learning curve vs player-actions

[Amirilys]

Hi,
I've got a short summoning:

1.
game design can be used as a motivation (see atmosphere) and as a tool for gameplay. Game design is motivation in case of gameplay:
actions of player
challenges, obstacles and goals
world change
messages about game state
motivation

motivation for core gamer is game mechanics
motivation for casual gamer is atmosphere and game mechanics

2.
Learning curve Warcraft III as Zergul said:
learn skills
learn to make choices
learn to use tactics which is an combination of applying skills and making choices

Juul says players use incomplete strategies in games.
With a division between casual and core gamers you can say:
casual gamers use incomplete strategies. Is this true, despite of learning curve? If a casual gamer never learns to manipulate skills into a strategy, how can they finish a game?

game proces for casual gamer is
explore -> learn -> apply
learning is by trial and error

core gamers follow learning curve and some more: game proces for core gamer is
explore -> learn -> apply -> manipulate
learning is by learning game mechanics facts by heart

[Zergul]

The best way to differentiate good players from weak player is tu have a small number or rules avaible from the beginning (or almost from the beginning) which apply to greater and greater variety of choose-class.

Ex: Warcraft III
Rules:

Combat:
- maximize unit damage using attack type - armor type
- if your unit is targeted by positiv bonused attacks retreat to lure enemies for a few "free shots"
- estimate on surviving capability for an unit and if this is low move it to "safe zone"
- analize chances to surround an enemy unit (by moving, stunning, sleeping or slowing) and if appropriate do it
- order your heroes to taget heroes for maximum dmg (units do less dmg against hero armor)
- decide skills to enchance the chances of battle (unit abilities, hero abilities)

Economy:
- estimate on "population needs" and build houses as appropriate
- estimate on your army force vs enemy force and expand if pozitive
- if peasant dead build peasant for optimum number
- plan for building placement
- estimate on repair needs
- estimate on defense needs

Equipment:
- establish equipment budget
- establish greatest need from
1) increased rezistance (increased hp, anti-magic potions, heal potions, evade items, movement speed, invisibility, town portal, vampiric)
2) increased attack (attack dmg, attack speed)
3) increased magic (mana increase, mana regeneration)

Ideally in War3 there is no strategy just tactics. The game have an unique best build order and training rule which will maximize chances to defend, attack and expand. Something like "if I do this I'm prepared for anything, it counts only how good I make in the battle".

BUT!
PEOPLE USE INCOMPLET STRATEGIES INDEED! Why? Because dont care too much about mastering all game rules at least as they WIN ENOUGH TIMES. They will even try to master rules made by their imagination (and dont even exist in the game). Why this? Because they ignore a rule.

Example again (Warcraft III - i consider it perfectly designed):
Some people train only foots or only fiends or only huntresses and this strategy works often enough to be considered a good strategy.

The counter is easily enough if you consider that mass destruction hero spells kill this type of playing and mixing two type of units: one to "hold the front" and absorb damage (no bonus damage from enemy units or to enemy units) and another group "in the back" which deals extra damage to enemy units. Using the game best line of playing you are prepared for anything that enemy throws to you - it's just a matter of mastering the rules (from the beginning of the post).

Going back to learning curve:
- in the first 30 seconds you dont have to build something
- build process is constant in time (you should build at every 20 seconds average in the beginning and 2 minutes after first battle)
- player have access to little options in the beginning (build peasants, build only one type of military units, build a few buildings)
- first battle is made with only one type of units, one spell, 7 units at most (a study says that normal people can handle maximum 7 actions at a certain moment)
- second battle: bonus damage comes into play, two or tree avaible for heroes, no units with abilities, two type of units... up to 12-13 unit = more damage, more units to care = more speed needed
- third battle: various bonus damage, more unit types, more heroes with many spells, units have abilities, more points on the map to take care (expands).

As you can see the actions needed are mathematicaly spread on an almost linear curve (each unit that comes into play requires for a higher skill). So, if many people can master the beginning of the game, just a few can do this to the end.

The game also have sufficient "autoplay" so even poor players can finish the game (some spells have autocast, at the same level of poor micro and speed you can still win just making units that have bonus against enemy)

CASUAL PLAYER:
explore -> learn -> apply TRUE

They dont care about game rules, they just learn that unit X is good against unit Y, they memorize SCRIPTS not TEMPLATES.

SCRIPTS = build 2 unit x, build 4 unit y, build towers

TEMPLATE = build 2 unit x for every 3 unit y the enemy has, build towers if you dont have anti air and you expect enemy to come with air (it should never happen in an ideal game because you should always match his troops)

Casual people tend to use little variety of units because their lack of speed control and quick decisions. They preffer mass against micro.

Hardcore players first analize the game rules and try to build TEMPLATES. Playing a lot also builds some short SCRIPTS in their mind. They tend to recognize certain situations and "load" a certain list of actions to made. Good players have a lot of these "short scripts of actions" for almost every situation.

A trully master gamer which first learn game rules and play only by TEMPLATES does not need to play a lot to be the best. The only requirement that is still needed is speed - this is a matter of talent.

CONCLUSION:
An ideal design will permit "master gamers" to be the best without spending a lot of time playing the game.
It should also never help the ones who play against the rules of the game (winning against the game rules should be considered a DESIGN FLAW - some flaws are inavoidable on short term like 10 seconds but the game should always be balanced on long term like 30 seconds).

10 seconds is the average cooldown time for spells.
30 seconds is the average battle duration time.

I talked mostly about examples because the rules could be transfered to other genres and subgenres. Learn the TEMPLATE not the SCRIPT

[Amirilys]

Thx Zergul, game guru (when do you start to charge? Kidding )

Good thing you explained script and template, because I wouldn't have known. Also, did you ever think about how hard it is to extinguish action vs strategy vs tactics, all short or long term, all small consequence or huge consequence but no way to predict? I searched for the difference between tactics and strategy in the dictionary but it looked like the same description to me only with other words.... I'll have to think about that.

Just when you think the job is done -I only had three chapters left to write- it piles up again. I found research on adult gamers: mean european game time is 20 minutes per day. On LAN event: light gamer: 1/2 per day, casual gamer: 1/2-2,5 hours per day and core gamer more than 2,5 hours per day. (Well what d' y' know, when it's raining I'm a core gamer ) But no general research has been done.
Also, for research about color theory I was searching all wrong: this psychology ofcourse (duh, but I didn't know). There has been little research done; another 'quest' for me.
I did find some on emotions createdd by gameplay. Look and have a laugh; they let girls play games and look at their facial expressions to see if they are frustrated

http://www.unige.ch/fapse/emotion/me...ser/proc96.htm

[god]

ce oameni dilai! :P

[Amirilys]

Originally Posted by god

ce oameni dilai! :P

If that is a funny statement, or you're bored or you're calling me names, I'd like to know bro. Even though this is not an english site, please translate for me.

[MageofLight RG]

that's "crazy people! :P"

[h0stile]

There are a lot of things to be said about strategy and tactics. Good start points are here, here and here. To summarize in a few words: the difference is in scale. Strategy is all about global planning when engaging a war, tactics is about how you apply on the battlefield the principles stated in the strategy (exactly what and when you use the resources you have - by resources meaning everything including human resources, technological, etc). Read the links. It will help you understand lots of things. I also recomend Sun Tzu's Art of War or The book of the five rings by Musashi but they don't explain exactly what tactics and strategy are (read the links first), just how to use and when to use them.

In fact the formula is like this:

Strategy->Tactics->Action or if you want an example:

Strategy: win the war by neutralizing all enemy units or win the war by destroying all enemy buildings (these are strategies)
Tactics: what is used in order to neutralize the enemy units faster (or destroy the enemy buildings) and with minimum effort and resources (what actions you perform, what units you use)
Action: applying the planned tactics in the battlefield (map, level).

Casual gamers usually skip tactics. They use incomplete or simplistic tactics (see Zergul's post for script vs template), not strategies. They hear about a strategy, or read about it, but when it comes to details (tactics) they are not so keen to learn as opposed to core gamers who are interested in this part mostly. It's the samll details which make the difference between victory and defeat.

[h0stile]

Of course there is more to be said about individual tactics and group tactics. What do you do with one unit (spying, exploring) and what do you do when you have more units? Are those units of the same type or you have 2 or 3 types? If oyu stick to the planned strategy and things don't happen as you expect, what do oyu do? Change tactics? How do you adapt to the new situation? These are questions the game designer must answer. The player should be given the opportunity to adapt to new situations if he's expectations are not met (he expected an attack from his enemy with a certain type of unit but in fact he is attacked with a different unit). If games are not able to provide the possibility for a player to adapt they can cause frustration for casual gamers. Core gamers are usually careful and try to discover the enemy's intentions before it's too late.

[Amirilys]

Thnx for explaining!

Who said "crazyness is a state of total awareness" again?

[h0stile]

back to learning curve now...there are a few things worth mentioning. It's quite obvious you can divide the learning curve in short/medium/long. The question is what kind of learning curve fits what gamer (casual or core)? How do you know what type of learning curve is good for a certain game?

It's a pretty known fact that today game designers take into account both casual gamers or newbies and core gamers. Most of the games have tutorials (some have the tutorial split in more than one mission which is very frustrating but we'll get to that later). Some are longer, some are shorter. Any player should have at least basic knowledge about the gameplay after playing the tutorial. But is this the learning part? I'd say no. The learning curve includes the period of time necessary for the player to get used with the game (controls, avatar's reactions, sorroundings). Many games follow a certain known path and they provide similar gameplay/universe with other games (in many RTS you can zoom with your wheel and control camera with the mouse). Previous experience can lead to a very fast adjustment of the player. But what happens if the game doesn't follow the same path as others and a tutorial would be very complex for a casual gamer.

There is smthing game designers use in many games now. Features are unlocked or presented to you as you play along. Take a third person shooter for example. You're given some health packs and gun in the beginning. You go around and shoot one or two guys. You get the grip on the movement and targeting. More guys come towards you. You dodge, shoot, roll, shoot. Your adrenaline pumps up and you see on your monitor "press X (or whatever key you want) to go into slow motion". I admit this is inspired from Max Payne but it's a good example. You didn't know in the beginning of the game that you can access a slow motion. You didn't need it back then. All you needed to do was to get familiar with the interface and gameplay elements (moving, shooting, interacting with objects). This can be considered a progessive tutorial. You learn as you play the game. In fact this is a very good solution for casual gamers as their interest is always hooked by something new.

Well, what can you do for core gamers then? Core gamers still need to learn, right? Maybe they have a lot more experience and they don't need such a long time to learn but they still have to get used to the game. I know many people who skip the tutorial and go directly to mission one thinking they'll figure out somehow. Some do, some don't. For a core gamer there's one crucial thing and it's called information. A core gamer desperately needs to be informed. H must know every detail. You can't put that in a tutorial. It would be boring for the casual gamer. The core gamer has a few options. Reading is one of them. Reading the manual, fan sites, official website, whatever. The second method would be observation. Notice all the stats of a unit. Write them down. Notice how much food XX peasants need for a certain period of time, for example. The third option is trial and error. In fact this is just a way to validate your observations but it's a necessary method. Point is....casual gamers need basic information given in a very easy to assimilate manner in order for them to enjoy the game. For a core gamers you need to provide full information and mostly the manual does that, not the in-game tutorial. They will have to assimilate it anyway. I said in the beginning that some games have a multi-part tutorial (more missions like one for movement and controling troops, one for the economy system, on for fighting against other army, so on). Very complex games indeed need it but it's a compromise. It's a blade with two edges. Some players could say after 15 minutes..."cmooon, I want some action" so in case this is not necessary then it's not an advisable method of building a tutorial. One major aspect is that a tutorial must NEVER explain everything. This is because many gamers like to discover new things (omg, I can do this, I can do that). You hook them more with this. It's a psychological known fact that if you're hungry, your appetite and interest for food will drop as you eat. As much as you eat, as much interest you lose. That's why you need motivation (that's another subject to talk about anyway). That's why a tutorial must never say it all (exceptions exist like board games or card games where you have to know all the rules from the beginning).

PS...learning curve can depend (besides previous experience) on your physical abilities...like hand-eye coordination, the percentage of distributive attention you have.

[Amirilys]

IQz3r0, thnx man. I did step over too quickly from learning curve to action/tactics/strategy perhaps. I need to look it all over first, drink a lot of coffee and I'll post worthy reaction later

[Amirilys]

Very good thinking IQz3r0! But I have a big problem. See follow-up (otherwise nobody notices I edited again).