"The path of least resistance"

[jabokai]

A point of view that has come up a few times recently is what's been referred to as "the path of least resistance". Mike Evans, one of the games designers summed up the general idea here -

...

In all seriousness though the path of least resistance is extremely bad from a game play experience point of view. It's all very well saying you should be able to play how you want and have option to make your experience easier but by just having such a choice people will be compelled to use it and ruin the experience they could have had if there was no such choice available to them.

I always remember seeing people playing Oblivion and spending every second going from A to B jumping up and down to level up a stat or continuously summoning a skeleton ally because it would improve their ability to do so. This was the path of least resistance and made the whole experience lesser for it despite the good intentions of the mechanic (improve your abilities by using them). It didn't matter how silly it looked to do and how annoying it was to actually keep repeatedly doing something out of context you would do it because it would improve your character.

Secondly this is a multiplayer game and fairness is extremely important and it does become an issue if someone else you interact with can have an unfair advantage over you because they selected some option you didn't. People will be compelled to also select that option despite their wishes because it'll be the only way to compete on a level playing field. Being able to advance further in the game because you can play it for longer in the day is not an unfair advantage in this case and isn't an issue.

Now I've been on both sides of this premise, for example - once arguing that I'd like a HUD-only view to be available in addition to a cockpit view and another time arguing that data mining (by a trading app for example) of collated player logs would be (for me) undesirable. This got me thinking about where you draw the line in things like this. Or should you? At all? I actually agree with Mike's point above but in that case I should not be arguing for a HUD only view as I know the game will be easier if we have that (bigger external view, no cracked windscreens, etc). But then... won't someone with 3 monitors and a wider view be making the game easier for themselves, even with cockpit view? If they support TrackIR and other technologies - is that support also a part of the "path of least resistance"?

I played World of Warcraft back at the start and was in the top Alliance guild on the server - raiding was the name of the game and it was really good fun in the early days (Molten Core, Onyxia). Then the helpful addons came... then the helpful addons became compulsory because they made things easier and you HAD to have them to compete with other guilds and players. The game became easier and, IMHO, less fun. Mike's right, if there is an easier option, people will generally choose it because they don't want to be left behind or feel they have one hand tied behind their backs.

Ironman is a different kettle of fish because all Ironmen will be in the same boat and segregated from the Normal players. Would Ironmen choose that mode if they were simply lumped in with everyone else?

Not sure of my point here, it's just annoying me that I have been on both sides of the argument and maybe somebody can offer some clarity of thought on the matter!

 

[Andrew Sayers]

It's a very good question I don't have a particularly good answer to. I find it quite unintuitive nodding along when the devs explain how the customer isn't always right, but I agree things aren't as simple in an industry that's built on hacking our emotions.

I've been telling myself Frontier can always add convenience in later if they get it wrong, but taking things away from people will always cause a riot. That's enough to quell my practical concerns, but my inner philosopher would quite like something more rational!

 

[Slawkenbergius]

I found this article interesting in terms of how the psychology works, and how game designers approach the problem. Regarding the cockpit/HUD debate, I think that there are muddying factors that make the case less clear-cut. Some people might find the cockpit ruins their immersion, or struggle with it in terms of eyesight/motion sickness. However, people who want the cockpit might find themselves abandoning it if it puts them at a significant disadvantage. The latter example is about the path of least resistance, but the former two aren't.

If you were able to balance it so that the majority choice (probably cockpit-view) is also the most beneficial choice, then you've kind of wriggled round the problem (in a less than ideal way).

On the subject of data-mining, I might not be educated enough to form an opinion.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

On the subject of data-mining

In a similar fashion the data-mining ability of ED though may cause the player to stop working things out for themselves and simply press a button that triggers an app (whether in game or not) to suggest purchases. I don't mind personally if that was available, or indeed the hooks there for the more gifted programmers to create, but eventually it would become the norm for people to use.

Why bother writing things down, calculating the max/min prices for a commodity, or even working out that dumping your cargo at a slightly less favourable price and filling up on something else that's not quite so well priced would result in more profit if there was a piece of software to suggest that for them ?

I guess part of the problem comes down to working out at what point the game stops being played by you and is infact played by addons.

ETA:

Then the helpful addons came... then the helpful addons became compulsory because they made things easier and you HAD to have them to compete with other guilds and players. The game became easier and, IMHO, less fun.

I played WoW for quite some time and didn't have many addons. That was mainly as I wasn't part of a raiding guild and the desire to compete against other Guilds wasn't there for me. However some addons were useful - Grid (I think it was called) : the one that told you when spells were about to run out and you should recast was great when doing 5 man groups as a Healer (HoT) and Warlock (dots). I did notice though that using said addons took a little away from the game but were essential to compensate for the random pick up groups I joined - MMOs on the whole are easy - its just knowing what to press and when, and moving out of bad things but many people struggle with the basic mechanics so I found the addons helped compensate for that.

 

[Crash_Happy]

The only thing we know for certain right now is that E: D will not be WoW.
I'm not stating the obvious to be flippant but because that fact alone makes a massive difference to the experience and how players may respond to available data.
I actually don't think that comparisons to MMO's are useful since apparently Dangerous isn't going to be much like one. Right now, I'm not concerned about how data provided by the game will be used by other players. It's certainly true that I would rather some restraint was shown as I wouldn't want the sort of situation where players plug-ins became required for an even playing field.

To be honest, I often find myself unable to say anything of much use on the forums because right now the game is so much of an unknown.

 

[Crash_Happy]

simply press a button that triggers an app (whether in game or not) to suggest purchases. I don't mind personally if that was available, or indeed the hooks there for the more gifted programmers to create, but eventually it would become the norm for people to use.

I actually wouldn't want such things. The only discussion I can think of where the devs have talked about data being provided was for logs and all that stuff was historic data. That all seems harmless to me. If you can have an app scan and suggest what to buy and sell then the next thing you get is a market aggregator.

 

[Adam Lusardi]

I'm not too interested in the data side of things. I can however see others enjoying looking at it. It will be historic data, with a following of some people trying to figure out the algorithms. I just hope the system is more dynamic than that and allows free solo-ish play with little need for scripts etc. Some players used paper some have good memories. Some didn't care. There's always a new trade and experience outside the gravy "with Yorkshire puddings" train.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

The only discussion I can think of where the devs have talked about data being provided was for logs and all that stuff was historic data. That all seems harmless to me. If you can have an app scan and suggest what to buy and sell then the next thing you get is a market aggregator.

Thing is ED, like any other game, is bound by arbitrary rules that define a max and min price for commodities with events forcing it out the norm. Based upon your historic data, and combined with other pilots who contribute their logs, you can quickly work out the max/min for each commodity. Tack onto that solutions that read current prices - either screen scraping or data interception as it comes from FDs servers and you have a list of current prices at the station where you are. Voila - Wow Auctioneer for ED!

I actually don't think that comparisons to MMO's are useful since apparently Dangerous isn't going to be much like one.

That depends upon how you look at it.
- Lots of players online simultaneously in the same galaxy : check
- Persistent world that's still there when you log off : check

Call it what it is .. whilst the devs themselves have said it's more like CoD/BF3 than an MMO it's still an MMO - just not the kind you're used to.

 

[withnail]

Thing is ED, like any other game, is bound by arbitrary rules that define a max and min price for commodities with events forcing it out the norm. Based upon your historic data, and combined with other pilots who contribute their logs, you can quickly work out the max/min for each commodity. Tack onto that solutions that read current prices - either screen scraping or data interception as it comes from FDs servers and you have a list of current prices at the station where you are. Voila - Wow Auctioneer for ED!

I know that you are not keen on the log idea but there will be a lot of real time information available on the galaxy map that IMO will be better quality. I refer to the proposal from the DDF archive (apologies but I am rubbish at the quote thing so have pasted it instead):

Data

Toggles can be used to control what additional data can be displayed

None
Trading
Value
Quantity
Profit
Loss
Trade routes
Production

My guess is that a clever, experienced player would be able to determine more from this than the logs because it is current and up to date.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I know that you are not keen on the log idea but there will be a lot of real time information available on the galaxy map that IMO will be better quality.

Understood - at the end of the day people will play ED how they want and if HOW they do this doesn't affect me then I don't care (plugins / apps and all) Logs have their place and personally being able to go back 12 months seems completely pointless but if that's what people want (shrug)

 

[Patrick_68000]

The path of least resistance in Elite Dangerous? This does not make sense. This would require be able to distinguish those who choose the path of least resistance and the others. To make adjustments in the réputations and the rankings.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

This discussion has touched on a couple of DDF-specific issues, so here's some background for everyone else...

First up, this week's main topic is the player's log. The most-frequently requested feature in that thread is for the log to be exported somehow, so we're not reduced to scribbling it down on paper like back in the day. Of course, the moment you add that sort of facility to a game in this day and age, programs to meticulously optimise your character will appear all over the Internet. The question there is whether players will feel compelled to use those programs to keep up with the Jones' - walking the path of least resistance instead of cutting out their own path.

Secondly, gameplay discussions occasionally crop up in the DDF's "open design discussion" thread, which doesn't get rotated into the archive. Even more occasionally, the devs will get into one of those discussions. Recently we talked about viewing the game through the cockpit vs. a cockpitless view. The devs' opinion was that the cockpit added greatly to immersion compared to cockpitless view, even though a lot of players will feel the need to use the cockpitless view so they can see those extra few pixels of enemies. That balance between immersion and perceived practical benefit (path of least resistance) was a good example of how they have to handle the path of least resistance.

These two examples happen to be the most recent examples in the DDF, and we're using them because they're less likely to derail the discussion than the topic that must not be named

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I think the problem isn't so much about the path of least resistance as the virtual equivalent of desire paths - those unofficial paths we create simply by trampling over the grass between us and the place we want to get to. For example, if Frontier provide tools to manage my trade routes, but they don't quite match the way I want to do it, then I'll use paper, a spreadsheet, a hacked save game file, or take whatever path most closely matches my desire.

A lot of work has been done on managing real desire paths - figuring out how to detect and support them where possible, and how to redirect desire where necessary. Here are some solutions they use that might work in gaming:

1. Measure what people actually do, then just put the path there. A/B testing is all well and good, but there's no substitute for old-fashioned observation
2. If you can't put the path there, put something horrible there instead. A path with a rope keeping people in just makes it worse, but a path with a thicket of weeds either side makes people feel safe
3. If you can't put something horrible there, educate people about the problem. Knowing that a single large group can damage soft wilderness ground beyond repair is enough to make most people do the right thing, so maybe knowing the cockpit is there to increase immersion will be enough to make us use it

 

[jabokai]

Yeah, it wasn't my intention to get hung up on the specific examples as I was much more curious about the whole concept and where the lines are... or whether there should be any lines!

When I thought about the hardware support, for example, it seemed to me that this was also a part of the concept and, by and large, very few people have been anti-hardware support that I can recall... and when they have been, it's been an argument of "don't want the developers to waste time on niche xyz peripheral" rather than "it wouldn't be fair or equal".

I guess the hardware side ties back to what Mike said about the time a person can play not being a factor in fairness/unfairness, even though the developer does have input over hardware support, but none over time played.

Meh, like I said, I'm not even sure I had a cogent point, I was just curious!

 

[Cathy]

I played WoW from 2006 and never used an addon. I was perfectly happy if others did if it was for themselves. It only became a problem when raid leaders who didn't understand how Recount worked assumed they could use their client's installation to measure the other players' DPS, and then started distributing loot accordingly There's a line for you - in how players mis-apply the results, not in how they use them per se.

The cockpit issue for Elite could be serious in terms of universal playability, because of the eye-strain/nausea problems it causes some people (I'm not talking about the HUD holograms and data).

But here's the thing. If the cockpit infrastructure (window struts etc.) makes combat and the viewing aspects of the game more difficult to play, thereby affording a notional "path of least resistance" to players who remove it, then there is something wrong with the design anyway. Why would you design something that simplistically obstructive?

The cockpit infrastructure whether toggled on or off should make negligible difference to the player's ability to see what he's doing. It should have no impact on the player's appreciation of the 3D space around the ship and what is going on in it. If it does, that's a flaw. Toggling it off so that players who have eye/brain issues with fabricated near/distance graphics should not be any kind of "path of least resistance" in the first place.

It's like offereing a player configuration of text colour to account for those with dyslexia or sight impairment. No colour should offer a general play advantage. So providing the choice is just that: only choice.

 

[Crash_Happy]

Well I wrote a longer and reasoned reply by it got eaten. So in short, yes good points. I'm hoping the game won't be dominated by such things, if it is I'll either stop playing of switch to single player depending on the type and breadth of the impact.

 

[Voyager_NL]

I think that calling people using 3 monitors are trying to ease up on their path of resistance by simplifying their game experience is a bit off.

It's more immersive but you practically need to have eyes everywhere. I do have such a (3monitor) setup and I must admit it can be usefull to have some more oversight. But it is also a strain on you to cover that amount screen realestate in your scanning the game area.

Next thing your calling a HOTAS joystick also an easy way out.
I'd be looking at a nice gaming rigg I wouldn't be able to use

For what it is worth: I'd like this game to be pretty hard. Playable but hard! I want adrenaline to flow during and after a battle. I want to learn techniques, tweaks and tricks to get my ship to work better. Besides that I want to be stunned by the shear beauty of it when I enter an unexplored system. That will be MY reward!

 

[Fromhell]

I'm going to exploit the heck out of the grouping system.
Mine and trade in single player mode or private group is way of least resistance to make lots of credits safely.
When I've customized my ship with killer combat upgrades, I'll empty my cargo and try to capture some poor traders in the all group who don't know the trick yet.

 

[jabokai]

I think that calling people using 3 monitors are trying to ease up on their path of resistance by simplifying their game experience is a bit off.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting that the reason people used triple monitors was to make their game easier, but that it is a side-effect - you can see more, it's a no brainer! I only have one monitor, no TrackIR, no HOTAS, but I would still advocate those things being supported because I believe they make the game BETTER for those that use them. Same for gaming rigs - I want the game to scale way beyond the PC I own just now. I certainly wasn't saying "it's not fair" that people use those things. Fact is though, that most of those solutions will improve that person's "performance", relative to using a clapped out laptop with a one-button mouse!

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

I'm going to exploit the heck out of the grouping system.
Mine and trade in single player mode or private group is way of least resistance to make lots of credits safely.
When I've customized my ship with killer combat upgrades, I'll empty my cargo and try to capture some poor traders in the all group who don't know the trick yet.

I know you're being facetious but I think this is one blatant exploit FD will have to deal with pretty early on if they're serious about this path of least resistance stuff.

Not sure how they'll do it though. I would have suggested solo player credits being worthless in the multiplayer universe but that won't work if you can buy equipment in solo play and use it multiplay :S