Thursday
Mar142013
Slippin' down a slope into the jaws of defeat, and why that's maybe not fun.
Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 10:47PM Everyone loves an underdog. We love when a player or team is able to come from behind and beat the odds.
While "beating the odds" infers they're already stacked against you, there are times when they're insurmountably towering against you... and growing. This occurs in games that suffer from too much "slippery slope", which means that when a player or team starts to win a game, the advantage they receive through good play makes it easier and easier to win the game. Players like being rewarded for good play--it's only natural to want recognition for doing well--but this is about how the advantage awarded for playing well can be too great, which also means the losing team is more and more likely to lose. With every minute, they're becoming undererdogs.
Nope, don't regret that joke at all.
Slippery slope occurs pretty often in games. In chess, when you put your opponent's king in check by capturing his bishop, you've placed the player on the edge of losing the game and eliminated all of the plays the opponent could have made with that bishop. Because players both attack and defend with their pieces in chess, losing a piece affects their ability to win--or keep from losing. When good play allows you to punish the opponent too much, a game suffers from slippery slope. Of course, good play should lead to players being more likely to win, but games do not have to reward players for good play. They can simply win by virtue of their good play, as with Scabble.
Scrabble does not have slippery slope. Throughout the game, both players always draw up to a complete rack of 7 tiles (no matter how many they used this turn), and their current scores do not give them any advantage or disadvantage. Each word played is its own moment in the game, and does not build any momentum for the player that plays it (outside of psychological advantage, perhaps). This is largely due to the lack of interaction between the two players--playing a word does change the board state, meaning the other player gains or loses a few words he could play--but you could play Scrabble by yourself if you wanted to. It's just a game about making the word that earns you the most points. You can do that alone, forever, and it could still be interesting.
But try playing chess against yourself.
What happens? You'll try to play both sides to the best of your ability... until one of two things happen: you either choose a sub-optimal move for the black pieces because you subconsciously favor the white pieces (racist!), or you'll get bored. No, it's not because racism keeps things interesting--it's because chess is a game full of interaction. Players are constantly vying for control of the board. You're trying to use your pieces to outmaneuver my brain.
Which is great! Interaction is fantastic for competitive games, because we like to beat other humans. That back-and-forth is a culmination of strategy and skill and insight into the other player's mind.
However, if your game has a lot of player interaction and it frequently rewards players for playing well, your game is at a higher risk of undering the undererdogs.
While "beating the odds" infers they're already stacked against you, there are times when they're insurmountably towering against you... and growing. This occurs in games that suffer from too much "slippery slope", which means that when a player or team starts to win a game, the advantage they receive through good play makes it easier and easier to win the game. Players like being rewarded for good play--it's only natural to want recognition for doing well--but this is about how the advantage awarded for playing well can be too great, which also means the losing team is more and more likely to lose. With every minute, they're becoming undererdogs.
Nope, don't regret that joke at all.
Slippery slope occurs pretty often in games. In chess, when you put your opponent's king in check by capturing his bishop, you've placed the player on the edge of losing the game and eliminated all of the plays the opponent could have made with that bishop. Because players both attack and defend with their pieces in chess, losing a piece affects their ability to win--or keep from losing. When good play allows you to punish the opponent too much, a game suffers from slippery slope. Of course, good play should lead to players being more likely to win, but games do not have to reward players for good play. They can simply win by virtue of their good play, as with Scabble.
Scrabble does not have slippery slope. Throughout the game, both players always draw up to a complete rack of 7 tiles (no matter how many they used this turn), and their current scores do not give them any advantage or disadvantage. Each word played is its own moment in the game, and does not build any momentum for the player that plays it (outside of psychological advantage, perhaps). This is largely due to the lack of interaction between the two players--playing a word does change the board state, meaning the other player gains or loses a few words he could play--but you could play Scrabble by yourself if you wanted to. It's just a game about making the word that earns you the most points. You can do that alone, forever, and it could still be interesting.
But try playing chess against yourself.
What happens? You'll try to play both sides to the best of your ability... until one of two things happen: you either choose a sub-optimal move for the black pieces because you subconsciously favor the white pieces (racist!), or you'll get bored. No, it's not because racism keeps things interesting--it's because chess is a game full of interaction. Players are constantly vying for control of the board. You're trying to use your pieces to outmaneuver my brain.
Which is great! Interaction is fantastic for competitive games, because we like to beat other humans. That back-and-forth is a culmination of strategy and skill and insight into the other player's mind.
However, if your game has a lot of player interaction and it frequently rewards players for playing well, your game is at a higher risk of undering the undererdogs.
(Last time for that joke, I swear.)
I've been a bit vague about what sort of player rewards could lead to slippery slope, so let's delve into that a bit. I've been playing a lot of League of Legends, which definitely suffers from slippery slope. League is a MOBA (or DOTA, or other horrible acronym)--basically, it's a game in which you control a single champion and attempt to control territory until you're able to destroy your opponent's base. Killing minions and opposing champions rewards the player with experience points and gold--get enough experience, you'll gain a level and unlock new skills (or make those skills more powerful); get enough gold, you can buy powerful items to make your champion deal more damage or become more impervious to attacks. Both of those reward systems are fun--it's great to have your champion become tougher and more versatile as she levels up, and players can add points to skills in virtually any order, meaning they can add points to whatever skill they most need given the current game state. Purchasing items is even more dynamic--a whole plethora of items are available, all enhancing different stats or giving champions brand-new skills they can use in a pinch.
Did you catch the problem, though? Players receive gold and experience for killing opposing champions.
Oh, and whenever a champion dies, he takes some time to respawn--over a minute when he's at level 18.
I've been a bit vague about what sort of player rewards could lead to slippery slope, so let's delve into that a bit. I've been playing a lot of League of Legends, which definitely suffers from slippery slope. League is a MOBA (or DOTA, or other horrible acronym)--basically, it's a game in which you control a single champion and attempt to control territory until you're able to destroy your opponent's base. Killing minions and opposing champions rewards the player with experience points and gold--get enough experience, you'll gain a level and unlock new skills (or make those skills more powerful); get enough gold, you can buy powerful items to make your champion deal more damage or become more impervious to attacks. Both of those reward systems are fun--it's great to have your champion become tougher and more versatile as she levels up, and players can add points to skills in virtually any order, meaning they can add points to whatever skill they most need given the current game state. Purchasing items is even more dynamic--a whole plethora of items are available, all enhancing different stats or giving champions brand-new skills they can use in a pinch.
Did you catch the problem, though? Players receive gold and experience for killing opposing champions.
Oh, and whenever a champion dies, he takes some time to respawn--over a minute when he's at level 18.
If player A kills player B, player A gains gold and experience, and player B loses opportunities to gain gold and experience (because he's busy resurrecting himself). Player A is rewarded PLUS player B is punished. The game is definitely tipping in player A's favor, and that will only increase as player A is able to push his advantage.
Now, League isn't oblivious to the slippery slope--a champion is worth increasingly less gold every time he's killed. Additionally, a champion that has gone on a killing streak rewards anyone able to bring him down with a significant increase in gold--baseline gold reward for champions is 300, and players receive up to 500 gold for killing a champion on a killing streak. That's a sizable swing for the player who had been losing, which gives them a way to catch up.
Unfortunately, they have to risk dying AGAIN and putting that champion even further ahead if they lose again in this losing battle. And to make a champion worth 500 gold, they need to have killed four champions already--which means they've received between 504 and 1200 gold for those kills. They still have a decided advantage, and that's only if they've only killed four champions before having their kill streak ended.
League could do a couple things to tilt the slippery slope back to a more reasonable slant. It could provide more options for players who are losing to gain some gold and experience in a less dangerous way--for example, there could be more AI-controlled monsters on the map that a player could safely tackle, giving them a slight hope in coming back from a disadvantage. However, this keeps players from interacting as much (because anyone who's losing would always avoid the winning champion), and that's not much fun for a competitive multiplayer game. Another, probably better solution is also pretty straightforward--simply reward players less for killing opposing champions. That would decrease the gold disparity between players and help even out the odds for player B.
Now, League isn't oblivious to the slippery slope--a champion is worth increasingly less gold every time he's killed. Additionally, a champion that has gone on a killing streak rewards anyone able to bring him down with a significant increase in gold--baseline gold reward for champions is 300, and players receive up to 500 gold for killing a champion on a killing streak. That's a sizable swing for the player who had been losing, which gives them a way to catch up.
Unfortunately, they have to risk dying AGAIN and putting that champion even further ahead if they lose again in this losing battle. And to make a champion worth 500 gold, they need to have killed four champions already--which means they've received between 504 and 1200 gold for those kills. They still have a decided advantage, and that's only if they've only killed four champions before having their kill streak ended.
League could do a couple things to tilt the slippery slope back to a more reasonable slant. It could provide more options for players who are losing to gain some gold and experience in a less dangerous way--for example, there could be more AI-controlled monsters on the map that a player could safely tackle, giving them a slight hope in coming back from a disadvantage. However, this keeps players from interacting as much (because anyone who's losing would always avoid the winning champion), and that's not much fun for a competitive multiplayer game. Another, probably better solution is also pretty straightforward--simply reward players less for killing opposing champions. That would decrease the gold disparity between players and help even out the odds for player B.
But, but... player A isn't getting rewarded for his good play!
Mmm, he is--remember how champions take time to respawn? Those 30, 45, 60 seconds is time that the player isn't getting any gold or experience points. That punishment for player B is essentially a reward for player B. Additionally, as League is a team game, whenever a champion is dead, it's harder for the team to do anything safely, potentially giving player A's team a good chunk of time to push their advantage by taking some territory. Conceding that territory is punishment enough for dying without also letting your opponent buy a bunch of sweet loot and bling out your grave over and over again.
No, that's not a terrible metaphor.
No, that's not a terrible metaphor.
But yes, that's about the end of this article. I thought about writing about competitive multiplayer games without so much slippery slope (like many first-person shooters or fighting games),but maybe I'll leave that for you to ponder over.
Yep. No maybe about it--definitely leaving that to you guys.
--Peter
Reader Comments