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

[cruise]

ceo wrote:
> cruise wrote:

>> This is a general summary of various mails - just kinda thinking
>> out loud for a bit...

>> Paolo has suggested three "metrics" for the cognitive complexity
>> of a process:

>>  1) Number of unique rules accessed during the process.

>>  2) The rate of access of these rules.

>>  3) The total number of rule accesses required.

>> I would, however, add a fourth:

>>  4) The number of rules available to choose from.

> This to me sounds fine but restricted to a very low-level. The
> cognitive complexity items do nothing to measure or encourage fun,
> which IMHO is much more worthy a thing to be adding to the combat
> than mere cognitive interest - whereas the added item 4 starts to
> move in that direction.

> I still think you ought to go back and read the previous
> discussions on fun, which were aimed at a slightly higher level
> and attempted to get closer to the final aim - an enjoyable game -
> although still IMHO at least one crucial step away. I suspect that
> inventing the next step upwards might be what it needs to convert
> the whole of this area from an academic discussion into the start
> of a sea-change in game design.

For me, games are all about interesting decisions, which directly
correlates with "cognitively interesting". Fun, for me, is something
that makes me think, and is a challenge. Another mail asked what it
is about combat that seems to get so much attention. I'd say it is
the challenge, the competition.  Cognitively interesting, to me,
equals cognitively challenging, which in turn, /for me/ equals fun.

>> Chess has been oft quoted in this thread as an excellent example
>> of cognitive complexity, but there are times when you can play on

> ...but it takes too long to play and is too exhausting for most
> people most of the time. Cognitive complexity == hard work. As a
> side-note, I'd rather endure physical pain than move any
> significant distance in the direction of chess - even something as
> simple as Connect-4 is for most people too mentally exhausting to
> play too frequently as a leisure activity (even if they very
> happily play it occasionally). It doesn't matter than I enjoy
> chess: that's a single discrete activity that I might do once in a
> leisure sitting. Bear in mind that combat in games has to be
> repeated many many many times at a high frequency.

Naturally - and it's always been mentioned that requiring Chess
level AI for each mob in the world is prohibitive :P The point of
the exercise is to draw out the underlying principles that make a
game like chess an enjoyable passtime - at least for some. I love
chess and could probably play it all day if I could find a willing
opponent. Ditto Connect-4.

Would you be more willing to play a game of chess, then a game of
connect-4, then say, Settlers of Catan, maybe tic-tac-toe,
etc. ie. Is it the fundemental process of competing intellectually,
or is it the specifics involved each time?

If, say, combat vs. each weapon is a different "game", would that
suffice to retain interest?

--
[ 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