Good thoughts, and that's my thinking too. I like lots of options. In some cases, particular options would fit particular fighting styles in particular situations. A thief character might like that blur ability on armor in order to escape a bad situation, but he might have other options he favors more. Player choice. Then too, there's other items, like rings, that can allow for more choices for the player. Strategic combinations can be developed by the player.
As far as randomness in your last point, yeah, you still can have strategy. Of course. Strategy is my fav, and I think the most important thing to having exciting combat. I like strategy to be wide in scope, so it doesn't bog down into the best strategy for any particular situation. And to have defender strategies modify types of attacks.
I still like randomness, too. Not in a huge form, but something that can have a small effect here or there in a combat, and really only matter if it happens at a critical point on somewhat rare occasions.
I think you have to divide randomness between positive and negative randomness.
Positive being things like critical hits and proc chances.
Negative being like missing an attack or failing to cast something.
In general regardless of combat system players like to feel in control of what is happening. Positive randomness can add a nice surprise that makes player actions more effective. Negative randomness however really let's you know you are not in control.
Even in games like Xcom where you have a percent to hit, they fudge the actual chance to hit to be more in the players favor and work similarly to player intuition.
Eg, 95% chance to hit is basically 100% chance to hit in players' minds Where the reality is you would miss 1/20 shots. But they bump up your actual hit chance closer to 99% chance to make it work like people think it should.
But in Xcom you can make the choice how much risk you take in a shot. In MMOs not so much.
So a lot of it has to do with people being bad at statistics, and also disliking when they fail due to factors outside of their control.
(To note, most MMORPGs don't have any randomness at all (with any meaning), or am I wrong?)
Yes, but my take is that being in total, infallible control is boring. And that's what most games have to offer. Yes, >the knowing< of said control opportunities (by the numbers) is the game that power gamers enjoy.
Is it just coincidence that people who are good with numbers and have a good memory are also good with programming? "We're making the game that we want to play" takes on new meaning. But what about the rest of us gamers? (And many are like me, good at that also, but just get bored with it.)
Is that numbers game what we might call strategy? Even many power gamers enjoy some strategy, and thus the "end game" quests. But again, those are fixed, and once strategized they become meaningless, and "end game" becomes real.
Excitement in game play comes from the unexpected. Then it's a new game (briefly) as players figure out what to do about it. That's much more enjoyable than knowing the numbers, as well as knowing the fixed content.
Depends where the randomness comes from, Input or output randomness,
Input randomness would be things like random opponents, dungeon layouts, procedural generation, or just the actions of the human or CPU enemies being unpredictable. This can mix well with strategy so long as there is no output randomness.
Output randomness is where you don't know the exact effect of your actions. In general I would say output randomness and strategy don't mix very well.
Games like chess or Into the Breach have virtually no output randomness and as a result you are able to create strategies for any given situation because you know what you can do and know you can execute it.
Adding output randomness would inherently mean any strategy could become more or less effective but in a way the player can't control. The more randomness of the outcome of the players choice, the less meaningful the choice becomes. That necessitates a more casual style of play.
Casual play isn't a bad thing though, games like Hearthstone are played more casually than MTG, because it has a lot of cards that have random effects, targets etc. And it can be a lot of fun.
But this is counter to the idea of tests of skill where players need control over their actions not dependent on chance.
Each choice has its merits and works better with different types of gameplay.
I'm not sure that exact control over the player's actions is a test of skill or anything but "casual." What with fixed content and cheat sites and all. The exceptions being the very very few gamers who do it first, without directions to follow. I guess the illusion of accomplishing something is good enough for most. That probably does have entertainment value.
I'm not against that, to each their own. It would just be nice if the MMORPG industry also offered that "something more" that many of us seek.
I think we are talking about different things, I'm not talking about doing fixed content but the execution of abilities.
If you have an ability that does 50 points of healing and it does that every time, then you can use that ability reliably as part of your strategy. No randomness of output.
If you take the same ability and add a healing range to it, from 10-90 points, it is still usable but less reliable. Add in the chance to miss or the chance for the spell to backfire or have a critical success and it becomes less reliable and more of a wild card.
Using chess as an example again, Pieces move a specific number of spaces, this allows the player to formulate a strategy based on what the pieces can do. If you had to roll dice to see how many spaces a piece could move within a range that turn, then you can't plan out strategies as well because the output of your action is so variable.
Dice rolling chess may have some chaotic fun to it, but wouldn't be as strategic by comparison.
Skill(strategy) and chance are largely opposed to each other. Most games exist on a spectrum of pure skill vs pure chance
This is an article about skill vs chance in boardgames, but I think it applies to videogames as well.
(To note, most MMORPGs don't have any randomness at all (with any meaning), or am I wrong?)
Yes, but my take is that being in total, infallible control is boring. And that's what most games have to offer. Yes, >the knowing< of said control opportunities (by the numbers) is the game that power gamers enjoy.
Is it just coincidence that people who are good with numbers and have a good memory are also good with programming? "We're making the game that we want to play" takes on new meaning. But what about the rest of us gamers? (And many are like me, good at that also, but just get bored with it.)
Is that numbers game what we might call strategy? Even many power gamers enjoy some strategy, and thus the "end game" quests. But again, those are fixed, and once strategized they become meaningless, and "end game" becomes real.
Excitement in game play comes from the unexpected. Then it's a new game (briefly) as players figure out what to do about it. That's much more enjoyable than knowing the numbers, as well as knowing the fixed content.
Depends where the randomness comes from, Input or output randomness,
Input randomness would be things like random opponents, dungeon layouts, procedural generation, or just the actions of the human or CPU enemies being unpredictable. This can mix well with strategy so long as there is no output randomness.
Output randomness is where you don't know the exact effect of your actions. In general I would say output randomness and strategy don't mix very well.
Games like chess or Into the Breach have virtually no output randomness and as a result you are able to create strategies for any given situation because you know what you can do and know you can execute it.
Adding output randomness would inherently mean any strategy could become more or less effective but in a way the player can't control. The more randomness of the outcome of the players choice, the less meaningful the choice becomes. That necessitates a more casual style of play.
Casual play isn't a bad thing though, games like Hearthstone are played more casually than MTG, because it has a lot of cards that have random effects, targets etc. And it can be a lot of fun.
But this is counter to the idea of tests of skill where players need control over their actions not dependent on chance.
Each choice has its merits and works better with different types of gameplay.
I'm not sure that exact control over the player's actions is a test of skill or anything but "casual." What with fixed content and cheat sites and all. The exceptions being the very very few gamers who do it first, without directions to follow. I guess the illusion of accomplishing something is good enough for most. That probably does have entertainment value.
I'm not against that, to each their own. It would just be nice if the MMORPG industry also offered that "something more" that many of us seek.
I think we are talking about different things, I'm not talking about doing fixed content but the execution of abilities.
If you have an ability that does 50 points of healing and it does that every time, then you can use that ability reliably as part of your strategy. No randomness of output.
If you take the same ability and add a healing range to it, from 10-90 points, it is still usable but less reliable. Add in the chance to miss or the chance for the spell to backfire or have a critical success and it becomes less reliable and more of a wild card.
Using chess as an example again, Pieces move a specific number of spaces, this allows the player to formulate a strategy based on what the pieces can do. If you had to roll dice to see how many spaces a piece could move within a range that turn, then you can't plan out strategies as well because the output of your action is so variable.
Dice rolling chess may have some chaotic fun to it, but wouldn't be as strategic by comparison.
Skill(strategy) and chance are largely opposed to each other. Most games exist on a spectrum of pure skill vs pure chance
This is an article about skill vs chance in boardgames, but I think it applies to videogames as well.
I know what you're saying, but games that have fixed player results also have fixed MOB results. So in effect, you're playing Chess against a fixed AI that will only move pieces based of fixed criteria that you know about.
As far as the 50 heal vs. a 10-90 heal, that's obviously way too wide of a range. 40-60 points would be more like it.
Critical rolls, if used, have to be designed so that they aren't too dominating. They should usually modify the combat and the odds, rather than determine them. Perhaps force players to retreat and "live to fight another day.
(Although, I'd love to see a game where Dragons are always extremely powerful, even to maxed characters, and can chomp off a limb or two. (I usually play a Mage, so no skin off my back. )
Fixed numbers make game play overwhelmingly predictable, and the rest is easily resolved with player intelligence vs. whatever MOB AI may be in play.
What you're calling strategy I call "paint-by-numbers." That may sound worse than I mean it too. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, just trying to make my case (which I think is spot on). I don't think either Devs or Gamers realize what I'm saying because they are used to that design. I'd like to see that mold broken so we can have better games that draw players in due to more thrilling game play.
If you want something like this in the game it's easy to do and it's great to make anything the player wants. I can also see having to get the gear and wear it and not having a system like this, where the armor you see them wearing is what they have equipped, but I'm all for this kind of feature.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
If you want something like this in the game it's easy to do and it's great to make anything the player wants. I can also see having to get the gear and wear it and not having a system like this, where the armor you see them wearing is what they have equipped, but I'm all for this kind of feature.
Agreed,
The City of Heroes system is perfect for games with tons of possibilities (super heroes, kitchen sink fantasy, interdimensional scifi) or games with no traditional armor (wild west, pirates, martial arts, modern)
So I think it's a completely unnuanced topic really.
Transmog should always exist. It should always be free. Players should always have just as much agency over their look as they do over the rest of their character, and transmog is one of the most basic, essential aspects of this. It is just the ability to choose which already existing assets you want to use.
If you want something like this in the game it's easy to do and it's great to make anything the player wants. I can also see having to get the gear and wear it and not having a system like this, where the armor you see them wearing is what they have equipped, but I'm all for this kind of feature.
Agreed,
The City of Heroes system is perfect for games with tons of possibilities (super heroes, kitchen sink fantasy, interdimensional scifi) or games with no traditional armor (wild west, pirates, martial arts, modern)
Yeah, transmog is for games that don't cater to game play involved in creating or putting together such things, not for Sandbox game types.
It's a great feature for its kind of game, too. It's too bad that CoH shut down, no doubt lots and lots of gamers wanted that sort of simple, easy, game design.
If you want something like this in the game it's easy to do and it's great to make anything the player wants. I can also see having to get the gear and wear it and not having a system like this, where the armor you see them wearing is what they have equipped, but I'm all for this kind of feature.
Agreed,
The City of Heroes system is perfect for games with tons of possibilities (super heroes, kitchen sink fantasy, interdimensional scifi) or games with no traditional armor (wild west, pirates, martial arts, modern)
Yeah, transmog is for games that don't cater to game play involved in creating or putting together such things, not for Sandbox game types.
It's a great feature for its kind of game, too. It's too bad that CoH shut down, no doubt lots and lots of gamers wanted that sort of simple, easy, game design.
I would classify the CoH system as gearless rather than transmog as the cosmetics are totally separate from the stat boosting enhancements, by design.
Transmog usually functions more as a way to add customization to a gear system that didn't previously have any or wasn't designed for it.
But you could have gearless or transmog systems in a sandbox easily though. Sandbox is a broad designation that can includes tons of different universes with their own focuses, rules and types of gameplay.
If you want something like this in the game it's easy to do and it's great to make anything the player wants. I can also see having to get the gear and wear it and not having a system like this, where the armor you see them wearing is what they have equipped, but I'm all for this kind of feature.
Agreed,
The City of Heroes system is perfect for games with tons of possibilities (super heroes, kitchen sink fantasy, interdimensional scifi) or games with no traditional armor (wild west, pirates, martial arts, modern)
Yeah, transmog is for games that don't cater to game play involved in creating or putting together such things, not for Sandbox game types.
It's a great feature for its kind of game, too. It's too bad that CoH shut down, no doubt lots and lots of gamers wanted that sort of simple, easy, game design.
I would classify the CoH system as gearless rather than transmog as the cosmetics are totally separate from the stat boosting enhancements, by design.
Transmog usually functions more as a way to add customization to a gear system that didn't previously have any or wasn't designed for it.
But you could have gearless or transmog systems in a sandbox easily though. Sandbox is a broad designation that can includes tons of different universes with their own focuses, rules and types of gameplay.
The rest is getting too muddy to continue, but I have to disagree about your Sandbox comment. Sandbox means using the worldly components or creating things out of worldly components. You need the "sand", and you make with... out of that "sand." In short, the "sand", in all its forms, needs to be in game and played with for it to be 100% Sandbox. No games going to be 100%, of course.
Comments
I'm not talking about doing fixed content but the execution of abilities.
If you have an ability that does 50 points of healing and it does that every time, then you can use that ability reliably as part of your strategy. No randomness of output.
If you take the same ability and add a healing range to it, from 10-90 points, it is still usable but less reliable.
Add in the chance to miss or the chance for the spell to backfire or have a critical success and it becomes less reliable and more of a wild card.
Using chess as an example again,
Pieces move a specific number of spaces, this allows the player to formulate a strategy based on what the pieces can do.
If you had to roll dice to see how many spaces a piece could move within a range that turn, then you can't plan out strategies as well because the output of your action is so variable.
Dice rolling chess may have some chaotic fun to it, but wouldn't be as strategic by comparison.
Skill(strategy) and chance are largely opposed to each other.
Most games exist on a spectrum of pure skill vs pure chance
This is an article about skill vs chance in boardgames, but I think it applies to videogames as well.
https://medium.com/@daniel-blogs/the-role-of-luck-vs-skill-in-board-game-design-and-development-1fd49c0fbbb3
As far as the 50 heal vs. a 10-90 heal, that's obviously way too wide of a range. 40-60 points would be more like it.
Critical rolls, if used, have to be designed so that they aren't too dominating. They should usually modify the combat and the odds, rather than determine them. Perhaps force players to retreat and "live to fight another day.
(Although, I'd love to see a game where Dragons are always extremely powerful, even to maxed characters, and can chomp off a limb or two. (I usually play a Mage, so no skin off my back.
Fixed numbers make game play overwhelmingly predictable, and the rest is easily resolved with player intelligence vs. whatever MOB AI may be in play.
What you're calling strategy I call "paint-by-numbers." That may sound worse than I mean it too. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, just trying to make my case (which I think is spot on).
I don't think either Devs or Gamers realize what I'm saying because they are used to that design. I'd like to see that mold broken so we can have better games that draw players in due to more thrilling game play.
Once upon a time....
City of Heroes costume editor. Amazing!
If you want something like this in the game it's easy to do and it's great to make anything the player wants. I can also see having to get the gear and wear it and not having a system like this, where the armor you see them wearing is what they have equipped, but I'm all for this kind of feature.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The City of Heroes system is perfect for games with tons of possibilities (super heroes, kitchen sink fantasy, interdimensional scifi) or games with no traditional armor (wild west, pirates, martial arts, modern)
Transmog should always exist. It should always be free. Players should always have just as much agency over their look as they do over the rest of their character, and transmog is one of the most basic, essential aspects of this. It is just the ability to choose which already existing assets you want to use.
It's a great feature for its kind of game, too.
It's too bad that CoH shut down, no doubt lots and lots of gamers wanted that sort of simple, easy, game design.
Once upon a time....
Transmog usually functions more as a way to add customization to a gear system that didn't previously have any or wasn't designed for it.
But you could have gearless or transmog systems in a sandbox easily though.
Sandbox is a broad designation that can includes tons of different universes with their own focuses, rules and types of gameplay.
You need the "sand", and you make with... out of that "sand."
In short, the "sand", in all its forms, needs to be in game and played with for it to be 100% Sandbox. No games going to be 100%, of course.
Once upon a time....