Git Gud, Frontier!
Seriously now. I have a lot of respect for the FDev team and think that they are very good at game design. This post is mostly a chance to look at their choices and talk about why they made them and what they will probably do in the future- especially relating to- you guessed it- the "too hard/git gud" controversy about the 2.1 changes.
So! Since I love good, peer-reviewed science, we are going to go as close as I can get in 20 minutes on a game forum on the internet- that is to say, blatantly presumptive, unsourced hypothesizing. Buckle up, this one is going to be a doozie.
Like really though, it's super long.
A crash course in principles of design
Design, be it for games or otherwise, has a few important rules. Let's go over four of them:
-Jack of all trades, master of none. this is pretty self-explanatory. Basically, you cannot do everything well, ever, to the satisfaction of everybody. Because you're not God. But you can usually pull of doing one or two things quite well and pleasing a certain audience. Projects that suffer from Jack of all Trades (think the f35, or the sidewinder, or a modern smart phone, or a swiss army knife, or a spork) either fail terribly, because they can do nothing to the required level of excellence, or succeed wildly, because although they do not perform any given task to the same level as a dedicated project, they do so to a sufficient level that is a tolerable trade-off for the versatility.
-80/20. This rule of design states that basically, the most important 20% of any given project, will end up accounting for 80% of the results. the figures are arbitrary, but the rule holds- a few very key elements are more important than very many unimportant elements. here is a helpful graphic illustration:
-Don't make me think, don't make me move this rule states that the best way to get good results from the human factor of any system is to reduce the amount of mental and physical labour involved in completing the desired operation. Originally conceived around the idea of workplace efficiency, this rule is of particular importance in game design, because the amount of mental labour must be in a sweet spot to make the experience neither too easy to be engaging nor too frustrating to continue.
-the Weakest Link/Fail first. This rule is the principal that you can avoid catastrophic failures in a system by designing a weak link into the system that will fail before other more important parts of the system give way. Think fuses in circuits or crumple zones in vehicles.
so, with those little definitions out of the way, let's dissect Elite: Dangerous from a designers perspective. Elite is a cohesive system built up of semi-dependant interlocking elements. A few of those elements are; flight simulation, combat, economy simulation/trading, exploration, power play, mission system, mining, wings, cqc, and so forth. Our list could go on, but we have named the most important game elements already, and it is noteworthy to point out that the central game mechanics tie into these main elements. Now which is the most important? which of these elements is the critical 20% mass that drives 80% of the player experience? the answer is simple: flight simulation, the unifying element, since all the other game mechanics are dependant on it, and the player spends the vast majority of their time with this element, and combat. Why combat you say? surely, the economy simulation and trading must be of at least equivalent value and importance. But they are not! this is primarily evident due to their relative unobtrusive nature in the games interface, and the way that the impact of the "evolving universe economy" is felt very little outside the niche of trading. Combat, however, is highly interdependent with the flight-simulation element. combat hotkeys are everywhere, and the vast majority of the "new player experience" tutorials focus on combat. What's more, combat invades every other game element- trading, mining, even exploration- whereas I have yet to be interdicted by a hostile asteroid that I needed to mine to death. Yes, combat can be avoided by high-waking and other techniques, but even the act of running away is still a direct participation with the combat element of the game that would not be part of your experience if combat did not exist.
Basically, combat is the life and blood of Elite: Dangerous.
we could go on to talk about why this is. but let's leave it here; just let it be said that from a design point of view, combat was made to be the most "engaging, fun, interactive, whatever" 20% of every single players experience with the game. It is without doubt the deepest and most carefully crafted game element, and so if players are not enjoying this element, Frontier have failed- It HAS TO WORK in order for the game to function. imagine a game of lesser scope, say, battlefield, without its core element, shooting. It would still be a great game, right? because you can drive cars and fly helicopters and be on teams and capture points? It's the same way with Elite: Dangerous and combat. it needs to be there for everything else to work properly.
Which brings me to my next point. Elite: Dangerous is not a jack of all trades, even though it claims to be. It certainly has a variety of options in terms of activities, and a vast game environment, but each of the so-called "careers" in the game, like mining, or exploration, or power play, are second-rate. Essentially, if you are playing the game mainly for one of these other elements, instead of primarily for combat of for a mixture of various elements, you are a second-class citizen. which is okay, because you are not having you citizenship revoked or a wall built around your client- your game element of choice will simply receive much less developer attention than the more highly prioritized ones- which some of you may have already sniffed in the wind, explorers- but this is actually a good thing. Star Citizen is in development hell because it is a jack of all trades, but a master of none-and I seek to make no "us & them" with that comparison, it was just the most relevant one that came to mind- anyone who knows about the F-35 Joint strike fighter jet fiasco will realize that development hell due to bad design decisions is not an issue unique to video games- But back to the point. According to the 80/20 rule, the 20% of the game elements that are most important are combat & flying, and so it follows that 80% of the experience that is to be had from playing ED is reliant in some way on combat and flying (once again, the 80/20 figures are arbitrary, they just represent small but important=big result). So what happens when some people aren't enjoying combat and flying?
the Design flaws and successes of ED combat
Combat in ED isn't perfect. But it is pretty good. So what happened? when 2.1 launched, a whole bunch of people freaked out, saying that PvE combat was too hard, while others berated them to "git gud". This is a classic example of Don't make me think, don't make me move in action. None of us like to try to accomplish a task, only to fail repeatedly (which is probably why most of us aren't super buff, either)- So in reality once the people on the giving end of the "git gud" commentary find themselves in a frustrating position they are very likely to become the "it's too hard" people on that particular issue. The art is finding a balance where no one is frustrated, but the going is not easy for anyone either. The idea that people who struggle with the difficulty level of the game essentially do not deserve to escape their frustration and have enjoyment unless they can cope with some arbitrary measurement of skill is a silly design choice and an example of not knowing how to handle the weakest link. (If the player is the weakest link in the system, and the player fails, then the system has experienced a catastrophic failure because it ceases to complete the purpose it has of keeping the player engaged and at the end of the day, generating revenue from them.) This is, perhaps, the greatest flaw or design danger of combat in ED, since it is so pervasive and makes up an important part of every player experience, yet is not necessarily the "focus of attention/end goal" of every player. Failure in the combat element of the game can mean catastrophic failure in the entire system.
How then, do we solve the design issue of "labour balancing" (ensuring that people are neither frustrated nor without challenge)? Given that we know that people have different levels of skill, one option is adaptive difficulty, having the computer learn and adapt to each player's skill level (which level of npc they consistently start dieing too) and adapt accordingly, sending mostly manageable NPCs into combat with the player but occasionally sending very difficult ones as well to push the limit of the player's skill. This solution, however, has several flaws, seeing as the game is multiplayer (at least in open mode), and NPCs are not unique to each player. while this appears negligible seeing as players are rarely together, much less in large groups, the multi-player element makes the implementation of such a solution near to impossible.
Another idea, and one that I think is rather good, not to be biased, has to do with AI behaviour. Several things determine the strength of a NPC ship- AI quality (rank), the ship itself, and, of course. the modules it uses. If AI ships did not usually attack ships that they wildly outgun, much of the frustration with the combat system (which is not purely because players are awful at combat- just going out on a limb here, but I am working under the presumption that not all of the "too hard" people are filthy casuals who have never seen a HOTAS in their life and neither are all of the "git gud" people whiny 14-year-olds who play all day, honing their skills in their parents basement) could disappear- because being defeated in combat by a tenacious sidewinder with beams is a very different experience for a trader in a mid-sized ship than being melted in seconds by a fully-kitted FDL. While both things can happen, and the AI in control of the ships can be equally good, when we feel we are on even footing we also feel like our skill is being rewarded more fairly. Consider the following:
-NPCs abide by the rules of economics- they will not simply be a-fitted and rank mostly harmless, and the cost of their ships/loadout will be tracked and visible if you die at their hands
-NPCs will "roll a dice" to determine their behaviour towards players (attack/ignore) and are most probable to only attack players who:
1.Have a ship that is worth a similar amount to theirs (barebones)
2.Have invested similar amounts of CR as them into essential and nonessential internals
3.Have invested similar amounts of CR as them into hardpoints and utilities OR have spent significantly more than them on barebones ship & internals but less on hardpoints and utilities (One can't expect a trader to be terribly well armed)
-NPCs will, regardless of player rank, start attacking players from the bottom up, that is to say, if a player successfully defeats a few low-ranked NPCs, begin to attack in higher ranks, and likewise, if a player fails several times with high-ranked NPCs, will be attacked by lower ranked NPCs. this is relevant only for interdictions.
-Elite NPCs are very rare regardless of rank or successful killstreak but when found will always be flying very powerful ships with A-fitted equipment.
These are not perfect rules. they would be hard to implement. you can probably find several problems with them already. But what these "rules of engagement" would hopefully achieve is:
-New player experience. The new player would hardly ever be attacked by ships with a much greater cost than their own, allowing them to have some fair fights to get used to combat, and dieing, and how to survive, while dying is still free.
-The combat focused player. The combat-focused player would hopefully feel rewarded for their skill by always meeting ships that had their level of gear or slightly greater, and by trying to get large killstreaks without dying in order to attract elite opponents (showing killstreak without deaths is another way to give combat-focused players a way to progress and brag about how good they are.)
-the "other profession" player (traders, miners, etc.) By reducing the pool of NPCs willing to attack these players, you hopefully reduce the total number of interdictions (which are usually considered a nuisance by these players) while at the same time making those combat experiences more balanced and viscerally exciting, engaging them in the core game experience (combat) without forcing them to eat sleep and breath it in order to enjoy it.
This is the kind of solution that we need for game design issues like this. Maybe this isn't the right balancing solution for combat, but neither is "to hard, nerf/git gud, buff". Everyone should be able to enjoy and be challenged to the right level by combat- or at least by the combat that they are forced to take part in. if you just drop into a CZ-HI for kicks and giggles, or cause you think you're hot stuff, sorry, that's not how it works- but you should also be able to enjoy the game when you are interdicted and attacked, because that is good design- design that is fun for everyone. So, people, what are your balancing ideas/suggestions?
Sorry that was an essay
SCIENCE! triumphs again
thanks for reading, it took a long time to write
Seriously now. I have a lot of respect for the FDev team and think that they are very good at game design. This post is mostly a chance to look at their choices and talk about why they made them and what they will probably do in the future- especially relating to- you guessed it- the "too hard/git gud" controversy about the 2.1 changes.
So! Since I love good, peer-reviewed science, we are going to go as close as I can get in 20 minutes on a game forum on the internet- that is to say, blatantly presumptive, unsourced hypothesizing. Buckle up, this one is going to be a doozie.
Like really though, it's super long.
A crash course in principles of design
Design, be it for games or otherwise, has a few important rules. Let's go over four of them:
-Jack of all trades, master of none. this is pretty self-explanatory. Basically, you cannot do everything well, ever, to the satisfaction of everybody. Because you're not God. But you can usually pull of doing one or two things quite well and pleasing a certain audience. Projects that suffer from Jack of all Trades (think the f35, or the sidewinder, or a modern smart phone, or a swiss army knife, or a spork) either fail terribly, because they can do nothing to the required level of excellence, or succeed wildly, because although they do not perform any given task to the same level as a dedicated project, they do so to a sufficient level that is a tolerable trade-off for the versatility.
-80/20. This rule of design states that basically, the most important 20% of any given project, will end up accounting for 80% of the results. the figures are arbitrary, but the rule holds- a few very key elements are more important than very many unimportant elements. here is a helpful graphic illustration:
-Don't make me think, don't make me move this rule states that the best way to get good results from the human factor of any system is to reduce the amount of mental and physical labour involved in completing the desired operation. Originally conceived around the idea of workplace efficiency, this rule is of particular importance in game design, because the amount of mental labour must be in a sweet spot to make the experience neither too easy to be engaging nor too frustrating to continue.
-the Weakest Link/Fail first. This rule is the principal that you can avoid catastrophic failures in a system by designing a weak link into the system that will fail before other more important parts of the system give way. Think fuses in circuits or crumple zones in vehicles.
so, with those little definitions out of the way, let's dissect Elite: Dangerous from a designers perspective. Elite is a cohesive system built up of semi-dependant interlocking elements. A few of those elements are; flight simulation, combat, economy simulation/trading, exploration, power play, mission system, mining, wings, cqc, and so forth. Our list could go on, but we have named the most important game elements already, and it is noteworthy to point out that the central game mechanics tie into these main elements. Now which is the most important? which of these elements is the critical 20% mass that drives 80% of the player experience? the answer is simple: flight simulation, the unifying element, since all the other game mechanics are dependant on it, and the player spends the vast majority of their time with this element, and combat. Why combat you say? surely, the economy simulation and trading must be of at least equivalent value and importance. But they are not! this is primarily evident due to their relative unobtrusive nature in the games interface, and the way that the impact of the "evolving universe economy" is felt very little outside the niche of trading. Combat, however, is highly interdependent with the flight-simulation element. combat hotkeys are everywhere, and the vast majority of the "new player experience" tutorials focus on combat. What's more, combat invades every other game element- trading, mining, even exploration- whereas I have yet to be interdicted by a hostile asteroid that I needed to mine to death. Yes, combat can be avoided by high-waking and other techniques, but even the act of running away is still a direct participation with the combat element of the game that would not be part of your experience if combat did not exist.
Basically, combat is the life and blood of Elite: Dangerous.
we could go on to talk about why this is. but let's leave it here; just let it be said that from a design point of view, combat was made to be the most "engaging, fun, interactive, whatever" 20% of every single players experience with the game. It is without doubt the deepest and most carefully crafted game element, and so if players are not enjoying this element, Frontier have failed- It HAS TO WORK in order for the game to function. imagine a game of lesser scope, say, battlefield, without its core element, shooting. It would still be a great game, right? because you can drive cars and fly helicopters and be on teams and capture points? It's the same way with Elite: Dangerous and combat. it needs to be there for everything else to work properly.
Which brings me to my next point. Elite: Dangerous is not a jack of all trades, even though it claims to be. It certainly has a variety of options in terms of activities, and a vast game environment, but each of the so-called "careers" in the game, like mining, or exploration, or power play, are second-rate. Essentially, if you are playing the game mainly for one of these other elements, instead of primarily for combat of for a mixture of various elements, you are a second-class citizen. which is okay, because you are not having you citizenship revoked or a wall built around your client- your game element of choice will simply receive much less developer attention than the more highly prioritized ones- which some of you may have already sniffed in the wind, explorers- but this is actually a good thing. Star Citizen is in development hell because it is a jack of all trades, but a master of none-and I seek to make no "us & them" with that comparison, it was just the most relevant one that came to mind- anyone who knows about the F-35 Joint strike fighter jet fiasco will realize that development hell due to bad design decisions is not an issue unique to video games- But back to the point. According to the 80/20 rule, the 20% of the game elements that are most important are combat & flying, and so it follows that 80% of the experience that is to be had from playing ED is reliant in some way on combat and flying (once again, the 80/20 figures are arbitrary, they just represent small but important=big result). So what happens when some people aren't enjoying combat and flying?
the Design flaws and successes of ED combat
Combat in ED isn't perfect. But it is pretty good. So what happened? when 2.1 launched, a whole bunch of people freaked out, saying that PvE combat was too hard, while others berated them to "git gud". This is a classic example of Don't make me think, don't make me move in action. None of us like to try to accomplish a task, only to fail repeatedly (which is probably why most of us aren't super buff, either)- So in reality once the people on the giving end of the "git gud" commentary find themselves in a frustrating position they are very likely to become the "it's too hard" people on that particular issue. The art is finding a balance where no one is frustrated, but the going is not easy for anyone either. The idea that people who struggle with the difficulty level of the game essentially do not deserve to escape their frustration and have enjoyment unless they can cope with some arbitrary measurement of skill is a silly design choice and an example of not knowing how to handle the weakest link. (If the player is the weakest link in the system, and the player fails, then the system has experienced a catastrophic failure because it ceases to complete the purpose it has of keeping the player engaged and at the end of the day, generating revenue from them.) This is, perhaps, the greatest flaw or design danger of combat in ED, since it is so pervasive and makes up an important part of every player experience, yet is not necessarily the "focus of attention/end goal" of every player. Failure in the combat element of the game can mean catastrophic failure in the entire system.
How then, do we solve the design issue of "labour balancing" (ensuring that people are neither frustrated nor without challenge)? Given that we know that people have different levels of skill, one option is adaptive difficulty, having the computer learn and adapt to each player's skill level (which level of npc they consistently start dieing too) and adapt accordingly, sending mostly manageable NPCs into combat with the player but occasionally sending very difficult ones as well to push the limit of the player's skill. This solution, however, has several flaws, seeing as the game is multiplayer (at least in open mode), and NPCs are not unique to each player. while this appears negligible seeing as players are rarely together, much less in large groups, the multi-player element makes the implementation of such a solution near to impossible.
Another idea, and one that I think is rather good, not to be biased, has to do with AI behaviour. Several things determine the strength of a NPC ship- AI quality (rank), the ship itself, and, of course. the modules it uses. If AI ships did not usually attack ships that they wildly outgun, much of the frustration with the combat system (which is not purely because players are awful at combat- just going out on a limb here, but I am working under the presumption that not all of the "too hard" people are filthy casuals who have never seen a HOTAS in their life and neither are all of the "git gud" people whiny 14-year-olds who play all day, honing their skills in their parents basement) could disappear- because being defeated in combat by a tenacious sidewinder with beams is a very different experience for a trader in a mid-sized ship than being melted in seconds by a fully-kitted FDL. While both things can happen, and the AI in control of the ships can be equally good, when we feel we are on even footing we also feel like our skill is being rewarded more fairly. Consider the following:
-NPCs abide by the rules of economics- they will not simply be a-fitted and rank mostly harmless, and the cost of their ships/loadout will be tracked and visible if you die at their hands
-NPCs will "roll a dice" to determine their behaviour towards players (attack/ignore) and are most probable to only attack players who:
1.Have a ship that is worth a similar amount to theirs (barebones)
2.Have invested similar amounts of CR as them into essential and nonessential internals
3.Have invested similar amounts of CR as them into hardpoints and utilities OR have spent significantly more than them on barebones ship & internals but less on hardpoints and utilities (One can't expect a trader to be terribly well armed)
-NPCs will, regardless of player rank, start attacking players from the bottom up, that is to say, if a player successfully defeats a few low-ranked NPCs, begin to attack in higher ranks, and likewise, if a player fails several times with high-ranked NPCs, will be attacked by lower ranked NPCs. this is relevant only for interdictions.
-Elite NPCs are very rare regardless of rank or successful killstreak but when found will always be flying very powerful ships with A-fitted equipment.
These are not perfect rules. they would be hard to implement. you can probably find several problems with them already. But what these "rules of engagement" would hopefully achieve is:
-New player experience. The new player would hardly ever be attacked by ships with a much greater cost than their own, allowing them to have some fair fights to get used to combat, and dieing, and how to survive, while dying is still free.
-The combat focused player. The combat-focused player would hopefully feel rewarded for their skill by always meeting ships that had their level of gear or slightly greater, and by trying to get large killstreaks without dying in order to attract elite opponents (showing killstreak without deaths is another way to give combat-focused players a way to progress and brag about how good they are.)
-the "other profession" player (traders, miners, etc.) By reducing the pool of NPCs willing to attack these players, you hopefully reduce the total number of interdictions (which are usually considered a nuisance by these players) while at the same time making those combat experiences more balanced and viscerally exciting, engaging them in the core game experience (combat) without forcing them to eat sleep and breath it in order to enjoy it.
This is the kind of solution that we need for game design issues like this. Maybe this isn't the right balancing solution for combat, but neither is "to hard, nerf/git gud, buff". Everyone should be able to enjoy and be challenged to the right level by combat- or at least by the combat that they are forced to take part in. if you just drop into a CZ-HI for kicks and giggles, or cause you think you're hot stuff, sorry, that's not how it works- but you should also be able to enjoy the game when you are interdicted and attacked, because that is good design- design that is fun for everyone. So, people, what are your balancing ideas/suggestions?
Sorry that was an essay
SCIENCE! triumphs again
thanks for reading, it took a long time to write
). That's sort of what I'm talking about. most of the "solutions" I proposed are sort of aimed at the rank grinding problem, because it's not very well balanced, but it's not the only facet that could use some love, or the only way to improve the player experience. Most likely, minimal changes need to come to the game to improve player experience over this particular issue- people will learn the essential mechanics on their own, and life will go on- but it was a fun opportunity to dissect the issue and talk about how clever design can create more cohesive systems.
