One and a Half hours into the play-test of what’s supposed to be a 45 minute game, the players didn’t want to quit. It’s a great sign, when the players want to see the final outcome. In fact. was doing my happy dance inside my head when this happened. The game has a few kinks at this point, but it seems to be firing on all cylinders. Happy Days!
We ran into an energy shortage at the end of the game which intensified the game-play but also caused it to drag on very very long. This can be fixed. I will introduce a deck of cards which will control the generation of energy throughout the game. The end condition has to be tweaked as well as as the number of ships for each player and a few other things. The Pirate theme doesn’t quite fit so I will be changing it to scavengers or something more suitable. It is worthwhile to spend some time on the graphics to make it more clear and shore up the theme a bit, now that this game seems to function well.
I will also introduce different types of energy with special effects, as well as reworking the dice tokens a bit. The Marauders market mechanism I planned on adding may not be a good fit for the game. I can encourage more player interaction through other means so the player negotiations will emerge more organically. This will have be in later revisions, for now I just have to fix what’s broken.
It looks like the scrap pile is getting a little bigger. Fight Night has finally gone down to the mat and was counted out. The mechanisms were still really cool, and I’m sure I can re-use them in another game, but not this one. Fight Night had it’s moments, but there was a severe thematic disconnect which doomed this game to mediocrity at best. I’ve seen quite a few bouts, and I have never seen anybody squat down and punch somebody in the knee. This is what the mechanisms of the game were basically asking you to do. Although it was funny at times, this disconnect stopped the players from really immersing themselves into the game. The timing and the intensity may have matched a real fight, but the actions never seemed quite right. Lesson learned.
As anybody who has invested regularly in the stock market can tell you, this market is anything but rational. At least not in the short term. It is subject to some severe swings, and behaviors that can only be described as psychotic. How can a company like McDonalds be worth 25% less in a short period? I don’t recall seeing a few thousand stores suddenly disappearing into the void. How can a company like Tesla be valued higher than GM when it is miniscule in comparison? How can 3D printer stocks see a rise of over 1,000% , just to come crashing back down in value within 6 months. This doesn’t sound like rational behavior to me. The rational market theory states, more or less, that the fair market value of a commodity will be determined by supply and demand. I’ll believe this if I ever see it!
Experiments were performed by Dan Airely to explore how initial market values are arrived at, and the results are quite surprising. You can check out chapter 2 of his book “Predictably Irrational” for more detail on this topic. It turns out that the initial price of an item is often completely arbitrary. Once we see this price (We don’t even have to agree with it.) we latch on to it and it affects our perceived value of this item and anything associated with it. The item’s true value, or the cost to create this item, could be considerably different from what we’re willing to pay for it. The initial value of any item is strongly associated with the item and influences all future decisions we make regarding it.
We also have another strange quirk when we are establishing a value.If we are paid to acquire an item, this is considered work and we tend to ascribe a lower value to the object. If we have to pay for an item, we will value it more highly. The Item doesn’t change, but our perceived value of it could vary quite a bit. In one board game where we have to pick-up and deliver items, and another game where we have to purchase items and speculate, we likely view the two markets in completely different ways, even if both of these markets were fluctuating in the same manner. The value is skewed by the fact that we are doing a chore or accomplishing a mission, rather than speculating and taking a risk.
How do we establish this arbitrary value? A random card flip or dice roll would do the job, but it may not be very satisfying. Players might, perhaps, make up a value, but this could quickly get out of hand. (The game “QE” does this). The answer must lie somewhere in between. Players can be given rough guidelines, initial recommendations based on the game state, and enough freedom to set a price they think the other players are willing to pay. The player setting the price should, of course, have some way to exploit this newly priced item. The other players should also have some way to access the item besides dealing with the player initiating the value. This might keep things in balance. Let’s create a hypothetical example.
A pick-up and deliver game, set in the desert, where players are free to buy and sell goods by travelling to the various cities. The market will be driven by transactions, where every offer to sell would reduce the value of a commodity and every offer to buy would increase the value. Random actions will also affect the market, but the general market always trends upward in the long run. Players set initial prices by travelling to different cities and establishing trading centers for certain goods. A player can choose from a range of initial starting prices, with the more remote locations allowing players to set higher values. The player initiating the trading center could become the agent for that city and other players can trade through the agent for a fee. Players can also travel to the city to deal directly. As more cities trade in the same commodity, the prices could tend to decline. This might make for an interesting game where values are somewhat arbitrary, and players have to try and determine what the other players are willing to pay.
In the above example, players will probably lend credence to the arbitrary starting values, even though they know the values are artificial. The fluctuating market will hopefully result in some wild market swings, especially with the random events occurring regularly to shake things up. The player interaction and trading should also add some variability to the game as players might demand high prices based on potential market values. The key component of this game would be the initial values set by the players opening up the trade centers. This could make for an interesting market economy.
The bottom line is that a predictable market economy and values that are obvious will probably make for a boring game. Add a few random events, arbitrary values that can’t be clearly predicted, and a dash of irrational player behavior and you might just have some real fun. I am not an expert, nor am I a successful in publishing games. (Yet!) I am just trying to figure things out and hope you enjoy my occasional rant. Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree, or even if you just want to say hi.
I am Currently reading the book “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariele. As described in chapter one, people’s decisions can be irrationally swayed by relative comparisons. For example, if you were given a choice between a brown or grey jacket of equivalent value (assuming you have no color preference) you are equally likely to pick either one. If a third jacket were introduced which is similar, but slightly inferior to one of the original two, your choice will be strongly influenced by this. If, for example, you introduce a second grey jacket which has a minor flaw or is the same, but without a belt, the great majority of us would pick the original grey jacket. This is because the grey jacket would seem like a better deal, simply because you have a basis of comparison, and the brown jacket will seem like a lesser value, because we have nothing relative to compare it against. This irrational bias in our decision making is exploited regularly by merchandisers and just about anybody else who wants us to buy their product or service.
This behavior shouldn’t be ignored when designing a game. You can, perhaps, reward players who explore alternative strategies by increasing the utility or value of unique and less obvious cards or other components in your game. This might enhance the replay value of a game and may even lead toward more varied strategies emerging in your game. You might instead decide to guide players in a certain direction by using similar components and graphical cues to lead plyers to a more interesting and fun path of action. No matter how you plan to use it, it is a behavior that probably should be considered in your design.
I am not an expert, nor am I a successful in publishing games. (Yet!) I am just trying to figure things out and hope you enjoy my occasional rant. Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree, or even if you just want to say hi.
The first playtest of Fight Night Version #9 went off the rails. The hurriedly put together graphics were hard to follow, there was no clear player direction, and the mechanism’s in general were a little clunky and slow. The teach was horrible (My Bad) and one of the mechanisms was broken so bad we couldn’t finish the game. Ouch!
There is, however, a glimmer of hope. I witnessed the first emergent strategy in any of my games. The players were also immersed in their roles in the game, not through any story or art in the game, but by their behavior alone. It would have to be the behavior, because the art in the prototype is so cheesy. This is a sign that there is something intriguing buried under this current mess of a game. Yeah!
The first steps are to fix the broken mechanisms, then deal with the graphic issues, and finally guide the players a little better. This version of the game will be a test bed for determining player behaviors and looking for patterns.
Once I have more information, I can start looking at simplifying the game while adding more opportunities for unique player actions. This will come later in version #10. “Stay tuned to this station for further updates.”
Special thanks to the play-testers for their time and their valuable insights.
Recent Comments