How to improve game design with optimal strategies
No matter how hard game designers may try, in any game you can find mechanics or content that suffer from insufficiently detailed thinking through. The consequences are from small exploits to unnecessary or even harmful features.
To help game designers came up with a lot of tools: formats for traffic police, various checklists, user story , portraits, agenda , and so on. Still, this is not enough.
Therefore, below I will describe another method for evaluating ideas, which will help to work out the gameplay better and take into account more nuances. On the example of clans, prostitutes from GTA and not only.
')
Let's start with the concept of "optimal strategy". This is a strategy that gives the highest possible result with the lowest possible investment of resources. In general, a person has a desire for optimal behavior.
A simple example: banal laziness, as a way of the body to spend a minimum of energy, if the expected result does not pay for the investment. If the work is not fun, we will be too lazy to do it. We will not be happier either, but we will spend less energy.
In order for a person to start doing something, you must offer him a reward that is comparable or more valuable than the forces invested (this time we do not consider the whip method). But in this case, the person will seek to spend as little as possible resources.
What does gamedev have to do with it?
Game developers are often driven by user interests. They are trying to understand what the player wants, and what he will do if you give him some opportunities. A game designer comes up with a mechanic (for example: “in a jump a player can do a trick”) and decides that they will use it exactly as intended: “to overcome an obstacle, the player will jump and make a dummy in the air”.
But this may not be enough, because from the point of view of the optimal strategy, doing nothing at all is much more profitable. Then we add motivation in the form of a reward: “a successful trick gives a slight acceleration”, as in Mario Kart.
At this point, the player no longer interacts with the game, but the game begins to influence the player's behavior. It creates the motivation to do what is needed. And this is often forgotten.
The example is more complicated. In the GTA, you can contact prostitutes. This is quite in the spirit of the series, but if the opportunity itself is not associated with game mechanics, the player will look at how it works a couple of times and continue to do more useful things.
Therefore, the time spent with the ladies, restores health (motivation). And you can take the money back forcibly. We will not consider how ethical this is, just note that in this case it is the optimal strategy (the player will restore health and will not spend anything). This means that many will most likely do just that. Over time, the money in the game will lose value and they will cease, but only because they begin to optimize time as a more valuable resource.
The bottom line is that not only the player interacts with the game, but the game also sets its optimal behavior inside.
Some projects go so far as to start playing with the gamer themselves. On occasion, try Orwell or Superhot . It is difficult to convey without spoilers, but at some point you start to think: do you do what you chose, or what the game provoked you to.
Implement clans with optimal strategy
Above, I mentioned that the development often lead to the interests of the player. It is assumed that he a priori has a certain desire, which must be satisfied by adding mechanics. This approach overlaps with typical software development. For example, if you are developing an application for a bank, you will have to satisfy the interests of your customers — automate account statements, allow money transfer, add chat with support, and so on.
In game development, I would look at the situation from the other side: each new mechanic, each content unit is a new product and the player needs to be explained why he should use it (or make it come to this).
Consider a hypothetical game where we want to add clan mechanics. With their help, players unite in groups, play together, communicate, and share resources. And we want the majority of players to use the clans, because the practice shows that it is more interesting for players who have social contacts in the game to stay in the game.
War robots
Usually the task sounds like this: “We have different categories of players and we need to make the clans cover scenarios for using each group.”
Take the abstract, but the most common categories of players:
For regular players in the clans provides an increased reward for the fight. For social workers in the clans there is a general chat, the ability to quickly assemble a squad and exchange resources. You can also expand clans for in-game resources or inaps to complete joint quests faster and have a numerical advantage in guild wars.
Is it enough for the clan mechanics to become popular and all the players start using it?
Not. We just answered the question of what to do with the mechanics, if you start to use it. But ordinary players do not automatically enter the clan, social players most likely already have channels of communication with friends, and taxpayers do not begin to pay, if they show the “buy” button.
Optimal player scenario
The bottom line is that players are looking for the optimal approach to achieve their goals, but we still do not know what is optimal for them or what goals they pursue. But with the help of analytics, we can find out how often they play, how long and exactly how they behave in the game.
Such habitual behavior can be taken as optimal - this is what the player already does, regardless of us. He does not want to spend energy to relearn.
Therefore, if the optimal usage scenario that we have defined for mechanics coincides with the optimal scenario of its user, the mechanics will receive the maximum coverage.
Let's go back to the clans. We still want to motivate players to use this mechanic and decided to add a reward for participating in clans.
This can be done in different ways:
In the first case, the optimal usage scenario assumes that the player sits down and plays for an hour or two. This scenario of use coincides with the behavior of the social player - they have been playing for so long, and now it will also become profitable.
But such a mechanic will not attract ordinary players who want to play in short sessions. In order to take advantage of it, they will have to invest more energy and make decisions to which they are not used to: play another game right now? Usually such decisions are not made at all.
But the second implementation does not impose any restrictions on the use case - it is equally suitable for all types of players. It is safe to say that if we choose the second method, then more players will use the clans.
Of course, you can always make giant bonuses to the reward, so that everything can be broken into clans. But most likely it will harm the game, if such an approach is not laid in the foundation: the gameplay will be tied only to the clans, and the whole balance will line up from the clan player.
Optimal strategy and content
The approach from the optimal strategy is applicable not only to the design mechanic, but also to the design of the content. Let's say we make a new character for an existing MOBA.
Let's call it Raptor - and, as planned, this will be the first in a “tank” game with three teleports. Unsurpassed mobility will distinguish it from the rest of the “tanks”. We have just described the character's USP - what sets it apart from other class characters and the reason for the players wanting such a tank.
It may seem that we know what we are doing. Producers are happy - we came up with new content. Satisfied with marketing - we came up with the promise with which we will promote it. Satisfied designers - USP helps to focus and understand what abilities to give to Raptor. And so we unreleased the hero, but ... no one plays for him.
Because, as with the mechanics, before inventing the USP, it was necessary to evaluate all the existing "tanks" in the game: what characteristics they have, how the players are used to playing them. Then we would have noticed that all the “tanks” in our game are slow. And it's not just about the characteristics - the decision-making time when playing for a “tank” allows players to have delays of up to 2 seconds of reflection (as against 0.5 seconds for “killers”). And the USP that we invented (a three-charge teleport) requires a high decision-making speed, which is not typical of our typical players for a “tank”. As a result, Raptor does not play attacking players (do not like the characteristics) and do not play tankers (the dynamics do not fit).
If a player wants to learn how to play for a new character, then the optimal behavior will be the choice of a character for whom you do not need to relearn. This will require less time and effort. That is (unfortunately or fortunately) it is more likely that the new content will be popular if it is as old, but “with mother-of-pearl buttons”.
Although, as in the previous example, you can always make a new character so strong that they will rush to play everything for him. But in the long run, this does more harm than good. A vivid example is League of Legends. In 2009, they had certain problems with the balance of new content. The most memorable was the release of the fighter Xin Zhao, which was simply unstoppable. As a result, even the support customers swooped on it - everyone wants to win.
And even whole markets.
Rise to a higher level and look at the gaming market as a whole - you will notice the trends already described. Namely: popular genres exploit the same formula, polishing individual parts or introducing innovations in small portions. The open world and the towers, perks and weapon upgrades in shooters, cells and cover in tactics - all this roams from game to game so that the mass user does not have to relearn and move away from his optimal scenario. It works the same logic.
It's very cool to come up with an absolutely new avant-garde game, which has no analogues, and which is cool to play. But. If your goal is mass, then remember that the player strives not to spend a lot of energy on choosing a new game. Already familiar parts and mechanics will help him in this (or a well-known brand - you have more opportunities with it for experimenting with the gameplay).
But it is not all that bad.
Game developers may not always or want to do things optimal for the player. Industry needs innovation, new games, mechanics and new content, not self-repetition.
Sometimes we want to increase the duration of the session, sometimes we need a new character in the game who will turn the meta and the idea of ​​the gameplay. Such things can and should be done. Just remember that every step you take from the optimal behavior of your player reduces the audience of your idea. And here it is necessary to evaluate what is more important: the benefits of those who still begin to behave according to your scenario, or greater coverage.
I would consider such “motivating” mechanics as a “unleashing the potential” of the game, and not an unambiguous way to improve its performance. Let's say you have released a new game. She is good and the players regularly play one match per day. You can easily do a daily quest for 2 games per day - then the average number of matches played will increase. But it works more precisely on a new project, where the audience has not yet reached the maximum of its potential.
And if the project is already mature and has a well-established audience, mechanics and gameplay cycles, then it becomes more difficult to motivate players to do something unusual.
How else are optimal scenarios useful?
See how the optimal scenario of using your mechanics (or content) and the optimal scenario of player behavior correlate. How far are you ready to go? After all, if they do not match, then in extreme cases problems may arise. A few examples:
Not a panacea
In fact, this text is not an attempt to force the reading of strategies and try to think everything over at the stage of writing the GDD. It is useless and will not work for everyone. The article is an illustration of two simple ideas that all too often fall out of sight.
A good design is one that meets the intended goals. Do whatever you think is necessary. The main thing is that the final result does not come as a surprise to you. If you do not forget about these things, the design will be better, and the resources invested in the development will be spent optimally.
To help game designers came up with a lot of tools: formats for traffic police, various checklists, user story , portraits, agenda , and so on. Still, this is not enough.
Therefore, below I will describe another method for evaluating ideas, which will help to work out the gameplay better and take into account more nuances. On the example of clans, prostitutes from GTA and not only.
')
Let's start with the concept of "optimal strategy". This is a strategy that gives the highest possible result with the lowest possible investment of resources. In general, a person has a desire for optimal behavior.
A simple example: banal laziness, as a way of the body to spend a minimum of energy, if the expected result does not pay for the investment. If the work is not fun, we will be too lazy to do it. We will not be happier either, but we will spend less energy.
In order for a person to start doing something, you must offer him a reward that is comparable or more valuable than the forces invested (this time we do not consider the whip method). But in this case, the person will seek to spend as little as possible resources.
What does gamedev have to do with it?
Game developers are often driven by user interests. They are trying to understand what the player wants, and what he will do if you give him some opportunities. A game designer comes up with a mechanic (for example: “in a jump a player can do a trick”) and decides that they will use it exactly as intended: “to overcome an obstacle, the player will jump and make a dummy in the air”.
But this may not be enough, because from the point of view of the optimal strategy, doing nothing at all is much more profitable. Then we add motivation in the form of a reward: “a successful trick gives a slight acceleration”, as in Mario Kart.
At this point, the player no longer interacts with the game, but the game begins to influence the player's behavior. It creates the motivation to do what is needed. And this is often forgotten.
The example is more complicated. In the GTA, you can contact prostitutes. This is quite in the spirit of the series, but if the opportunity itself is not associated with game mechanics, the player will look at how it works a couple of times and continue to do more useful things.
Therefore, the time spent with the ladies, restores health (motivation). And you can take the money back forcibly. We will not consider how ethical this is, just note that in this case it is the optimal strategy (the player will restore health and will not spend anything). This means that many will most likely do just that. Over time, the money in the game will lose value and they will cease, but only because they begin to optimize time as a more valuable resource.
The bottom line is that not only the player interacts with the game, but the game also sets its optimal behavior inside.
Some projects go so far as to start playing with the gamer themselves. On occasion, try Orwell or Superhot . It is difficult to convey without spoilers, but at some point you start to think: do you do what you chose, or what the game provoked you to.
Implement clans with optimal strategy
Above, I mentioned that the development often lead to the interests of the player. It is assumed that he a priori has a certain desire, which must be satisfied by adding mechanics. This approach overlaps with typical software development. For example, if you are developing an application for a bank, you will have to satisfy the interests of your customers — automate account statements, allow money transfer, add chat with support, and so on.
In game development, I would look at the situation from the other side: each new mechanic, each content unit is a new product and the player needs to be explained why he should use it (or make it come to this).
Consider a hypothetical game where we want to add clan mechanics. With their help, players unite in groups, play together, communicate, and share resources. And we want the majority of players to use the clans, because the practice shows that it is more interesting for players who have social contacts in the game to stay in the game.
War robots
Usually the task sounds like this: “We have different categories of players and we need to make the clans cover scenarios for using each group.”
Take the abstract, but the most common categories of players:
- An ordinary player. He plays one, not for long, but several times a day. Makes up 75% of the audience.
- Social worker Plays with friends (real or virtual), rarely, but for a long time.
- Payer. It plays little, but effectively, prefers to pay, rather than farm resources.
For regular players in the clans provides an increased reward for the fight. For social workers in the clans there is a general chat, the ability to quickly assemble a squad and exchange resources. You can also expand clans for in-game resources or inaps to complete joint quests faster and have a numerical advantage in guild wars.
Is it enough for the clan mechanics to become popular and all the players start using it?
Not. We just answered the question of what to do with the mechanics, if you start to use it. But ordinary players do not automatically enter the clan, social players most likely already have channels of communication with friends, and taxpayers do not begin to pay, if they show the “buy” button.
Optimal player scenario
The bottom line is that players are looking for the optimal approach to achieve their goals, but we still do not know what is optimal for them or what goals they pursue. But with the help of analytics, we can find out how often they play, how long and exactly how they behave in the game.
Such habitual behavior can be taken as optimal - this is what the player already does, regardless of us. He does not want to spend energy to relearn.
Therefore, if the optimal usage scenario that we have defined for mechanics coincides with the optimal scenario of its user, the mechanics will receive the maximum coverage.
Let's go back to the clans. We still want to motivate players to use this mechanic and decided to add a reward for participating in clans.
This can be done in different ways:
- The more games a clan player plays in a row, the greater the reward he receives (x1.2 for the second match, x1.3 for the third and so on).
- A player in the clan always gets + 20% to the reward for the fight.
In the first case, the optimal usage scenario assumes that the player sits down and plays for an hour or two. This scenario of use coincides with the behavior of the social player - they have been playing for so long, and now it will also become profitable.
But such a mechanic will not attract ordinary players who want to play in short sessions. In order to take advantage of it, they will have to invest more energy and make decisions to which they are not used to: play another game right now? Usually such decisions are not made at all.
But the second implementation does not impose any restrictions on the use case - it is equally suitable for all types of players. It is safe to say that if we choose the second method, then more players will use the clans.
Of course, you can always make giant bonuses to the reward, so that everything can be broken into clans. But most likely it will harm the game, if such an approach is not laid in the foundation: the gameplay will be tied only to the clans, and the whole balance will line up from the clan player.
Optimal strategy and content
The approach from the optimal strategy is applicable not only to the design mechanic, but also to the design of the content. Let's say we make a new character for an existing MOBA.
Let's call it Raptor - and, as planned, this will be the first in a “tank” game with three teleports. Unsurpassed mobility will distinguish it from the rest of the “tanks”. We have just described the character's USP - what sets it apart from other class characters and the reason for the players wanting such a tank.
It may seem that we know what we are doing. Producers are happy - we came up with new content. Satisfied with marketing - we came up with the promise with which we will promote it. Satisfied designers - USP helps to focus and understand what abilities to give to Raptor. And so we unreleased the hero, but ... no one plays for him.
Because, as with the mechanics, before inventing the USP, it was necessary to evaluate all the existing "tanks" in the game: what characteristics they have, how the players are used to playing them. Then we would have noticed that all the “tanks” in our game are slow. And it's not just about the characteristics - the decision-making time when playing for a “tank” allows players to have delays of up to 2 seconds of reflection (as against 0.5 seconds for “killers”). And the USP that we invented (a three-charge teleport) requires a high decision-making speed, which is not typical of our typical players for a “tank”. As a result, Raptor does not play attacking players (do not like the characteristics) and do not play tankers (the dynamics do not fit).
If a player wants to learn how to play for a new character, then the optimal behavior will be the choice of a character for whom you do not need to relearn. This will require less time and effort. That is (unfortunately or fortunately) it is more likely that the new content will be popular if it is as old, but “with mother-of-pearl buttons”.
Although, as in the previous example, you can always make a new character so strong that they will rush to play everything for him. But in the long run, this does more harm than good. A vivid example is League of Legends. In 2009, they had certain problems with the balance of new content. The most memorable was the release of the fighter Xin Zhao, which was simply unstoppable. As a result, even the support customers swooped on it - everyone wants to win.
And even whole markets.
Rise to a higher level and look at the gaming market as a whole - you will notice the trends already described. Namely: popular genres exploit the same formula, polishing individual parts or introducing innovations in small portions. The open world and the towers, perks and weapon upgrades in shooters, cells and cover in tactics - all this roams from game to game so that the mass user does not have to relearn and move away from his optimal scenario. It works the same logic.
It's very cool to come up with an absolutely new avant-garde game, which has no analogues, and which is cool to play. But. If your goal is mass, then remember that the player strives not to spend a lot of energy on choosing a new game. Already familiar parts and mechanics will help him in this (or a well-known brand - you have more opportunities with it for experimenting with the gameplay).
But it is not all that bad.
Game developers may not always or want to do things optimal for the player. Industry needs innovation, new games, mechanics and new content, not self-repetition.
Sometimes we want to increase the duration of the session, sometimes we need a new character in the game who will turn the meta and the idea of ​​the gameplay. Such things can and should be done. Just remember that every step you take from the optimal behavior of your player reduces the audience of your idea. And here it is necessary to evaluate what is more important: the benefits of those who still begin to behave according to your scenario, or greater coverage.
I would consider such “motivating” mechanics as a “unleashing the potential” of the game, and not an unambiguous way to improve its performance. Let's say you have released a new game. She is good and the players regularly play one match per day. You can easily do a daily quest for 2 games per day - then the average number of matches played will increase. But it works more precisely on a new project, where the audience has not yet reached the maximum of its potential.
And if the project is already mature and has a well-established audience, mechanics and gameplay cycles, then it becomes more difficult to motivate players to do something unusual.
How else are optimal scenarios useful?
See how the optimal scenario of using your mechanics (or content) and the optimal scenario of player behavior correlate. How far are you ready to go? After all, if they do not match, then in extreme cases problems may arise. A few examples:
- When the real optimal scenario of using mechanics does not coincide with what the designer intended, an exploit appears. To avoid this at the design stage, you need to make sure that the intended use is the most profitable. As an example - The Elder Scrolls pumping system, where skills swing as you use. And you can pump stealth without overcoming any obstacles, and spending a couple of hours to sneak along the wall, being behind the enemy. This is clearly not what the designers wanted.
- When the game rewards the player for the designer’s intended behavior, and the real effective one differs from it - this leads to frustration from the fact that the player is not rewarded for the “right” behavior. Good design feels natural - the player does what he wants, and he is rewarded for it.
- When you have several options to choose from, and the best of them is only one, it creates the presence of one “correct” option and a set of useless ones. In MMORPG, there are very fast guides for fast pumping: you need to go to such locations with such equipment. As a result, some locations are filled with players, while other players only enter by mistake. And the team spent resources on their production. In some cases, this can be corrected by balance. And sometimes, without harm to the game, you can simply remove something that will not be in demand. You can minimize the cost of production without doing too much. But this is a conversation about dominant strategies, which deserves a separate article.
Not a panacea
In fact, this text is not an attempt to force the reading of strategies and try to think everything over at the stage of writing the GDD. It is useless and will not work for everyone. The article is an illustration of two simple ideas that all too often fall out of sight.
- Think not only about what your player will do, but why he will do it. Focus not only on opportunities, but also on the motivation to use them.
- Consider how convenient the player is to use these features. The less convenience, the less players will use them.
A good design is one that meets the intended goals. Do whatever you think is necessary. The main thing is that the final result does not come as a surprise to you. If you do not forget about these things, the design will be better, and the resources invested in the development will be spent optimally.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/447214/
All Articles