How, exactly, do you design a strategy from scratch?

7,435

November 10, 2008 07:22 PM

Quote:Original post by Telastyn
Eh, time pressure and randomness are factors in computer games, but not terribly relevant to the intrinsic abstraction.

Time pressure adds a choice regarding what to pay attention to, and a degree of difficulty towards getting things done. Randomness just influences the game state (random maps) or the likelihood of a result. Just more data to weigh for the choice. They're just rules for the game not so much changing the definition itself (imo).

You're leaving the player psychology out of it though, both time pressure and randomness can have profound effects on that, and that's the reason I said they should be considered. Specifically randomness can interfere with a player's ability to deduce the internal math of the game, possibly negating their ability to predict at all what effects their actions might have. That results in totally different types of strategies, like choosing to ignore a goal and instead do whatever type of in-game activity seems the most fun at the moment, or a strategy of behaving randomly or experimentally trying every possible action once in hopes that some surprising and interesting result will come out; quite different from normal strategic behavior of deducing the most efficient behavior and performing it consistently.

I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.

sunandshadow

7,435

November 10, 2008 07:25 PM

Ezbez, I don't think the distinction between whether the result is immediate or delayed is important, both are strategy; even if the result is instantaneous you are making a decision to do that action in that instant rather than all the other possible things you might be doing. And, since games by definition last more than an instant, even instantaneous decisions will contribute to or be influenced by long-term strategic decisions about how to play the game.

I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.

Telastyn

3,778

November 10, 2008 07:27 PM

I've never seen the difference between tactics and strategy that way. Strategy tends to be the pattern of choices (from my description), tactics are more of the individual choices.

In the Zombie example, strategy would be choosing between running from the zombies, or tricking the zombies, or slaughtering the zombies. Tactics becomes where to go, how to trick them, weather to use the axe or the cricket bat...

[edit: player psychology]

Enh. The randomness of a game is known. In the internet age, one guy will find the average results either via hack or experimentation then disseminate it. Not every player will know, but you shouldn't design a game around the ignorance of your player; not anymore anyways.

And that's ignoring the inherent suckiness that comes from trying to make a decision truly without knowledge of the result. It's not an interesting choice, it's a shot in the dark. Pick A or B. Meaningless. Experimenting with various combinations to see the result is tedium. No choice; it's akin to playing a slot machine.

Some players will always pick the most efficient strategy and perform it consistently. If you want something else, vary the state; vary the goals to make the strategy variable. Make different strategies viable.

But that diverges from the original topic I think...

[Edited by - Telastyn on November 10, 2008 7:27:49 PM]

-- Tangent Developer Journal - Delegates - Part 2

Wai

1,007

November 10, 2008 08:11 PM

Re: Ezbez

For the sake of analysis I draw no distinction between tactics and strategies. The difference is in scope, which is defined outside the definition of strategy.

Re: Wavinator

Evaluations is done by declaring a set of quantifiable benefits, costs, and compute the expected ratio based on probablility. In the definition where a strategy consists of a set of action/reaction laws, the number can be obtained empirically by simulating the situation n times. At the end of each run, the benefit/cost ratio is computed. At the end of n runs, the average is computed.

Analytically, the Expected Effectiveness of a strategy is hard to computed because the related probabilities could be hard to compute. But some strategies can be evaluated by cancelling out shared probabilities, allowing you to compare them without knowing their absolute effectiveness.

In the Throw-stuff-and-scream strategy, the overall effectiveness is zero because zombies are not affected by screaming or stuff thrown by kids. The list of related probability is long, and includes:

1 The chance that something can be picked up and thrown
2 The chance that you can throw stuff after i throws
3 The chance that a thrown object hits a zombie
4 The chance that a zombie gives up after getting hit
5 The chance that a zombie gives up after hearing a scream
6 The chance that you can scream again after j screams

In this analysis, 1,2,6 are ammunitions that is related to how long you could defend the playground under if is a chance that a zombie would give up.

Suppose Zombies are scared by things being thrown at them. Then an improvement to the strategy would be to tie a string to an object before it is thrown, so that the thrown object could be retrieved and be thrown again. This becomes a better strategy because it contains an option to improve the chance of 1.

The reason I am confused about the topic is that this line in particular doesn't make a lot of sense to me because the word strategy is being referred to several things:

Quote:The elements must arise from the execution and interplay of rules which the player understands in advance. If zombies are repelled by fire, for instance, then the use of fire becomes a strategy (contingent on other rules, such rain/water putting out fire, which makes the strategy effective only in certain situations). A good strategy keeps this consistent (zombies shouldn't suddenly and inexplicably lose their fear of fire just because of a level load.)

The last sentence seems uncompatible, because it seems that you are describing a situations where the game makes zombie's fear or fire inconsistent, thus making it difficult/frustrating to a player who is trying to devise a strategy. So I can't tell whether the topic is

How, exactly, do you devise a strategy, given a situation, from scratch?

or

How, exactly, do you design a strategic situation from scratch, given that you want the player to have fun strategizing?

