[MUD-Dev] Cognitively Interesting Combat

[Derek Larson]

On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 09:09, Paolo Piselli wrote:

> It seems to me that the discussion of "better combat" is diving
> depth-first into tangents on chess, randomness and game mechanics
> without taking a look back and asking: what is it that makes
> combat "better"?

Well, tangents are abounding, but I think this crusade was taken to
find combat that doesn't reduce to lumberjacking.  The sound
assumption made was that lumberjack combat is boring, and to escape
this we add layers of complexity.  And what is the paragon of
competitive complexity?  Chess.  (Though, IMO Go is an even better
ideal).

> Making the mechanics more complex makes combat more "interesting"
> to the few explorer types who first do the analysis, however (as
> stated before) if all those mechanics are reducible then optimal
> combat "solutions" will be discovered and the majority of players
> will still find combat just as uninteresting as before.

Hence the need for the "knight".  I'll get to some ideas for this at
the bottom.

> Adding more variance to combat outcomes may make it more
> interesting in the same way that slot machines are "interesting",
> however something tells me that taking players on a stochastic
> roller-coaster would do more to conribute to user fatigue than to
> make them more engaged in combat.

I would argue for a modicum of variance to be included in any combat
system, though nothing that overshadows the ability of the more
skilled player to win.  It introduces a healthy level of
unpredictability that will give differentiation between otherwise
similar engagements.  As it is, the MMORPGS I've played are probably
still too random (e.g. weapon damage distributions of uniform
density from x to 2x).

> Making combat more like chess?  This suggestion has some merit, as
> chess has the quality of interesting-ness, but chess itself is not
> the solution.

I think the goal is just to take a few steps down the road toward
chess and see what happens.

> IMO the question we need to answer is: How do we make combat more
> cognitively interesting?

That question might be more specific than necessary, all we need to
do is make combat more differentiated and unpredictable (only the
RDA of these of course) and IMO we've solved the /immediate/
problem.  A few years down the road, though, and we'll probably be
asking your question anyway.

> So here are some questions to lead off discussion on cognitive
> constraints:

>   - what kind of mastery of the keyboard and mouse should the
>   player have?

>   - how fast of a reaction time will the player be required to
>   have?

>   - how frequently will the player have to make decisions?

>   - how much time will the player have to make strategic
>   decisions?

>   - how much information will the player have to remember during
>   combat?

>   - how many cognitive structures (production rules, decision-tree
>   nodes, or whatever model you prefer) will the player need to
>   maintain in order to be successful at combat?

I see no reason to a priori constrain ourselves with these.  Both
ends of the spectrum on most of these questions can still lead to
interesting competition (based on personal taste of course).  These
questions will simply have to be answered by the design team (or
likely the management) when they are deciding their target audience.
I see two major axes here: pacing and commitment (for example, Age
of Empires would be maybe .5 fast-paced and .5
high-commitment). Using Bartle, I'd claim explorers are probably
looking for high-commitment combat while the achievers are looking
for fast-paced combat.

The above is only true if there is no Holy Grail of combat systems--
something everyone would enjoy.  I'm pessimistic about finding one,
seeing as how personal taste tends to divide people too cleanly.
Thus, I propose the only constraints we should discuss here are the
ones imposed by physical limitations (such as how much we can pull
off without lag being a problem).

> ..and a thought to lead off discussion on cognitive interest: - It
> is my opinion that making combat interesting involves finding the
> sweet-spot of cognitive-load on the player where she is neither
> bored nor overtaxed.

I would argue that this sweet-spot doesn't exist.  Is there a
sweet-spot for spiciness in food?  Just as taste-bud sensitivity
varies significantly, so do mental ability and physical reflexes.

> I'd propose to allow players of all capacities to be successful at
> combat, yet give benefits to those capable at performing at a
> higher level (less downtime, more XP, whatever).

If I'm reading you correctly, I'd say it's as I mentioned above,
where a game will be designed with some audience in mind, and that
will dictate how they adjust the parameters such as the level of
combat knowledge required to compete.  Pleasing both the
Counterstrike crowd and the solitaire crowd may be impossible.

++++++++++++++++++++++

The most basic idea that I think is colossally important is that a
player's choices in combat need to hinge on what is happening.  It
needs more focus on reaction.  The most that some of the current
MMOG's have in this regard is healing or running away when low on
life; it needs to be taken a lot further.

A Rock, Paper, Scissors type relation is a good start; much better
than just Scissors, which is what we've been stuck with.  However,
there must be information presented that a player can react to
(can't just show your choice at the same time).  One way to do this
would be to correlate sequential moves.  By this I mean make move n
depend on n-1 (and probably n-2 and so forth).  A sword thrust may
do x damage when done out of the blue, but perhaps it does x+2 when
it follows a sidestep. Out of this system, you might be able to form
various combinations of sequences (hmm, combos, yes we're in Dead or
Alive, etc. territory here).  The analogy I see here: starting off a
combo is like moving your chess pieces into strategic position, to
which the opponent gets the opportunity to react.  Determining the
reaction will then invoke the RPS of "what works best against the
combo I think he is using?"

This has heavy overlap with the (Paul's?) footwork grid ideas; I'm
just trying to come at it from a different angle.

Another facet important to combat is resource management (though you
could call it "reacting to yourself").  Often, the only resource to
manage is HP, and the player isn't given many options of how to
manage it.  UO did fairly well with HP, stamina, and mana; a lot
better than SWG did with its three pools I'd say.  Use of mana in UO
generally differentiates novices from experts: the newbies just pour
it all into damage spells quickly, while the veterans conserve it
until an opportune time to strike.  This only arises because you can
heal yourself faster and cheaper (mana-wise) than you can do damage.

-Tek
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev