanshin/whatever might
correspond in this model, while training at Joe's Gym might give you
one learning roll each in several basic skills e.g. aim, parry.

I would make the character stats larger numbers, to reduce the granularity
effect, making each warrior truly distinct, and allowing training/growth
to be noticeable without being inhuman and overwhelming.
(If stats are 1-100, for instance, lifting weights could allow you a %ile
roll against current strength to increase strength by one.  Maybe subtract
growth over initial stat against this roll, so that a person with a higher
initial stat not only has a head start in developing it, but will find
it easier to go from any particular step to the next.  Again, this makes
each character a bit more unique [Iknow, I know...], and makes initial
design considerations more subtle).

If you implement both of the above, then Bill's Boxing might give
enrollees a chance to grow in each of hitting, dodging, and Stamina.

Mitch

References

When do games become boring?
troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer)
Fri, 27 Aug 1993 01:05:48 +0000
Re: When do games become boring?
gunzler@netcom.com (Mitch Gunzler)
Fri, 27 Aug 1993 09:01:51 +0000
Re: When do games become boring? (ARENA)
srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)
Sat, 28 Aug 1993 20:40:06 +0000