Originally published in eZine 11
This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
Game Design II: Risk And Reward
~Reygekan
If you take one thing out of reading anything I write ever for the rest of my life, let it be this article. If you can't read this, ask someone to read it to you (hey wait) because this is important stuff right here.
Risk and Reward can be summarized as follows. Risk = Reward. R = R.
HOLY CRAP THAT'S LIKE MAD SCIENCE RIGHT THERE AM I RIGHT? I'M TOTALLY LEARNING REY, REALLY YOU'RE SO SMART! Shut up. It's important that I outline even the most basic steps because somewhere out there, some thickhead isn't going to get it. Why is that so important though, and what does it mean?
When you use a move in a fighting game, there are dozens of variables to take into account (printing out the variable list for a fighting game would probably take a full cartridge of ink because they're pretty crazy about this kind of stuff.) You have to consider first the start up lag. If you cannot get the move in, then it wont be appropriate for the situation. Then you need to consider hitstun on the enemy, to know how much time you have to hit them with another move and start a combo. Then you need to consider hitbox size, to see if it's easy to hit with, size of your opponent, position of your opponent, and your size and position as well. You have to consider if your move is predicted and what kind of counters your opponent is preparing, you have to consider how many frames it takes for your move to finish, and then postlag to calculate both how easy it is to be punished and how easy it is to get a follow through and what moves to do it with.
That's a lot of information, for something as simple as pushing a button, don't you think?
So what makes certain moves using? That would be the reward. A stronger move has a better payoff. Better payoff means advantage which means winning. So what's there to keep the weak moves worth using? That's the risk involved. A powerful slow move is not a good start up because it can be blocked and punished, and you'll be too stuck in your animation to counter. Whenever you use any move, you take a risk. Low risk moves are extremely quick and only countered by your opponents ability to predict. A move that can be seen and prepared for before any damage can be done is extremely high risk. That's why you use them in mid-combo, the point of your weaker moves becomes then, to outsmart your opponent and put them in a position where you can hit with one of your stronger moves and finish the game. That becomes your win condition.
A move that's too hard to do with not enough payoff will not get used, even if it's a good move. If it can be punished too easily then it just becomes a dead move. Similarly, a move with not enough risk or too much reward will get spammed. This is actually better than the dead move alternative, because a spammy opponent can be countered as they become too predictable, however it should still be avoided as best you can.
Let's take this outside the fighter game genre. Let's look at RPG's.
You're Mage 1. Why Mage 1 and not Fighter 1? Because it's an RPG and you're just going to spam attack anyway, and we're looking at abilities. You, Mage 1, have the following moves: Death (50 MP, 20% hit chance, uneffective on bosses), Fire 1 (10 MP), Fire 2 (20 MP), and Fire 3 (30 MP). You have 800 MP.
What move will you use? Chances are, it's Fire 3. Unless you answered something else out of spite, in which case you're just being difficult.
Death is easily one of the worst choices ever. Let's say you encounter a group of 3 enemies. To kill them all using death, you'd have to use the move 15 times (750 MP wasted) speaking from a purely statistical viewpoint. It's an RPG. Chances are you're facing at LEAST two at any given time, and that's a small group. Bosses and mini-bosses are immune, and they're the ones that come in ones so it's just a dead move in those cases. You have to dump almost all your MP, and 15 turns (which is a long, long time in an RPG to be fighting a standard enemy) to defeat a single pack of three. The reward is the same, however you're at a higher risk by just spending more time with enemies, as well as upping your risk in the next encounter by blowing through your MP like a moron.
Fire 1 and Fire 2 are simply obsolete. Fire 3 is most likely 10x more powerful than Fire 2 which is most likely 10x more powerful than Fire 1. You will most likely kill the enemies faster with Fire 3 than with Death, spending a smaller amount of MP, giving you less exposure to enemy attacks, and with a higher damage/MP ratio than both Fire 1 and Fire 2. Fire 1 and Fire 2 are now more risky as they involve more time with the enemy, which means a higher chance with death.
This is part of the reason I hate standard RPG's. If you can ever say, at any point in time, that one of your moves is obsolete, then it's a failure of a move. If you can ever say, at any point in time, that one of your moves will be better than a large number of other moves a good amount of the time, then it's broken.
Now let's discuss punishment.
Punishment is the most evil thing since evil demon dogs ridden by evil henchmen managed by evil overlords. Except with more videogames and a lower death rate. Punishment is the act of taking something the player posesses for their failure to do a specific action or complete an event.
Why is this an issue? Back to fighters.
I use Falcon Punch. Everyone knows what Falcon Punch is. If you don't, kick a baby and Captain Falcon will personally demonstrate. Falcon Punch is an extremely powerful move, however it has huge start up lag to the point that it can only be used in some specific combos (which usually kill). Now let's say I miss.
I have used time, energy, and set up trying to pull off this Falcon Punch. That was the risk I took. By failing, my opponent gains advantage. They are now in power, they have received the reward. This is the risk/reward system. Every move has an associated risk with it, relative to its power. By failing, your opponent reaps the reward, causin a disapproval of predictable spamming and a hesitation to use powerful moves.
But let's say that we add punishment to the game. Now, every time I miss a Falcon Punch, my HP is cut in half. So now not only does my opponent have an advantage, they have the game because I don't have enough HP to survive their next oncoming combo. The opponent is not at fault. They are SUPPOSED to punish me, that's how you play the game. However, as a Game Designer, I should not be throwing in an extra punch myself.
Don't make me firespam you
Punishment has other forms. In an RPG, the Game Over screen is a punishment (which I've discussed in a previous article already.) Game Over screens also happen to be shitty systems. Hey, I've already found a connection! Losing all your items, equipment, etc., is also an example. This only applies when you take away something the player already had (progress, equipment, etc.,) due to a failure. Taking something away as part of a story arc or as a cost to preform a move does not fall under this category.
Let's sum things up.
1: Risk = Reward
2: Only a player should ever punish another player
Term: Risk -The chance of failure a player has in their attempt to commit a specific action or gain advantage.
Term: Reward -The amount of advantage or goal completion gained by a specific action.
Term: Punishment -The act of removing progress, status, or equipment from a player in response to the failure of an action by part of the Game Designer.
- Reygekan
Tags:
Posted under: Game Dev
Read this blog post »
This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
~Reygekan
If you take one thing out of reading anything I write ever for the rest of my life, let it be this article. If you can't read this, ask someone to read it to you (hey wait) because this is important stuff right here.
Risk and Reward can be summarized as follows. Risk = Reward. R = R.
HOLY CRAP THAT'S LIKE MAD SCIENCE RIGHT THERE AM I RIGHT? I'M TOTALLY LEARNING REY, REALLY YOU'RE SO SMART! Shut up. It's important that I outline even the most basic steps because somewhere out there, some thickhead isn't going to get it. Why is that so important though, and what does it mean?
When you use a move in a fighting game, there are dozens of variables to take into account (printing out the variable list for a fighting game would probably take a full cartridge of ink because they're pretty crazy about this kind of stuff.) You have to consider first the start up lag. If you cannot get the move in, then it wont be appropriate for the situation. Then you need to consider hitstun on the enemy, to know how much time you have to hit them with another move and start a combo. Then you need to consider hitbox size, to see if it's easy to hit with, size of your opponent, position of your opponent, and your size and position as well. You have to consider if your move is predicted and what kind of counters your opponent is preparing, you have to consider how many frames it takes for your move to finish, and then postlag to calculate both how easy it is to be punished and how easy it is to get a follow through and what moves to do it with.
That's a lot of information, for something as simple as pushing a button, don't you think?
So what makes certain moves using? That would be the reward. A stronger move has a better payoff. Better payoff means advantage which means winning. So what's there to keep the weak moves worth using? That's the risk involved. A powerful slow move is not a good start up because it can be blocked and punished, and you'll be too stuck in your animation to counter. Whenever you use any move, you take a risk. Low risk moves are extremely quick and only countered by your opponents ability to predict. A move that can be seen and prepared for before any damage can be done is extremely high risk. That's why you use them in mid-combo, the point of your weaker moves becomes then, to outsmart your opponent and put them in a position where you can hit with one of your stronger moves and finish the game. That becomes your win condition.
A move that's too hard to do with not enough payoff will not get used, even if it's a good move. If it can be punished too easily then it just becomes a dead move. Similarly, a move with not enough risk or too much reward will get spammed. This is actually better than the dead move alternative, because a spammy opponent can be countered as they become too predictable, however it should still be avoided as best you can.
Let's take this outside the fighter game genre. Let's look at RPG's.
You're Mage 1. Why Mage 1 and not Fighter 1? Because it's an RPG and you're just going to spam attack anyway, and we're looking at abilities. You, Mage 1, have the following moves: Death (50 MP, 20% hit chance, uneffective on bosses), Fire 1 (10 MP), Fire 2 (20 MP), and Fire 3 (30 MP). You have 800 MP.
What move will you use? Chances are, it's Fire 3. Unless you answered something else out of spite, in which case you're just being difficult.
Death is easily one of the worst choices ever. Let's say you encounter a group of 3 enemies. To kill them all using death, you'd have to use the move 15 times (750 MP wasted) speaking from a purely statistical viewpoint. It's an RPG. Chances are you're facing at LEAST two at any given time, and that's a small group. Bosses and mini-bosses are immune, and they're the ones that come in ones so it's just a dead move in those cases. You have to dump almost all your MP, and 15 turns (which is a long, long time in an RPG to be fighting a standard enemy) to defeat a single pack of three. The reward is the same, however you're at a higher risk by just spending more time with enemies, as well as upping your risk in the next encounter by blowing through your MP like a moron.
Fire 1 and Fire 2 are simply obsolete. Fire 3 is most likely 10x more powerful than Fire 2 which is most likely 10x more powerful than Fire 1. You will most likely kill the enemies faster with Fire 3 than with Death, spending a smaller amount of MP, giving you less exposure to enemy attacks, and with a higher damage/MP ratio than both Fire 1 and Fire 2. Fire 1 and Fire 2 are now more risky as they involve more time with the enemy, which means a higher chance with death.
This is part of the reason I hate standard RPG's. If you can ever say, at any point in time, that one of your moves is obsolete, then it's a failure of a move. If you can ever say, at any point in time, that one of your moves will be better than a large number of other moves a good amount of the time, then it's broken.
Now let's discuss punishment.
Punishment is the most evil thing since evil demon dogs ridden by evil henchmen managed by evil overlords. Except with more videogames and a lower death rate. Punishment is the act of taking something the player posesses for their failure to do a specific action or complete an event.
Why is this an issue? Back to fighters.
I use Falcon Punch. Everyone knows what Falcon Punch is. If you don't, kick a baby and Captain Falcon will personally demonstrate. Falcon Punch is an extremely powerful move, however it has huge start up lag to the point that it can only be used in some specific combos (which usually kill). Now let's say I miss.
I have used time, energy, and set up trying to pull off this Falcon Punch. That was the risk I took. By failing, my opponent gains advantage. They are now in power, they have received the reward. This is the risk/reward system. Every move has an associated risk with it, relative to its power. By failing, your opponent reaps the reward, causin a disapproval of predictable spamming and a hesitation to use powerful moves.
But let's say that we add punishment to the game. Now, every time I miss a Falcon Punch, my HP is cut in half. So now not only does my opponent have an advantage, they have the game because I don't have enough HP to survive their next oncoming combo. The opponent is not at fault. They are SUPPOSED to punish me, that's how you play the game. However, as a Game Designer, I should not be throwing in an extra punch myself.
Punishment has other forms. In an RPG, the Game Over screen is a punishment (which I've discussed in a previous article already.) Game Over screens also happen to be shitty systems. Hey, I've already found a connection! Losing all your items, equipment, etc., is also an example. This only applies when you take away something the player already had (progress, equipment, etc.,) due to a failure. Taking something away as part of a story arc or as a cost to preform a move does not fall under this category.
Let's sum things up.
1: Risk = Reward
2: Only a player should ever punish another player
Term: Risk -The chance of failure a player has in their attempt to commit a specific action or gain advantage.
Term: Reward -The amount of advantage or goal completion gained by a specific action.
Term: Punishment -The act of removing progress, status, or equipment from a player in response to the failure of an action by part of the Game Designer.
- Reygekan
Tags:
Posted under: Game Dev
Read this blog post »