[Battle Angel Valerie]

Ezbez

1,164

November 11, 2008 05:33 AM

No one here has heard strategy and tactics used something like "Company X is very tactical, compared to the more strategic Company Y." Company X is investing in short-term paybacks while Company Y is slowly developing large-scale projects. Or have you heard someone saying that most RTSes are actually Real-Time Tactics games?

Well, let's look at the Merriam Webster definition of strategy: (this is only the military definition)

Quote:1 a (1): the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2): the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b: a variety of or instance of the use of strategy

By this definition, strategies lead to favorable conditions at the start of combat. On the other hand, let's look at tactics: (Again, the military definition. Yhe other one is too vague)

Quote: 2 : a method of employing forces in combat

Are you starting to see the difference? Maneuvering squads is strategy. Withdrawing into the castle walls is strategy.

Now, that said, I am perfectly fine if we agree upon throwing out the difference, as Wai has done. However, since most of this thread is trying to define strategy, that definately needs to be explicitly decided upon.

@SunandShadow: I certainly agree with you around the issue of my "instantaneous result" definition. I merely proposed it, since it was the best I could think of. It works fairly well, IMO, for turn-based games, but has little use in real-time games (including much of real life).

Wai

1,007

November 11, 2008 10:24 AM

Re: Ezbez

I see the difference where you define strategy as a set of methods to prepare before an encounter, where tactics are methods during an encounter.

An encounter may be easier to define when there is combat (e.g. when you and the enemy are in each other's range and someone starts shooting, there is an encounter). How do you define an encounter when there is no combat and no fighting?

[Battle Angel Valerie]

TechnoGoth

2,939

November 11, 2008 02:32 PM

I’d say strategy is made up of the following:

1 – Situational Assessment – Being able to analyze the current state of the world, and having an understanding of the rules and mechanic that govern the outcome of actions in that world.

For example knowing that zombies are scared of light, light bulbs generate light, so I can turn the lights on in a room to force the zombies into dark areas.

2 - Planning - Being able to plan out future actions, and make decision before hand as to what I have, want, need, and should avoid based upon point 1.

For example if there is another kid with me at start who is willing to come with me and trade his backpack for my baseball bat. Do I want to make the trade? Keep my baseball bat? Or beat him over the head and take his backpack knowing he won’t be able to help me later if I do.

3 – Position and Environment - Position and other environmental factors have a direct and meaningful impact on the outcome of actions. Which becomes a factor in point 2.

For example I can avoid zombies by keeping too well lit areas as well as use lights to herd zombies to where the school bully is hiding.

4 – Actions and Outcome – There is a domain of actions available with a range of outcomes that will contribute to my overall objective, hinder the opponent, provided me a benefit I can utilize for future actions, or hinder myself in some way.

For example if I take the risk of venturing into the basement to restart the school generator it will me the parts of the school will have power, which increases my options later on.

Writing Blog: The Aspiring Writer

Novels:
Legacy - Black Prince Saga Book One - By Alexander Ballard (Free this week)

leiavoia

960

November 11, 2008 03:13 PM

I wrote a little doc called The Strategy Game Designer's Constitution and i included this bit (likely debatable):

Quote: In designing strategy games then, we need to constantly be promoting certain aspects of game play. Strategy games are characterized by:

Long-range goals (besides simply winning). All games are meant to be won. That is what makes them a game at all. But for strategy games, there ought to be long-range objectives that need to be accomplished in order to win. Things like "capture the queen" or "fortify my current position". These goals are a level higher than manipulating specific game units or variables, but do not represent the entire game itself (winning).

Forethought to achieve those goals. Based on our description above, the classic strategy game Chess appears to be more of a game of tactics. Each move is critical, Each piece is valued. And yet, it is widely recognized as a game of deep strategy. Good Chess players are not playing individual pieces however. They are playing an overall position on the board and think several moves ahead in order to gain an advantage. Playing each move at face value is the mark of a novice player. Therefore, strategy games emphasize forethought.

Minimizing the impact of specific actions when compared to the overall strategy. That is, tactics should not win a strategy game. Strategy should win a strategy game. While a game may include giving orders or moving game units specifically, the game as a whole should not emphasize any particular action. Making a good or bad "move" should not automatically determine whether or not you have won or lost the game. Some games in particular make the player feel they must restart if they don't get a good "starting position". This could indicate a design flaw (or a player obsession)

Relative unimportance of individual units or functions as they relate to the whole. While losing a game unit or a conflict is always bad, its impact on a true strategy game is lessened. And this isn't to say that some key units or battles or tactics are unimportant, but in the larger scheme of things, these specifics should not win or lose the entire game. For instance, again in Chess, the Queen is a very important piece. But losing the Queen does not mean the game is lost or that that player is doomed. In fact, loss of this "unit" may even be part of the strategy.

Tactical games, on the other hand, emphasize the opposite. Moves are made at face value as the situation dictates. It focuses more on specific moves or specific units which really can win or lose the game. There are few long range goals and the game may be segmented into shorter sections ("acts", "chapters", "missions", and whatnot). Strategy games are generally played start to finish which allows for more variety in between, thus not restricting the player from a full range of actions.

There's lots of other goodies in there you might want to check out.

How, exactly, do you design a strategy from scratch?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

How, exactly, do you design a strategy from scratch?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines