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

[cruise]

ceo wrote:
> cruise wrote:

>> 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.

> You say that, but ... have you ever tried it? (I have done with
> c-4 on many occasions and with chess only very rarely; it revealed
> some very interesting stuff about mental alertness that I'm sure
> would make a good a PhD topic...).

Close to on occasion - certainly it will depend on how tired I as to
start with. But your point is a good one - I have a feeling my
tastes are somewhat atypical :P

>> 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,

> TTT requires very little mental effort and is inherently dull for
> most resonably smart people because the rapidity with which you
> learn that it's a pointless game.

That was partly my point :P

>> etc. ie. Is it the fundemental process of competing
>> intellectually, or is it the specifics involved each time?

> I thought I explained that originally: it's the mental exhaustion
> of playing these games. Or, to put it another way, with an IQ
> close to 200 I don't have any difficulty with pattern-based games,
> and *without effort* I can beat any mediocre opponent. In that
> sense, chess can be simple and cheap in terms of concentration and
> effort; but I'm not really playing chess: I'm just adopting a
> couple of simultaneous strategies (so that when a forced move
> blocks one I can switch to one of the others) and doing minor
> analysis to avoid making more than a few stupid mistakes.

> But if I'm playing someone who I know to be a regular chess
> player, I have to try really hard, because I'm simply not going to
> get away with trivial analysis, and actually play
> "properly". Perhaps if I didn't have a day-job which required
> intensive design, planning, and execution (enough to feel
> physically exhausted from doing nothing more than thinking all
> day) then I would relish playing chess properly. As it stands, I'd
> rather do something that is more fun and requires less "work".

Just wanted to be clear. It is the fundemental "work" required in a
complex process. Okay. Which is to be expected - a challenge is one
thing, but too much is obviously going to become wearisome.

Players will vary along this scale - those who have nothing else to
do but play the game all day, and can stand repeated complex
combats. Others who just load it up for an hour after work need
something a little lighter. So offering a challenge suited for all
would be a good goal to aim for.

> For instance, Shogun: Total War is a realtime massive battle game
> (akin to tabletop war games). It is excessively tactical (with
> huge bonuses for troops attacking on a flank, from the rear, etc),
> yet because it's real-time the actual process involves a lot of
> watching how your plan is developing, and tweaking it as it goes
> along. If something unexpected happens (as it often does), you are
> cued for a few minutes of intensive planning and action (having to
> think and issue new orders in realtime), but then it's back to the
> non-intensive (though still active) play for the next 5
> minutes. This is a game I find great for after work - it allows
> you to be intensive for small bursts (although even then you don't
> *have* to if your plan was good: you'll still win, but will lose
> more troops in the process), without tieing you up with a long
> exhaustive session with no relent.

I think this is the better model to follow than chess - a varying
pace rather than a long slow plodding one, but still with peaks of
intense mental involvment.

> Of course, my reasons for disliking chess / C-4 / etc as a leisure
> activity may be unique to me. Certainly, I've always found chess
> peculiarly frustrating, even to an extent "boring", simply because
> you can only ever do one thing at once. Games like Shogun appeal
> because you can easily have 12 units, arranged into 4-6 groups,
> with each group simultaneously carrying out independent
> orders. Perhaps I just prefer inherently parallel games to
> inherently sequential ones...

In a MMOG, parallelism would seem to be highly appropriate -
certainly the discussions about time-debt elsewhere suggest some
kind of parallelism would alleviate a number of grievances.

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

> Do you mean, one weapon's game would be like chess, another would
> be like the card-game "snap" (A combination of chance and
> reflexes), etc?

> If so, then "YES!", since that would give me some kind of choice
> of what kind of game I was playing when.

Hrm. It's suddenly struck me that this follows a design pattern from
another genre entirely that has proved very successful: 2D shooters
(R-Type, etc.)

Most of the level is comprised of simple reflex testing enemies, but
each "end-of-level" boss usually requires careful thought to
determine it's weak point, and a slower, more deliberate style of
play.

Current MMOG's concentrate on the minions, but where are the
end-of-level boss equivalents? Raid-level mobs? But they're only
end-game, huge-group requiring affairs. To really vary the pace of
an MMOG, players could reguarly encounter an "end-of-level" baddy -
literally, by requiring a major battle to gain each level up, or as
part of quests. Or whatever. But variability in pace and cognitive
complexity, especially if it's under player control, seems to be a
very worthy goal.

--
[ 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