[MUD-Dev] Cognitively Interesting Combat (was Better Combat)

[Paolo Piselli]

--- cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:

> Is learning cognitively interesting? It is arguable that chess is
> interesting because each game you learn and improve (against
> suitably skilled opponents, anyway). The first few levels of an
> RPG can be interesting, because you're learning how the fighting
> works (assuming it's sufficiently different from other systems to
> require "learning"). Boredom sets in once the 100% successful
> tactic is discovered and learning ceases.

I agree that that player learning works against how interesting
combat is.  I also agree that the process of learning how to use new
skills in combat contributes to player interest.  However, new
skills are just a form of content, and there is a limit to how much
content can be added to keep player interest.  If you consider how
often a new skill is introduced, and then consider the tens if not
hundreds of combat sessions that the player will have to "study"
that new skill before the next arrives, then it is clear that they
will spend the bulk of their combat-grind having already learned how
to use that skill.

It is not enough to have to learn how to use a new skill, that skill
must also contribute to the cognitive complexity of combat itself.
If the new skill is something that either replaces the use of an old
skill, or something that will only be used once in the course of a
combat, or is not a combat-related skill, then it does not
significantly change the complexity of combat.

The exploration of new skills is a short-term interest generator.
Another aspect of player learning is, after knowing what to do,
gaining the ability to execute.  Twitch-based games are all about
out-executing your opponents.  Wether its navigating known enemy
flight patterns in Ikaruga, chopping up a snake in Dragon's Lair, or
executing combos in Street Fighter, much of the interest in action
games is about execution.  In the MMORPG domain we cannot make
combat too difficult to execute, as we wish to make it both
accessible and somewhat independant of player-dexterity, however the
challenge of executing the optimal combat strategy is at least a
blip in the player experience before it has been mastered.

I don't think you can rely on "discovery of tactics" or "challenge
of execution" as long-term interest generators.  Players have more
than enough time to learn these, and once they have - then what?  I
really think that the inherent cognitive complexity of combat itself
is the answer for keeping it interesting in the long-term.  I'm not
saying make it rocket science, but even simple games like solitaire
and minesweeper keep people's interest over hundreds of iterations
without them burning out - and that is with a static level of
complexity.

-Paolo

=====
Paolo Piselli
ppiselli at yahoo.com
www.piselli.com , www.bestcoastswing.com
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev