09 Jul, 2011, Runter wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Ok, so if my game use URANGE(0,skills/2,100) > random_percent I should show 50% to the player so it not 'reeks of hiding mechanics' ?


That's one way of giving players information about the mechanics. Another is just telling them somewhere what the mechanic is. Imo, the worst way to do it is tell them an arbitrary percentage (like 100%) without any clue about how often that will be. If it's based on a state of theirs, tell them exactly what stats and the weights. I think it's easier for everyone just to make a skill like dodge a set percentage such as a help file entry like this: "At maximum skill level dodge makes you avoid 5% of attacks that may be dodged." I skip that and just tell players in the skill percentage itself what the chance of activation is. Then I might have equipment that raises dodge skill additionally. 1% here and there adds up. Or maybe skills modify dodge skill itself. Then it's very clear when you have 8% dodge skill what those modifications here and there did. Because you know the mechanics = 8% additional chance to avoid attacks with this skill.
09 Jul, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
If it's based on a state of theirs, tell them exactly what stats and the weights.

On my mud it is affected by: their height, weight, carried weight, standing/resting position, stance (offensive defensive normal) dex, daze state, if they see their opponent or not. And that is only from the top of my head.
I think at some point you have to accept that it is not 'hidden mechanics' when you show 100% but just what it means: you cannot be better at that. Even if it means failing most of the time.
Oh yeah forgot to take in account terrain…
Oh dang, flying as well…

Better not look at the code, may see some other parameters…

The only way I see giving a player an exact (or even close) % is either very simple code interaction, or giving them the whole code. I actually do not see how you can give an actual dodge % with all the parameters I have.
09 Jul, 2011, Runter wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
If it's based on a state of theirs, tell them exactly what stats and the weights.

On my mud it is affected by: their height, weight, carried weight, standing/resting position, stance (offensive defensive normal) dex, daze state, if they see their opponent or not. And that is only from the top of my head.
I think at some point you have to accept that it is not 'hidden mechanics' when you show 100% but just what it means: you cannot be better at that. Even if it means failing most of the time.
Oh yeah forgot to take in account terrain…
Oh dang, flying as well…

Better not look at the code, may see some other parameters…

The only way I see giving a player an exact (or even close) % is either very simple code interaction, or giving them the whole code. I actually do not see how you can give an actual dodge % with all the parameters I have.


Sounds like you're invested in defending a bad practice here. This is a classic example of hiding mechanics. If you as a designer can't quantify the various interactions with the numbers and implementation details in front of you how can you possibly expect a player to make any type of reasonable decision about their character build, or for that matter, the circumstances in which they even use abilities? Don't tell me you can't do it, because good games do it all of the time. It's not hard to tell players the base chance for success and then further modifications based on various circumstances, and a close estimate is better than no information other than "maximum possible chance allowed." That could be anywhere between inclusive 0% and 100%. That's as good as no information. Oh, and all of that complexity you speak of belies the fact that you can quantify it. You do it every time you have to check for success in the skill.
09 Jul, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Sounds like you're invested in defending a bad practice here.

Well it is calling it a bad practice that tickles me.
There are a bunch of succesful game that do the same.
Starcraft does tell you the base damage of a weapon. Does not tell you the average firerate, does not tell you the splash damage, etc.

Quote
than no information other than "maximum possible chance allowed." That could be anywhere between inclusive 0% and 100%. That's as good as no information.

No that it just a different information: 100% means you have twice the chance of someone with 50%. and 100% means you wont be able to learn anymore.
The final result indeed could be from 0 to 100 depending on so many parameters it is impossible to give it to the player without exposing the whole mechanic.
That is indeed what you end up finding on fans website (again see starcraft where all weapons details have been reported including the one that are not displayed in game)

Quote
Oh, and all of that complexity you speak of belies the fact that you can quantify it. You do it every time you have to check for success in the skill.

Off course I can, but that is also part of a game to learn how it works.

And my mud using class, you cannot make 'bad build decision' by picking a skill instead of another one could work better with your build.
May be a bad practice if you had to carefully choose your skills depending on parameters you do not have. But it all depends of the game you want.
A Huge char with 100% dodge will indeed dodge less than a Tiny char wit 100% dodge. But he will dodge more than another HUGE char with 50% dodge. Does the actual number is needed to make a build decision ? Definitely no. Is it enough to know that everything else equal he will lose again someone with a better % dodge than him ? Yes. And that is what counts.
Not the actual rate of losing.
09 Jul, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
It's impossible to provide success levels on a mud with a high level of synergy. I've seen no studies indicating people dislike high synergy games.
09 Jul, 2011, Runter wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
It's impossible to provide success levels on a mud with a high level of synergy. I've seen no studies indicating people dislike high synergy games.


Not true. It is possible to tell them what weight the synergy has. This is the same copout Rarva has been using. That it's something that's just unknowable, so players shouldn't be given any clue to the success rate or what effects it how much.

But putting this aside, the fact that you guys want to deny the sun rises or the earth is round– If there was a way (Even though you seem to think it's impossible) to let players know this information, don't you think it would be better than hiding it?
09 Jul, 2011, Tonitrus wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
If there was a way (Even though you seem to think it's impossible) to let players know this information, don't you think it would be better than hiding it?


Depends. While I'd probably let players know in some form or another what boosts what, revealing information is not always preferable to hiding it.

For a canned example, puzzle manufacturers could easily indicate on every piece which pieces connect in each slot, but it would be damn stupid.

Unrelatedly, I see no operational difference between percentages representing one arbitrary number and another. I suppose you could, if you wanted, show each percentage as a calculated chance of the end result of actually using the power, dieroll and all, but that strikes me as incredibly boring.
09 Jul, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
But putting this aside, the fact that you guys want to deny the sun rises or the earth is round– If there was a way (Even though you seem to think it's impossible) to let players know this information, don't you think it would be better than hiding it?

Ya know what, I actually show myself (as an imp) every final caculated chance so I can check if it the formulas makes sense. (no my game is definitely not 'mathematically balanced' and is biaised towards some strategies, but those strategies wont work everytime either). Ya know what ? There is a a lot of fluctuation, because I make my game random enough to make it interesting , but coherent enough in the long run. What would be the point if you knew that every skill you have do a very limited range of damage.You would always pick the most efficient one. There is no such thing as 'the most efficient skill' in my game. I have spells/skill with a very high possible output, but low average, or lower range but average damage, or even some with such a low chance to hit they seem worthless.
So those figures would be worthless for ONE player. They are only meaningful when used for statistics. On large numbers of try. Knowing that you will dodge at an exact 10% in a n inside room against a tiny player that carries a lot of shit because you are a giant slowed means squat to the player.
1-because he cannot do shit bout it anyway, he is a fucking giant in a closed environement, you should keep outside to move freely…
2-because it is an automatic skill anyway
3-because if he swapped of race next char he would see that he cannot bash as efficiently on the other hand…
4-because there are so many parameters for fight that I dont care if giant warriors win a fight in 90% of the case against other warriors. That is not called overpowered that is called:deal with it.
5- giant are stupid, mages usually trounces them…., harder with other race of warriors.

The % you have in a skill is a very valuable info, but not to know what will happen in every kind of situation. Just to know that you will be better than someone else provided you are in the same situation. And that is ALL the player actually care about.

Do you think your player like to know they will have an exact 9% chance to dodge ? or that they have a better chance than their opponent. Think about it.

It is like a peeing contest. The actual distance (actual dodging %) has absolutely no interest. Only the one peeing the furthest count (the one with the higher %)
09 Jul, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Not true. It is possible to tell them what weight the synergy has. This is the same copout Rarva has been using.

You could tell them in a help file, but if you have a lightning spell that's dependent on the weather it's tricky to tell players how much damage the spell will do.

Even then, most explorers enjoy figuring out poorly documented systems more so than exploring an obscure area that gives them no gameplay advantages. You might as well argue games should provide area maps, detailed lists of objects to be found, their stats, who carries them, and how to otherwise obtain them. Many will claim that discovering how to play a class is part of a good gaming experience.
09 Jul, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Runter said:
Not true. It is possible to tell them what weight the synergy has. This is the same copout Rarva has been using.

You could tell them in a help file, but if you have a lightning spell that's dependent on the weather it's tricky to tell players how much damage the spell will do.

I have a sunray spell that can can only work during daylight, that off course does less damage if it is cloudy, and is at is peak obviously at 12….and off course only work outside.
And it has a chance of blinding.
And ALL my spell are affected by int. And level. And some are easier to cast than others (depend on daze status).

Most game have simpler mechanics than that, so that player have a 'reliable' experience, and manageable stats so they can build 'winning strategies' reliably and 'finish' the game.
That is what I find perfectly boring in most game:the fact that I can actually guess how it works, optimize my char according to it…and win everytime.
I prefer when I can be surprised. Then I can go for the strategy that will most likely win (but could fail horribly) or the strategy that may miss half the time (but fail more safely) Or the one that has hardly any chance to win, but without risk. If your statistics are so precise you can give me a % in a skill in a 3-4 % range…then you cannot provide all these scenarii, because it means you dont have enough randomness.
10 Jul, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
The idea is to tell the players HOW to figure things out.

Your help files could list the formulas used, and you could even have a super-verbose combat flag that printed out the full formula, as checked by the code, with the numbers filled in so the players could indeed verify for themselves that things are working as expected.

City of Heroes started out hiding everything, and they later added in all the numbers and the formulas. It allowed the players to see for themselves why things fluctuated in ways they hadn't been able to figure out. The players who cared about such things were happy. The players who didn't care left those settings off and never had to see them.

It's NOT impossible. It's not even hard to do. It's up to YOU, if you care.
10 Jul, 2011, Littlehorn wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
I hope you're not suggesting that people only play games because of the time it takes to hit some mythical "level cap"? Maybe certain games, but I hardly think that's a healthy attitude to take when designing your game system.


I'm suggesting that the measure of time spent in your game is important. Are you going to say that time sinks are not important to a game now? If so, I think I have a good logical argument for that retort. :rolleyes:


quixadhal said:
The idea is to tell the players HOW to figure things out.

Your help files could list the formulas used, and you could even have a super-verbose combat flag that printed out the full formula, as checked by the code, with the numbers filled in so the players could indeed verify for themselves that things are working as expected.

City of Heroes started out hiding everything, and they later added in all the numbers and the formulas. It allowed the players to see for themselves why things fluctuated in ways they hadn't been able to figure out. The players who cared about such things were happy. The players who didn't care left those settings off and never had to see them.

It's NOT impossible. It's not even hard to do. It's up to YOU, if you care.


Depends on the mindset though. Most do not reveal things to let players figure them out. Yes, they give subtle hints on what you can do better, but revealing everything can also circumvent other things. For example, if you have many different paths to one point. You could make all other paths to that point void because you revealed the one path that's the fastest. In return, that makes the most fun, most rewarding and most deadly paths obsolete. Although this might not be a huge deal to some, the problem is having to go back and update 3 other paths with future updates to the game etc.

On the other hand, coming from more PvP games myself. Revealing information can be bad for us because some players think that knowing how the game works is skill. Taking time to figuring out the riddles, puzzles and etc is gaining valued experience. Giving it away for free means you're just giving your players free cake where in other events, we win because we are more experienced in knowledge of the game compared to newbies who just want to rush through everything. If it was a FPS where we could make up for it with great hand-eye coordination, reaction times and just good teamwork, then it would be fine. But, we're talking about non-FPS games where those bits of time spent is important for measuring who is good and who is a scrub. :stare:
10 Jul, 2011, Ssolvarain wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Time sinks and content should never be confused.

Which I'm pretty sure you're doing.
10 Jul, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Time sinks are counter productive unless you are running a game where subscribers pay a monthly fee, and thus you want to maximize the amount of time they remain subscribed. There's no point in having them for a free game. People who dislike grind systems will dislike those parts of your game, players who min/max will avoid them and outpace your content anyways, and it's an incentive to bot.

You're confusing giving out quest details and content with revealing game mechanics. If your game mechanics are stable and balanced, showing players exactly how things work can't do any harm. They can use the detailed information to more accurately min/max, rather than having to waste time collecting statistical data.

If revealing such data lets players find a single "best" combination, then I suggest that your game isn't very well balanced. There should never BE any single best combination of stats/gear/whatever. There should be best combos for a given situation, but not an overall best.

Unless you are in it for the money, you should make your game as enjoyable as possible. Complex puzzles and stories that take time to unravel are fun. Pointless delays and grinding for the sake of keeping players from leveling too fast is not fun.
10 Jul, 2011, Littlehorn wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Time sinks are counter productive unless you are running a game where subscribers pay a monthly fee, and thus you want to maximize the amount of time they remain subscribed. There's no point in having them for a free game.


I strongly disagree if you don't think adding attractable systems or accepting tactics to keep your players sticky to your game is a good idea for you to do for any online game, free or not. Maybe you're confusing what you think is fun and what actually is fun to the end user. It's not to say that you're adding something to lock players out of enjoying the game. It's about adding something enjoyable that keeps them busy longer and playing your game longer. Otherwise, you might as well say that keep playing sticky does not matter to your game. And well, that's just heresy.


quixadhal said:
People who dislike grind systems will dislike those parts of your game, players who min/max will avoid them and outpace your content anyways, and it's an incentive to bot.


I agree, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done either. There will also be those groups who hate something you're doing.


quixadhal said:
Unless you are in it for the money, you should make your game as enjoyable as possible. Complex puzzles and stories that take time to unravel are fun. Pointless delays and grinding for the sake of keeping players from leveling too fast is not fun.


This makes no sense. Who intentionally makes their game not enjoyable? Especially if there is money involved? Are you reading what you're typing here? It's like saying game developers intentionally unbalance the game to LOSE MONEY.

No one is saying it's pointless delays or grinding. You're only assuming it is because it's very subjective to what may be fun. So arguing it's removal is more about something of value being removed and how you are shortening the gameplay experience of the overall game. I guess it's a bit too much attention to detail for your scope. :evil:
10 Jul, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Littlehorn said:
Depends on the mindset though. Most do not reveal things to let players figure them out. Yes, they give subtle hints on what you can do better, but revealing everything can also circumvent other things. For example, if you have many different paths to one point. You could make all other paths to that point void because you revealed the one path that's the fastest. In return, that makes the most fun, most rewarding and most deadly paths obsolete. Although this might not be a huge deal to some, the problem is having to go back and update 3 other paths with future updates to the game etc.

That's the sort of information that'll get out eventually anyway though, and be passed from player to player, perhaps even included in game guides on players' websites.

Better to find out about it (and fix it) early on. Security through obscurity just postpones the inevitable.

Littlehorn said:
On the other hand, coming from more PvP games myself. Revealing information can be bad for us because some players think that knowing how the game works is skill.

I also run a PvP game, and most of my players have a strong preference for transparency. In Bartle suit terms, it's the Explorers who enjoy discovering how the game works. The Killers just want the knowledge, they don't enjoy earning it.

quixadhal said:
Time sinks are counter productive unless you are running a game where subscribers pay a monthly fee, and thus you want to maximize the amount of time they remain subscribed. There's no point in having them for a free game.

If there are no time sinks (such as travel time, experience points, crafting, etc), players will rapidly finish the game and move on, and you'll have an empty mud. This is fine for a casual single-player game designed to provide a few minutes entertainment, but it's counter-productive for an interactive multi-user game, because there won't be anyone else for players to interact with.

"No game should ever have a timesink for timesinks sake. A good timesink has you interacting with the game on some level, earning some level of enjoyment or moving the story along. It might be realistic, but keep in mind that you are trying to entertain people here and useless timesinks tend to do the opposite of entertain."
- Matt Miller, MMODesigner.com

quixadhal said:
Unless you are in it for the money, you should make your game as enjoyable as possible. Complex puzzles and stories that take time to unravel are fun. Pointless delays and grinding for the sake of keeping players from leveling too fast is not fun.

Enjoyment is subjective, and players tend to use the term "grind" to refer to anything they personally don't enjoy. That can include the same puzzles and minigames that many other players love.
10 Jul, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
I agree with what both of you say (Littlehorn and KaVir), but my point is that designing your game around time sinks is not a very smart way to design your game. You shouldn't be asking yourself "How long do I want people to be level 12?" You should be asking "Is there enough stuff to do at level 12 to hold my players' interest?"

Those are two very different mindsets. If there isn't enough stuff to do, you have two options. You can add more content for that level range, or you can speed up the leveling process. Some players like to fly through the level range as fast as possible, and to them, almost everything in the game is a pointless time sink. They want to "win" and then move into PvP or whatever it is that your game has for an "endgame". Others want to take their time and explore all the content. For them, time sinks are activities they feel they have to do before seeing the next chunk of content.

Movement speed is a good example, since KaVir brought up travel time. In most DikuMUD's, there is no limit on movement speed. You can run through rooms as fast as the game will process them (typically one command per tick, or 4 rooms per second). Some games imposed a limit on this via "movement points", meaning you had to stop and rest every X rooms. Others imposed a limit on how often a movement command could be processed, so you could move at a maximum of once per second or whatever. Why?

If the goal is to make it take some amount of real time for players to cross distances, that's a time sink. If the goal is to ensure players have the chance to encounter wandering monsters or other PvP players in their travels, it's a game mechanic. The end result is the same, the players take time to get from point to point, but the design decision is different. Does that make sense?

So, anyways, I'm not trying to say things that take time are all bad. Just that they should take time because there's some reason related to the game for them to take time. It shouldn't be an arbitrary decision based on how long you want to keep people at a given point.
10 Jul, 2011, Littlehorn wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
I agree with what both of you say (Littlehorn and KaVir), but my point is that designing your game around time sinks is not a very smart way to design your game. You shouldn't be asking yourself "How long do I want people to be level 12?" You should be asking "Is there enough stuff to do at level 12 to hold my players' interest?"


Well, it's not about designing your game around time sinks. It's about looking at things under 2 lights. Like how much content you have and how quickly your players will burn that content. If you need to pace them through that content, then that's something you need to think about early on. Content is not always easy to pop in as a knee-jerk reaction. That's why it's important to think about how long things take in your game. The last thing you want is the players becoming bored or having everything done too quickly. I say quickly, because no matter what you do, they will more than likely eat through all of your content regardless.
10 Jul, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Littlehorn said:
The last thing you want is the players becoming bored or having everything done too quickly. I say quickly, because no matter what you do, they will more than likely eat through all of your content regardless.


If your content is limited enough to make you worry about players having done everything, and if you're struggling with adding content, consider providing different ways to experience the same content. The most time-tested method is, of course, classes, but you can also add such things as "hardcore mode", unique race perks, unique race + class perks, content that responds uniquely to the above. Any well-implemented "mode" will act as a multiplier for your content. Even if people don't care to experience all the combinations (only the addicts will), they are more likely to stay and look for the combination that best suits their individual play style.
20.0/39