Games end. Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes the player wins. Nothing wrong with that either. Rather than finding ways to deny the player complete dominance during the end game, one can just as well make the game an imbalanced system wherein once the tide turns and victory moves beyond reasonable doubt the player's power just keeps growing and growing faster and faster so the "official" end comes very soon afterwards. A satisfying triumph march rather than joyless work mopping up what's left of the opposition.
I'm thinking Zed where controlling two thirds of the map gives twice as much weapons production as the enemy and controlling four fifths of the map gives maybe 10-15 times more production.
I'm thinking some older god-game whose name I forget in which after the player's forces become large enough the Armageddon option becomes available: a swift game resolution that forces instant combat between the factions, with the initiating side at a disadvantage. (the game was about castle building and upgrading and map modelling both to make it more amenable to friendly buildings and to damage enemy ones - curious what it was)
When "All's Well" Isn't
Quote:Original post by Diodor
Games end. Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes the player wins. Nothing wrong with that either. Rather than finding ways to deny the player complete dominance during the end game, one can just as well make the game an imbalanced system wherein once the tide turns and victory moves beyond reasonable doubt the player's power just keeps growing and growing faster and faster so the "official" end comes very soon afterwards. A satisfying triumph march rather than joyless work mopping up what's left of the opposition.
I'm thinking Zed where controlling two thirds of the map gives twice as much weapons production as the enemy and controlling four fifths of the map gives maybe 10-15 times more production.
I'm thinking some older god-game whose name I forget in which after the player's forces become large enough the Armageddon option becomes available: a swift game resolution that forces instant combat between the factions, with the initiating side at a disadvantage. (the game was about castle building and upgrading and map modelling both to make it more amenable to friendly buildings and to damage enemy ones - curious what it was)
The god game would be populous.
Quote:Original post by MeshGearFox
Solution Idea 2:
Don't let the player get more powerful than everything else in the game in the first place.
This. You're designing the game. If players are too powerful late-game, the onus lies on you to balance the early-game.
I always liked the way the Zelda games worked. As you moved onward and upward you gained a new tool to deal with the current set of problems, adding to the tools you had already collected en-route (which for the most part were still useful in the new area).
The area of the game where the new tool was key was large enough that you had a chance to get the hang of the tool before moving onto the next section, but small enough that you didn't become too good, or for that matter, too bored with the current tool.
Essentially each section/tool allowed you to grow as a player, whilst at the same time having elements that were new, keeping your "Uber-ness" as well as your boredom in check. A strong mix.
The area of the game where the new tool was key was large enough that you had a chance to get the hang of the tool before moving onto the next section, but small enough that you didn't become too good, or for that matter, too bored with the current tool.
Essentially each section/tool allowed you to grow as a player, whilst at the same time having elements that were new, keeping your "Uber-ness" as well as your boredom in check. A strong mix.
Quote:Original post by MeshGearFox
Build in a decay factor. That is, something that will kill the player if they're ever in a safe state unless they're actively going after some sort of progress.
Another variation of this would be empires that need to constantly expand, as they need the spoils of conquest to pay the bills. In game terms this would be to have some form of maintenance cost that grows as the PC grows in power, and which has consequences if not met.
When the player character becomes too powerful it is a case of Jack of all trades master of all. But what is this were'nt the case?
What if, the player starts out as a Jack of all trades, but, master of none, and then as they develop they ahve to sacrifice ability in the other aspects to gain master over a specific one. Essentially character growth and development is about specialisation rather than a flat increase in power.
As a basic example, imagine an RPG type game where the palyer starts off with 3 skills
- Weapons
- Magic
- Diplomacy
The character starts off with 30 points in each skill. At each level up the player can reassign the points between each skill, but only a maximum number of points equal to their level.
So at level 1 they could move 1 point from a skill to another skill
eg:
Weapons 29
Magic 31
Diplomacy 30
At level 2 they could move another point
Weapons 39
Magic 32
Diplomacy 29
And so forth.
This would allow players to customise their character over time, and if you use an exponetial increase in power (or certain abilities have a minimum skill score before they can be used) as the value of the skill rises, then it encourages players to specialise.
They become more powerful in their chose specialty, but at the cost of becomeing weaker in other areas. Enemies can then be created to exploit these weaknesses to provide a challenge to the player.
What if, the player starts out as a Jack of all trades, but, master of none, and then as they develop they ahve to sacrifice ability in the other aspects to gain master over a specific one. Essentially character growth and development is about specialisation rather than a flat increase in power.
As a basic example, imagine an RPG type game where the palyer starts off with 3 skills
- Weapons
- Magic
- Diplomacy
The character starts off with 30 points in each skill. At each level up the player can reassign the points between each skill, but only a maximum number of points equal to their level.
So at level 1 they could move 1 point from a skill to another skill
eg:
Weapons 29
Magic 31
Diplomacy 30
At level 2 they could move another point
Weapons 39
Magic 32
Diplomacy 29
And so forth.
This would allow players to customise their character over time, and if you use an exponetial increase in power (or certain abilities have a minimum skill score before they can be used) as the value of the skill rises, then it encourages players to specialise.
They become more powerful in their chose specialty, but at the cost of becomeing weaker in other areas. Enemies can then be created to exploit these weaknesses to provide a challenge to the player.
Thanks for the replies everyone.
Decay is good but I like most Edtharan's idea of a built in invulnerability. Either the player is semi-capable at everything or really good at a few things. I'd like to see this idea applied to gear / equipment loadouts. Does anyone know any games where this has been done?
Decay is good but I like most Edtharan's idea of a built in invulnerability. Either the player is semi-capable at everything or really good at a few things. I'd like to see this idea applied to gear / equipment loadouts. Does anyone know any games where this has been done?
Design-wise, what you're describing is called a "negative feedback loop" (see Rules of Play, 2003 Katie Salen, Eric Zimmerman). Basically, that just means finding methods to punish winners and reward losers ("Tax the rich"). Here's a few examples:
- In a social game like "settlers of catan," players often visually see who is winning. They then proceed to gang up on the leader. Note that this isn't a designed game mechanic, it's a consequence of the social nature of the game.
- Doing business with or allying with a perceived loser because he is "no threat."
- In the card game Dominion, the thing which makes you win (victory point cards) hinders your progress during the game itself. So although they are needed to win, they are bad to have! In theory, this prevents a runaway victory.
- Have bad things target winning players (random events, choice of cards, less points to spend, higher costs, less options given, less effectiveness), or have good things help out the little guys.
In contrast to adding negative feedback, you can also look to eliminate any specific positive feedback loops you may already have. If your game feels like a bad case of "the rich get richer," take away whatever mechanism that enables their richness.
If the game's outcome is determined at that point, the game should end.
In other words, the end condition of the game should be to attain equilibrium or dominance. Once this is done, you can count points or determine a winner or whatever.
Interestingly, if you segregate the end condition from the victory condition, you may produce a situation where end condition (achieving equilibrium) is best avoided if the same player cannot achieve the victory condition (having the most points or whatever).
- In a social game like "settlers of catan," players often visually see who is winning. They then proceed to gang up on the leader. Note that this isn't a designed game mechanic, it's a consequence of the social nature of the game.
- Doing business with or allying with a perceived loser because he is "no threat."
- In the card game Dominion, the thing which makes you win (victory point cards) hinders your progress during the game itself. So although they are needed to win, they are bad to have! In theory, this prevents a runaway victory.
- Have bad things target winning players (random events, choice of cards, less points to spend, higher costs, less options given, less effectiveness), or have good things help out the little guys.
In contrast to adding negative feedback, you can also look to eliminate any specific positive feedback loops you may already have. If your game feels like a bad case of "the rich get richer," take away whatever mechanism that enables their richness.
Quote:Usually when a player attains complete mastery over the forces and fortunes a game can subject him/her to, it's a very bad thing. Even if it's not officially game over, becoming so powerful that nothing can offer a challenge or so stable that no event is beyond control is typically a straight ticket to boredom.
If the game's outcome is determined at that point, the game should end.
In other words, the end condition of the game should be to attain equilibrium or dominance. Once this is done, you can count points or determine a winner or whatever.
Interestingly, if you segregate the end condition from the victory condition, you may produce a situation where end condition (achieving equilibrium) is best avoided if the same player cannot achieve the victory condition (having the most points or whatever).
Quote:- Have bad things target winning players (random events, choice of cards, less points to spend, higher costs, less options given, less effectiveness), or have good things help out the little guys.
Oh, this can be fun AND realistic in strategy games.
Crusader Kings, a 4X game from Paradox Interactive, had this fun mechanic where, as your personal holdings grew, your revolt risk and general inefficiency level grew as well, meaning you'd have to give land away to loyal vassals or your empire would... implode/explode.
The Europa Universalis games, by the same company, have this thing called a BadBoy score that basically indicates whether you're being some sort of horrible world conqueror, which causes the AI to start attacking you like crazy.
Basically, the bigger your territory gets, the more of a managerial nightmare it becomes.
SimCity's also fun this way.
Knew I should have played those Paradox games!
I can see negative feedback loops and decay or rising trouble being very interesting when paired with something like growth / expansion. I've always wanted to see a Civ-like game where you had to go from expansion to living in a complex, multilateral world where you'd be seen as Hitler / Stalin if you tried to take everybody over.
But is there really enough to do? Are you mostly putting out fires and rewarded in enough interesting ways for this?
I can see negative feedback loops and decay or rising trouble being very interesting when paired with something like growth / expansion. I've always wanted to see a Civ-like game where you had to go from expansion to living in a complex, multilateral world where you'd be seen as Hitler / Stalin if you tried to take everybody over.
But is there really enough to do? Are you mostly putting out fires and rewarded in enough interesting ways for this?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement