Topic

DEVS: An important element missing from this game: the combination of strategy/skill with chance

For decades and centuries, people have enjoyed games that combine strategy/skill with chance.  Almost all games that include cards or dice have thrived on this combination, and there is a reason it works.  It is exciting and people want to play again - because she feels she can influence outcome - but one never knows for sure.  (see: results of Skinner Boxes)

I used to play Faunasphere (as did many of your beta testers) and I've missed it terribly.  Glitch is the first game that has come even close to filling that gap for me, and it is ALMOST a perfect fit.  For me, the only thing that is missing is the strategy/chance combination.  Please consider finding a way to add this exciting and fun element to Glitch.  Some people will enjoy it. Others will not, which is perfectly fine and should not cause them any harm in the game.  (like that hideous thing where one jumps between rocks that are trying to kill you.  I hate that.  It stresses me out, so I just don't do it.  Why?  Because I am responsible for my own happiness - but I digress)

In FS this element of the game caused many of us to enjoy playing longer (both on any given night and over months and months).  I do not suggest that you duplicate FaunaSphere activities in order to include the strategy/chance combo.  But there must be a way you could add it somewhere.  I realize one sometimes gets "surprises" when donating to a shrine, or petting a tree - but here is no skill involved, so it is not all that interesting to "try again".

Just in case you are interested - here's how they did it in FS:
There we "bred" fauna - what you got when you hatched something.  The species, color and pattern of the resulting critter was determined both by the ancestors' genes AND random computer-y chance.  It became clear that you could influence this by planning which parents would foster the next generation.  Some species, colors and patterns were non-dominant and harder to get, and had to be more strongly anchored in the genes in more generations (these, of course, were the more desirable ones).  So you could increase your chances of getting what you wanted with work and strategy, but it was still chance.  Each hatch was like opening a wrapped package (see traditional, western gift giving traditions).  You never knew for sure what you would get and it was fun to try as many times as you liked to get the result you wanted.

There were also community projects to which we contributed.  There were two ways to get rewards from these.  The rewards were usually limited edition decorations for our home spheres that we could keep, gift or sell.  There were static rewards for any given project.  You could contribute x amount for the 3rd tier reward, y amount additional for the 2nd tier, etc.  BUT you also earned raffle tickets based on the amount of your donation - and three really groovy gifts were raffled when the project was complete.  These were some of the most prized decorative items in the game - but again they were totally unnecessary to the play of the game.  No one had to participate.

I posted a simpler version of this idea on the FS Refugees group.  Several responded (unlike here, they all seemed to be fairly level-headed) and it was suggested that I pass it to the Devs as an idea.

ETDumbdown for a knee-jerk reactor

Posted 16 months ago by ArtOfHands RoboGirl Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Oh - I love the idea of having a small number of really desirable prizes raffled off at the end of a street project.

    As it is, street project rewards break down into "boring stuff I'm guaranteed to get" (a little bit of energy, mood, favour) and "exciting stuff I'm guaranteed to not get" (street creator trophy piece, street creator name credit).

    "Exciting stuff that I MIGHT get" would be a cool extra incentive.
    Posted 16 months ago by Snazzlefrazz Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 TRC!!!
    Posted 16 months ago by Pinkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +10000000000  !!!!!!
    Posted 16 months ago by 1padme Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Now.  We need some creative souls (I am not one) to imagine some strategy/skill chance games that would be very Glitchy!
    Posted 16 months ago by Pirate Apples Subscriber! | Permalink
  • games are a possibility.   I'd also love it to be something more fundamental to the game - but something that isn't necessary.  That's why both of the skill/chance things in FS were great, you could get involved or not.
    Posted 16 months ago by ArtOfHands RoboGirl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • How about breeding pigs, butterflies, and chickens? 
    They'd have different colors and stuff. :3 We gotta start somewhere. 
    Also, the game should add goats so we can harvest wool. =w= 
    With different colors of fur and hoofs and horns. 
    Posted 16 months ago by Ethras Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1
    Posted 16 months ago by roderick ordonez Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 I agree Thee! Love the idea!
    Posted 16 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Please consider finding a way to add this exciting and highly addictive element to Glitch"

    geez, you almost make it sound like addiction is a good thing.

    -1

    glitch is already enough of a creepy skinner box as it is.
    Posted 16 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • here's what i want.

    i want gameplay that is fun, creative, social, engaging, easy to pick up but also easy to put down.

    easy. to. put. down.

    you know all those casual iPhone games that have made gazillions of dollars? you know how they are all easy to put down? yeah. that's what i want.

    what i don't want is to play a game like farmville or world of warcraft which is saddled with the reputation of being played by losers with addictive personalities.

    i don't want a game that makes me want to play it all night. i want a game that asks "goodnight, same time tomorrow?" and which is compelling enough for me to return to without it relying on cheap tricks better suited to casino gaming.
    Posted 16 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1  

    for this idea from FS tattoonan, that was one of the best features of FS
    Posted 16 months ago by Doctor Hoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There are two things I miss greatly about FS: one is the breeding, as you described it @Thee Robot Creator. The combination of skill and chance really was very fun: one without the other wouldn't have been as good. Glitch could use some more skill-based stuff to do (not just races), including things that involve an element of chance to them. I'm not sure what they could do, but it would be a positive addition.

    The other is building our own spheres (an extremely creative process of building up our own home world with blocks of different types and decorating it however we chose). Glitch will be adding decorating and upgrading to our homes in the future, so that will help a bit, although it would be hard to provide anything as close to as much fun as sphere building was in FS.

    @striatic: Too late, the game is already addictive (at least to some people).... we have discussed this subject at length in another thread before, but I would still say that different things are addictive to different people and there really is no way to control that (and I don't think that Tiny Speck should be worrying about that--they should just make the darned best game they can based on their creative vision).
    Posted 16 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Shepherdmoon

    Striatic, I don't know if you were serious or not. I do want a game that is so good that I don't want to stop playing it. This doesn't mean that I would play it 24/7, it just means that when I play games, I want a game that I WANT to play - not a game that I'm playing because there really isn't anything else available. I can't imagine Tiny Speck, or any other business, designing a product that they hoped people would think was just ok. Everyone who puts out a product wants to make it the best possible product they can create.

    I don't know if you played FS or not, so I'm going to assume that you didn't. The features that Thee Robot Creator describes are not "cheap tricks better suited to casino gaming," but rather a combination of skills/chance that allowed players to work toward goals of their own choosing. Not all players chose to play this feature, and not doing so did not adversely affect their enjoyment of the game. But, for those of us who did play it, it added positively to the game.
    Posted 16 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "@striatic: Too late, the game is already addictive (at least to some people)...."

    this is not a black and white thing. just because something is somewhat addictive does not mean that it should be made more addictive or that the game should be saturated in random dropping goodies push the lever dopamine hits. some of that stuff? ok. the game already has dropping gems and random music boxes and other similar tricks.

    but saturating the game further with it? before adding anything creative or casual or social? that's the way to saddle this game with an extremely *lame* reputation.

    Audria .. there is a difference between being "addicted" to something and "really liking" something.

    say i really like gardening. i enjoy going going down to the garden, watering plants, picking weeds, harvesting whatever is ripe. then i go home and go back to the garden the next time i'm feeling like it and the garden needs it.

    that is not "thinking gardening is ok", it is really enjoying gardening a lot and getting a lot out of the experience. that is "normal human experience".

    there's this weird thing going on in culture where if something is good, it must also be "addictive", and "addictive" is a synonym for good and it leads to all sorts of lazy thinking about what enjoyment is by reducing it to very simplistic, easily commoditized impulses.

    "The features that Thee Robot Creator describes are not "cheap tricks better suited to casino gaming," but rather a combination of skills/chance that allowed players to work toward goals of their own choosing"

    random raffle ticket drops are not a cheap trick better suited to casino gambling? that seems like a pretty cheap trick to me.

    crossbreeding animals with genetic effects? ok, that's better. i even like the idea. but i don't like it when it is framed as being good because it is addictive, rather than by the idea that it is creative and the random quality is a small component that adds color to something much more interesting.

    if such a feature is developed from the point of view that the ultimate goal is to create addictive fixations on trying random combinations until you get the special prize, then the whole thing is going to suck. it's just the wrong direction to approach the idea from.
    Posted 16 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You both think too hard about everything! I don't want a fight to start; on a forum no less, so you two ether agree to disagree or agree on something. Just don't fight. Please.
    Posted 16 months ago by Ethras Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1  for this idea from FS tattoonan, that was one of the best features of FS

    Who dat?
    Posted 16 months ago by ArtOfHands RoboGirl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @striatic It is AUDARIA, not audria.

    Addictive is a relative term and completely dependant upon the user in question. I may be able to have a margarita or 2 whenever I feel like it, while if you have just one it starts you on a slippery slope of addiction. No one is suggesting that TS make this game physically addictive. As you said, it is used in the vernacular as a synonym for good. Since you understand that, then you should also know that when someone uses it in the accepted context, it is not an indication that they or the people responding are lazy. You don't like the idea. Fine. But, why go out of your way to explain that you "don't want a game that makes me want to play it all night?" Shouldn't TS be making the best game possible? I DO want a game that makes me WANT to play all night. That doesn't mean that I WILL play all night.

    Where did anybody suggest "random raffle ticket drops?"

    I would think that this is just semantics, a disagreement over the appropriate use of "addictive" but you added "if such a feature is developed from the point of view that the ultimate goal is to create addictive fixations on trying random combinations until you get the special prize, then the whole thing is going to suck. it's just the wrong direction to approach the idea from." I don't see any suggestion to change the game entirely, just to add an additional component for those who wish to pursue it. It would add an additional positive element for me. Perhaps it wouldn't for you, but since no one is forced to participate in ANY part of this game, I don't see how it would make the whole thing suck for you.

    As far as "saturating the game further" with "addictive" components " before adding anything creative or casual or social?" Thee's suggestion is to add a creative component! I don't know how this would "saddle it with an extremely lame reputation." Actually, I really don't care what other people think about me playing this or any other game. I try not to do anything of which I need to be ashamed.

    Ethras, I'm not fighting, just expressing my opinions.
    Posted 16 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Dudes, I've been clean and sober since 1989.  I no longer get my polka-dotted panties in a wad over the word "addictive".  This note was written to get and hold the attention of the DEVs. 
    If I had said,  "rather than by the idea that it is creative and the random quality is a small component that adds color to something much more interesting." blah blah blah - they wouldn't give me the 48 seconds it takes to read my suggestion.

    I assume the DEVs strive to create a game that people want to play and play again.  "Addictive" was used here as a shorthand for that concept, and I feel quite certain they will recognize it as such if they read my idea.
    Posted 16 months ago by ArtOfHands RoboGirl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ...and just to keep the peace: 
    striatic I've been to your flickr page.  Nice hats!!!  I love me a good hat, or 12... but I can walk away at any time.  I don't have a hat problem... much.  ;-)

    At least one usually only wears one literal hat at a time, so it's hard to OD in public.
    Posted 16 months ago by ArtOfHands RoboGirl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Shouldn't TS be making the best game possible? I DO want a game that makes me WANT to play all night."

    game that makes you want to play all night != best game possible.

    quality of game is not necessarily determined by play-all-night-ability.

    TS should be making the best game possible. 'best' does not necessarily mean 'most compulsive'.

    the best game possible does not necessarily make you want to play it all night. the best game possible could, hypothetically, say "hey, go to sleep, see you tomorrow." through the nature of its design.

    'addictive' when used in the context of random drops and skinner boxes, which are referenced in the OP, does not strike me as a vernacular term. 'play all night' establishes a tone of addiction and compulsion similarly.

    i will maintain my -1 to the OP

    if glitch does some other non skinner boxish stuff in the meantime? ok sure, fine, that'll clear the air for more of this 'addictive' stuff. but if the game is going to be saturated increasingly exclusively by the compulsion driven, "hit the lever, monkey" game-play? that's the sort of thing that turns me right off.
    Posted 16 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This is what I hear you saying:

    1. You don't like the term addicted.
    2. You want the game to be marginally good, but not so good that it causes anyone to want to play all night or for too long.
    3. You think that if the game is so good that people who play describe it as addictive then others who don't play will think the game and those who play it are "lame."
    4. You value the opinion of those who might think the game and its players are "lame" and don't want your reputation sullied by association with a "lame" game.
    5. You do not like the idea put forth in the OP.

    I respect your right to these opinions. I do not share them. I am done discussing this with you.

    I fully support the idea of improving the game by adding an element that combines creativity and chance. I agree with Thee's use of the term "addictive" to convey her idea in a clear and easily understandable (to most) manner.
    Posted 16 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Here's what I heard:
    -------------------------------------------------------
    T)  "What if we painted the wall green?"

    S)  "I find the term "green" offensive.  Grass is green.  I hate grass.  I have to mow grass. More importantly other people have to mow their grass.  I am allergic to grass.  Someone else might be allergic to grass  The word green reminds people of grass and needlessly causes people to lay awake at night worried about having to mow grass.and then go directly to an allergist.  Allergists are expensive.  Healthcare is expensive.  People worry about losing their healthcare.  OLD people are worried about losing their healthcare - OLD HELPLESS PEOPLE who have sick pets!  Pets are expensive and people have to care for them.  Some people don't have their pets spayed and then are many many kittens.  Kittens grow up to be cats, and cats have dander AND THEN we all have to go back to the allergist and I - I say I am afraid of the allergist 'cause he might have bit pointy needles.  He might not, but he might.
    Now if you had suggested "a color between blue and yellow", then we would have no problem..."
    Posted 16 months ago by ArtOfHands RoboGirl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Two thumbs up Thee! lol at your very well made point!
    Posted 16 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +10...somehow I am allergic to everything "natural'...pollen (trees, grass, weeds whatever), animals (all kinds even those that they swear are hypoallergenic) fungi (read mold etc all very natural) and all kinds of food (nuts,soy, fish and the beat goes on)  So give me chemicals or give me death.  Mother Nature is out to get me.  LOL Hugs 3R
    Posted 16 months ago by MisAdventure Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "1. You don't like the term addicted."

    no. obviously i don't.

    "2. You want the game to be marginally good, but not so good that it causes anyone to want to play all night or for too long."

    good grief! i want the game to be MORE THAN MARGINALLY GOOD. why on earth does a good game automatically require in every case that people want to play it constantly in order for it to be considered good?

    there is some really *great* food out there that works best in small portions. is there some weird cultural logic out there that says that if a food is really good it will invariably inspire grabbing handfuls of it and stuffing it into your face uncontrollably?

    "3. You think that if the game is so good that people who play describe it as addictive then others who don't play will think the game and those who play it are "lame.""

    you have this weird concept of good that says that anything that good will make you want to grab fistfuls full of it and cram your face full of it and that anything less would be a disappointment.

    yes, there are people who think that engaging in that kind of compulsive behaviour is "lame", not "good". this should not be surprising.

    "4. You value the opinion of those who might think the game and its players are "lame" and don't want your reputation sullied by association with a "lame" game."

    it has less to do with my personal reputation than it has to do with wanting a diverse player base that isn't scared away by the sort of extreme reputation that many MMOs accrue, but that many other [popular] video game titles do not.

    "5. You do not like the idea put forth in the OP."

    well, i said i liked the animal breeding idea, outside of valuing its quality based on how addictive it is. the issue is that any good idea can be spoilt by playing up the aspects of it that are lame.

    and TRC... seriously? that's ridiculous. i hope you enjoyed writing it at least.  yeesh.
    Posted 16 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think that there should be any breeding.

    But one thing I feel the game is missing, and I mentioned it in my own idea thread, and it's kinda in the same vein as the OP... is the random roll of the die chance on things.

    Especially in regards to rare things that are fun to have to show off simply because they're rare. I mean, every game has that item that you find, and you got it off a 1 in 1000 chance or whatever, and it makes it special. 

    Now, he mentioned breeding in the OP... another thread, one which I replied in, was in regards to food. I really like the idea of chefs putting their own spin on foods. That's akin to breeding because you mix certain ingredients... hope your high skill lets you make it... then hope your die roll mixes in to determine the quality. That is, not every dish you make is a 'perfect' copy. 

    I'd also like to see skill applied to mining in some fashion. As-is, it's definitely one of the more boring skills. I don't know, maybe like different ways to go at the rock. Running pick, jumping pick... maybe the combination of swings you make at the rock determines something. Maybe 'over cautious' swing can improve gem finds or maybe makes you get more, but takes a lot longer. Just some thoughts.

    ~~~~~

    Striatic, if a game is good, it's going to be addictive. I can't think of a good game that I played in the past that I didn't want to keep playing. I can think of many bad games that I put down and never went back to. 

    Addictive behaviour isn't from the game, it's from the player. I have a strong will power, so I stop playing when the time comes. However, I have moments of weakness where I'll 'binge' on gaming and just play non stop and not be a functioning member of society. When SC2 came out, I spent 2 weeks on my couch playing it. I took vacation time for it. Good times were had. 

    But, we can't bash Blizzard and say they made a game addictive? It's a good game that's incredibly fun to play. I kinda have to agree with what others are saying. Is that you just want the game to be 'ok' rather than really good. Because if a game is really good, it's going to be addictive.
    Posted 16 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink