What's in the pipe - The fighting system

So, these were the current rules of the prototype. A few playtest sessions have already revealed some flaws or possible improvements, and the bigger picture contains many more things than what I have tested until now.

In no particular order, here is what I am thinking about.

About combos

I am not a big fan of the chaining of moves being based on the speed of these moves. It is very restrictive, and links two things that are not necessarily tied together, thus preventing a mix of moves (like a slow move that could be chained with any other move).

I have thus considered adding some kind of icons to show, for a given move, which moves can be chained into it, and what moves I can follow it up with. As an illustration, just imagine that the attack move has a "fire" icon on the left, and a "water" on the right ; this would mean that it can follow-up any move that has a "fire" on the right, and can be followed by moves that have a "water" on the left. Easy, right?

During the latest playtest, a friend suggested an intersting way to evolve this. In fact, the evolution has two parts:

• First, don't necessarily associate similar symbols together, but rather have two halves or symbols that "match". If the left of one card fits with the right of another, even if they are from different symbols, you can chain them.
  
• Then, don't limit the chaining to left and right. By building a two-dimensional grid of moves during combos, you can contemplate all kinds of effects (like moves being surrounded by several moves are stronger, or chains that are longer than they are wide are quicker, etc). And I can see it go very nicely with multiplayer fights too.
  

Following this, the rule of 25% decrease will probably need to be reevaluated

Rock-paper-scissor

The latest playtest had a friend point out that, to him, the outcome seemed too random. Given the circular nature of the rock-paper-scissor relationship, you could spend hours trying to second, third, fourth... guess your opponent, resulting in a random play to stop the inifinite loop :)

I am not personnally convinced of this yet, but I admit he has a point somewhere. You play more according to what your opponent is supposed to do than to accomodate your own strategy. To cope with this, I'll try and weaken this RPS relationship. Meaning that if you lose the exchange you could, under certain conditions, still fire your move.

One point that I need to be careful about is to still keep this RPS relationthip, since this is what allows for "yomi" (read what your opponent will most likely do).

Real-time vs. turn-based

The card version lends itself pretty well at simultaneous play. However, when you are in an online environment, I see turn-based play more as an artificial remnant of board games, and it often ruins the overall experience.

Being a fighting game, I expect this to be even more true for me. So I'll probably go for a real-time fighting, based on timers (fire and cooldown counters) à la MMORPG.

Current rules, version 2

As promised, here is a condensed version of the current rules. In other words, the rules of the game as I playtest it.

Basic moves

• Every player starts with a total of 50 life points. The first to reach 0 loses.
  
• To decrease the life total of your opponent (and protect your own), you can use three kinds of moves: blocks (B), attacks (A) and throws (T).
  
• These moves follow a rock-paper-scissor relationship: the block beats the attack, the throw beats the block, and the attack beats the throw.
  
• Attacks and throws each have a speed attribute. A quicker move beats a slower one (from the same type), and ties with a move with equal speed.
  
• Each player chooses a move in secret, and both players reveal it at the same time. The moves are then resolved with the above algorithm, and damage (if any) is dealt. The players each take the move back in their hands, and start a new round.
  

Charges and special moves

• When each basic move is successfully executed (i.e. when it wins the exchange), it can grant a charge. For instance, a successful attack grants an A charge, and a successful block two B charges. The charges are then accumulated are available for the whole duration of the fight.
  
• The charges can then be used in two ways: either as a cost to start a move, or as a power-up when a move successfully hits. For instance, I need to spend two As to fire the Energy Blast, and if it hits, I can spend up to three Bs to add additional damage.
  

Combos

• When a move succeeds, it is possible to chain with another move (combo) instead of gaining a charge. The opponent cannot react to this move (it is thus a sure hit).
  
• To chain a move, the chained move must be strictly slower than the original move. A third move can then be chained if it is slower than the second, etc.
  
• After each move, the damage done decreases by 25%. The first move is thus at full power, the second at 75%, the third at 50%, etc.
  
• In the case of a block, only one move can be chained.
  
• When in a combo, no charge can be gained.
  

And I think that's pretty much it for the current rules.

Chosen pieces

I've started reading some game design-related books, and I thought I'd share some advice that I found in there. The quotes below are not what I find most interesting in these books, but rather concrete advice that I could put to use quickly.

From A Theory of Fun

This isn't an algorithm for fun, but it's a useful tool for checking for the absence of fun[...]. Simply check each system against this list:

• Do you have to prepare before taking on the challenge?
  
• Can you prepare in different ways and still succeed?
  
• Does the environment in which the challenge takes place affect the challenge?
  
• Are there solid rules defined for the challenge you undertake?
  
• Can the rule set support multiple types of challenges?
  
• Can the player bring multiple abilities to bear on the challenge?
  
• At high levels of difficulty, does the player have to bring multiple abilities to bear on the challenge?
  
• Is there skill involved in using an ability? (If not, is this a fundamental "move" in the game, like moving one checked piece?)
  
• Are there multiple success states to overcoming the challenge? (In other words, success should not have a single guaranteed result.)
  
• Do advanced players get no benefit from tackling easy challenges?
  
• Does failing at the challenge at the very least make you have to try again?
  

If your answer to any of the above questions is "no", then the game system is probably worth readdressing.

I'll try and post the rules of the game system as it is today, and match it against this checklist to see where the "nos" are.

From LevelUp!

Foreshadowing is a powerful tool to get a player excited qbout the activities and dangers found in a level. Building anticipation is just as important as delivering on it. In all my years of making haunted houses, I've found that a scare is bigger and better if the victim knows it's coming. It's waiting for the scare to happen that drives them nuts.

For me, I guess that would mean to give the players a glimpse of what they will be able to get (and preferably make them want to get it),. Doing this would increase the emotional reward for the players when they get this long-awaited skill or orb for instance.

From Reality is Broken

[...] Initially, the researchers were perplexed by the gamers' positive emotional reaction to "complete and unquestionable failure in the game". When we fail in real life, we are typically disappointed, not energized. [...] After much consideration, they concluded [..] The players hadn't failed passively. They had failed spectacularly, and entertainingly. [...] The The right kind of failure feedback is a reward.

A key point for me in playing online, persistent games. Usually, failure is perceived as something to strongly avoid, since it often goes hand in hand with some kind of loss (XP - therefore time - equipment, money, possessions - in building games like Travian or ManKind - etc.). If we want the players to look for interaction, and keep looking and defying each other after a loss or failure, the cost of loss must not be so high that they only want to quit.
For The Five Orbs, I have thought of several options. First, no "material" loss when defeated. The ranking may fall for instance, but the player should not feel they have less than before the fight.
The "entertaining" loss immediately made me think about "fatalities" in the Mortal Kombat games. The fight is over, but you still have a mean to interact with your opponent. In that case, it was a means to destroy them even more, but you could think of many other possible interactions (like congratulations, mocking, respect, even the old fatality) that could have real in-game effects.

And the one simple trick used over and over again [to make players feel epic] is this: always connect the individual to something bigger.

One of the core aspects will have to be the multiplayer experience. And by multiplayer, I don't mean one vs. one, or even team vs. team, but how large groups of people could interact together. It's a part of the game I have not given many thoughts about though.

[...] any good game [...] needs compelling goals, interesting obstacles, and well-designed feedback systems.

Yeah, another checklist! :)

[...] good game mechanics. Player action has direct and clear results.

Again, the feedback system is a key point.

So, next step for now is to take my existing game system, write it down here, and check it again all of this advice.

Depth first, accessibility later

Quite a lot of things have changed since the last post - I've been rather lazy with keeping this blog up-to-date. I'll try and catch up with the few evolutions that the rules have been through later on.

In the meantime, I have realized that I may be going around in a bad way with my prototype. In my head, the goal was to have as many people playing it as I can, so that I can get feedback and correct what is wrong.

The main issue with this way of thinking is the notion of "accessibility". I want people to be able to play the game and tell me how they feel about it. And this means often people who have never played it before, or even who are not too keen on games in general.

The obvious result is that I was trying to get my game easily understandable and easily explainable. The downside to this is that I am probably discarding options before I have even tested them, on the simple ground that "it would be too complex".

Another approach, that I will try and go with, goes in another direction. Get a pair of dedicated playtesters, who will know your game as much as you do. Try and build something as deep as you want it to be; in other words, build the complexity, strategical choices, and all the richness you want without caring for people for are new to the game and might not get it. This way, the game will be as meaningful as you want it to be.

Then, once you have the depth you are looking for, work and make it more accessible. This may lead to compromises on some complex features, but at least you will work on the finished game, and know the tradeoffs you will have to make.

So, that's where I will be heading now. Time to find willing playtesters :)