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

[cruise]

Paolo Piselli wrote:
> --- 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.

Which is I proposed having the learning be determined by the
player. The "usual" XP system effectively boils down to the designer
telling the player, "I think you need to kill X monsters before you
are ready to have a new ability."

Instead, which should be saying to the players, "When you want a new
skill, ask." If the uses of each skill are sufficiently unique and
varied, then the natural learning and assimilation rate of the human
brain acts as a levelling barrier.

> 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.

Naturally. But that's not a problem with using added skills as an
way of keeping the game interesting. That's a problem of the game
designer not offering good enough skills.

> 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.

There seems to be the impression that because MMOG cannot be as fast
as an FPS, that they must be terminally slow turn-based affairs. A
"reaction-window", as discussed elsewhere, of 2-3 seconds is not
unreasonable even in an MMOG, and would still provide a challenge in
execution /if the goal state often changes/.

> 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.

I was never claiming that the learning process was all that was
required - just that having a player driven learning system that
allowed them to learn as much or as little as they could cope with
would provide /appropriate levels of complexity/ for each player. I
agree entirely with your statement that it is the cognitive
complexity of a process that is the key.

I still find combat in CoH fun and exciting, and I've been playing
since beta. Others on this list claim the combat is boring and
repetitive. Perhaps my "sufficient complexity threshold" is lower
than others. Certainly I hate the complexity of flight sims, and the
(for me) obscene memory requirements of 40-hit combos in some
beat'em'ups. Whatever the reasons, offering players a naturally
adjusting level of complexity will mean a lot more poeple will find
the game "cognitively interesting."

--
[ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ]
   "quantam sufficit"
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev