Re: When do games become boring?

From: morrow@gandalf.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1993 06:56:23 +0000

[original posting edited for television...]

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?

>(One Answer is 'When they get predictable'. Unbeatable strategies and
>completely explored adventure games are predictable. Games like chess
>and face-to-face role-playing presumably never get predictable.)

>What keeps up your interest in a game?
>(or more specifically a pbm/pbem/computer game?)
>(or more specifically one of these dueling games?)

>conversely, what would _you_ put into one of these games to make it
>	interesting?

Perhaps the best example of an enduring game is the chess family of
games (including Western chess, Xiangqi (shiang-chi), and Shogi).
I've given some thought about what makes chess so absorbing and
lasting.  I think the answer might be as simple as:

"A minimal set of rules which interact in a variety of ways to provide
a tremendous quantity of possible outcomes."

Specifically, how well one does in chess is not related to how well one
understand the rules but how one applies them to the game and the possible
ways that those simple rules can be applied throughout the game changes
and adjusts with the current status of the game.  All one needs to know
to play chess is how each piece moves and a few special rules (castling,
for instance, which personally "offends" me as a tacky rule.  In Shogi,
you BUILD your castles).  From there, it is simply a matter of strategy,
applying those simple rules to the current board set up.

Arena has part of this.  Its rules are very simple and easy to
understand (kudos) although additional info on exactly how certain
things effect stats might help (specifically, what tires fighters out
and how much can they carry).  I also suspect some balancing is needed
to smooth things out.

The problem with Arena comes in the application of those rules.  A
player is not sitting there, like a coach, telling is fighter what to
do.  That must all be entered up front.  There is only minimal strategy
adjustment is allowed DURING a fight where, in a real fight, a fighter
would adjust his or her approach depending on the approach of his or
her opponent.  Likewise, in chess, a player will adjust his or her
strategy according to the approach of the other player, taking
advantage of opportunities, and addressing problems.  As was pointed
out, longer turn-around games (such as Olympia or Atlantis) allow the
players more time to work things out and adjust but even they suffer
to some degree from this problem (e.g. A unit simply stays in town
while a heavily armed unit spends days wiping out other units in town.
In a real situation or a real-time game, that unit might out at the
first sign of trouble but in many PBEM's, the player won't know there
is a problem until the next turn report shows up and then, it might
be too late to do anything about it.  What seems to be needed to allow
effective counters to such situations is a way to tell units in a
PBEM how to respond to certain situations in the game (there is some
of this in Olympia and Atlantis already in the form of allying).  There
may be a fairly simple way to do this.

Suggestions for Arena (off the top of my head...):

o  Create an OBSERVATION characteristic that reflects how long it takes
   a fighter to recognize the tactics of an opponent.  This will prevent
   instant adjustment to what your opponent is doing which would allow
   for counters that might be TOO effective.  Provide this information
   on the turn report.  Note that a high OBSERVATION will let you quickly
   discover the tactic an opponent is using but you will have fewer
   points in other characteristics to do anything about it.  (Note: This
   could be as simple as [OBSERVATION * 10]% chance of spotting a tactic
   per segment)

o  Create conditionals based on the tactics of an opponent which kick
   in once an opponents tactics are recognized.
   (e.g. O-RABBIT: Wasp 4 2)
   This would work in concert with the OBSERVATION characteristic to
   allow modification of tactics within a round based on the opponent's
   activity.  The modification would take place on the segment AFTER the
   player recognizes the opponent's tactic.  This way, at least one
   segment is fought using the starting tactic.  Sure, both fighters
   might change at the same time but that could be interesting, too...

o  Clarify which conditionals override which conditionals and at what point.

o  Create a conditional TIRED which will kick in when a player is
   3/4 EXHAUSTED so a player can adjust to getting tired (i.e
   slow down so they don't get scragged when tired).  Have
   this conditional (and O-EXHAUSTED) shut off automatically
   (reverting to the previous tactic) as soon as it is no longer
   true.  You should know when you are getting tired.  (Also,
   explain what MAKES you tired -- at least in rough terms...)

o  Consider half-round tactics. (e.g. 1: Rabbit 0 5, Bear 4 2) which
   allow adjustment of a tactic within a round if a conditional hasn't
   kicked in.  Often a fighter will get tired or wounded later in a
   round or his opponent might be so a change in tactics mid-way in
   anticipation is warranted.  This would also offset some of the
   utility of the tactic-based conditional while not giving the person
   executing the command too much of an advantage (they couldn't switch
   to the same tactic so a new approach is called for).  This may or
   may not override certain conditionals...

o  Allow conditionals to be bound to rounds (e.g. 1: WOUNDED: Bear 9 9)
   or other tactics (e.g. WOUNDED: Wasp>Rabbit 0 9).  This way you
   won't be forced to abandon a preferable tactic in favor of another
   one.  Both could work together (e.g. 1: WOUNDED: Wasp>Rabbit 0 9)

o  Allow WEAR and WIELD to be bound to rounds (e.g. 1: WEAR Heavy cloth).
   This way, you can adjust encumbrance based on tactics and it is not
   unreasonable to assume you could switch these between rounds.

o  Add some more tactics -- in particular, some that work better with
   certain weapons or armor.  For instance, an effective unarmed style
   (which also prohibits armor but helps speed and agility, etc.) might
   be nice.

With this approach, you would set up a general tactic (or two tactics)
for each round and then within the round, both fighters tactics might
adjust in response to each other.  The basics shouldn't be too hard to
implement.  It would cause more variations in combinations within a
round (lessening the problem of ideal approaches) and hence more
variety and less boredom.  The more advanced bindings (i.e.
conditionals to tactics or rounds) would be more difficult but if
doable, might add a lot to the variations as well.  You will note that
the above suggestions to not substantially change to core of the game
-- that tactics plus armor and weapon combinations and characteristics
are placed in competition in search of a victor.  All that is changed
is the way in which they are applied and how much control the players
have.  The simple basic rules are Arena's strong point.  The rigid
round system with limited conditionals makes it weak.  Essentially,
much of what you are doing is guessing.  Also, all these conditionals
would not be requires so you could try the simple approach or add as
much complexity as you feel is necessary.  You can also build on
tactic vs. tactic approaches while keeping your base signature tactics.

Other suggestions to increase the variation in Arena:

o  Give weapons a chance of breaking every time they successfully hit
   or parry.  This way players have something to keep spending their
   money on and it encourages back-up weapons.  Give armor a strength
   rating or hit points so it, too, wears out.  This is an indirect
   way of penalizing fighters for getting whacked too much.

o  Add more variation between weapon and armor prices.  Beginning
   players should be able to afford daggers and heavy cloth at best.
   Make them want to get money so they can buy more and better stuff.
   You should really have to save for a good sword or plate armor
   (and breakage will make you need to KEEP buying them... :-).

o  Allow player to sell back items at half the purchase price or
   less.  This will help clean out inventories and let players
   trade up.

o  Allow players with open challenges to challenge more than one
   opponent on one set of orders (I have suggested one set of
   combat with each other fighter per day).

o  Allow a description line for each player for color purposes.
   (e.g. "Fred, a plain looking guy, enters the arena from the East")
   (e.g. DESCRIPTION a plain looking guy)
   To this could be added some info on weapons and armor which
   a fighter or spectator would clearly see.
   (e.g. "Fred, a plain looking guy wearing Chain mail and wielding
   a Longsword, enters the arena from the east")

o  Allow fighters to improve in tactics as they use them a little.
   Perhaps something as simple as giving the fighter a mild bonus
   with the tactic he has used the most over the last N battles
   (as a "signature tactic") would be interesting.

o  Keep the game going -- it's a good idea.  I'm not trying to bash
   it, just trying to make suggestions to make it better.

John Morrow
morrow@remus.rutgers.edu

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