Add Review
Subscribe
Nominate
Submit Media
RSS
Skill Design - Forget mathematical balance, balance the feelings instead
Ramshackin- 08/13/2017 09:08 PM
- 3495 views
I can't get players to use certain skills. The testers ignore them. So I buff them to be the mathematically superior option. The testers still ignore them. But why? Well, you'll be happy to know I think I solved the case.
The Curios Case of the Inferior Skill
We just introduced our new, perfectly balanced axe wielder. He's got two skills: Eviscerate, which deals 200 damage to a single target, and Cyclone Axe, which deals 50 damage to all targets.
Our player encounters a group of 5 rouge bandits, 150 HP each. It's obvious what will happen, right? Let's watch.
Expected:
Actual:
But how? Why would the player do that to us?
Let's take a second look at our skills, but to truly see our skills, we must do the scariest thing an RPG developer can do - ignore the numbers.
When using Eviscerate, a big value pops up and an enemy dies. When using Cyclone Axe, several small values pop up and well, nothing else happens.
Perfectly Balanced Axe Wielder, Take 2
After gathering player feedback, we add a new mechanic to our axe wielder. The character can skip a turn to charge 1 stack of adrenaline. Cyclone Axe now costs 2 adrenaline to use and does 150 damage. Mathematically the same as the original Cyclone Axe.
Time to release Cyclone Axe v2 into the wild and see what happens.
But Cyclone Axe has the same damage per turn as before! Why, players, why?
Okay, same as last time. We throw away the numbers and look at how it feels to use the skill. The player makes a tactical decision to go for a long term payoff with big rewards. She spends two turns prepping the plan, then is reward by wiping out every enemy with a single skill.
The Conclusion
Skills should feel good to use.
Most players will use the skill that feels the best, regardless of which skill is mathematically the best.
The Curios Case of the Inferior Skill
We just introduced our new, perfectly balanced axe wielder. He's got two skills: Eviscerate, which deals 200 damage to a single target, and Cyclone Axe, which deals 50 damage to all targets.
Our player encounters a group of 5 rouge bandits, 150 HP each. It's obvious what will happen, right? Let's watch.
Expected:
- Turn 1: Cyclone Axe
- Turn 2: Cyclone Axe
- Turn 3: Cyclone Axe
- "What an efficient victory. Thank you game developer."
Actual:
- Turn 1: Eviscerate on Bandit 1
- "Did you see that? I just one shotted that guy."
- Turn 2: Eviscerate on Bandit 2
- Turn 3: Eviscerate on Bandit 3
- Turn 4: Eviscerate on Bandit 4
- Turn 5: Eviscerate on Bandit 5
- "Man, Eviscerate is OP."
- "What about Cyclone Axe?"
- "Oh that? That skill sucks."
But how? Why would the player do that to us?
Let's take a second look at our skills, but to truly see our skills, we must do the scariest thing an RPG developer can do - ignore the numbers.
When using Eviscerate, a big value pops up and an enemy dies. When using Cyclone Axe, several small values pop up and well, nothing else happens.
Perfectly Balanced Axe Wielder, Take 2
After gathering player feedback, we add a new mechanic to our axe wielder. The character can skip a turn to charge 1 stack of adrenaline. Cyclone Axe now costs 2 adrenaline to use and does 150 damage. Mathematically the same as the original Cyclone Axe.
Time to release Cyclone Axe v2 into the wild and see what happens.
- Turn 1: Charge 1 adrenaline
- Turn 2: Charge 1 adrenaline
- Turn 3: Cyclone Axe
- "Took them all out in one blow. Better you didn't expect players to do that!"
- "What about Eviscerate?"
- "Oh yeah, that skills good too. Just wasn't right for this battle."
But Cyclone Axe has the same damage per turn as before! Why, players, why?
Okay, same as last time. We throw away the numbers and look at how it feels to use the skill. The player makes a tactical decision to go for a long term payoff with big rewards. She spends two turns prepping the plan, then is reward by wiping out every enemy with a single skill.
The Conclusion
Skills should feel good to use.
Most players will use the skill that feels the best, regardless of which skill is mathematically the best.
Posts 

Pages:
1
"Most players will use the skill that feels the best, regardless of which skill is mathematically the best."
Nice insight. Good read, thanks.
Nice insight. Good read, thanks.
I don't think you can say "most players will do..." based on this. It sounds like you are only basing this on the silly habits of a few testers. The best you could say is "most of my testers will do...".
Any moderately skilled RPG player would not be wow'd by big numbers and avoid other tactically valid skills simply because the numbers aren't as high. I would never use a skill based on how it feels. I would use it based on what it does and what I need to get done.
Also, it's not always the best decision to use a multihit move even if the dmg output is higher because of the large number of targets. If there are enemies that deal high damage or crippling status effect, it can make more sense to take them out quickly with the stronger single hit attack. Thus reducing the amount of damage/trouble they deal to you. It's a common strategy to reduce the number of enemies quickly to reduce their damage output.
Any moderately skilled RPG player would not be wow'd by big numbers and avoid other tactically valid skills simply because the numbers aren't as high. I would never use a skill based on how it feels. I would use it based on what it does and what I need to get done.
Also, it's not always the best decision to use a multihit move even if the dmg output is higher because of the large number of targets. If there are enemies that deal high damage or crippling status effect, it can make more sense to take them out quickly with the stronger single hit attack. Thus reducing the amount of damage/trouble they deal to you. It's a common strategy to reduce the number of enemies quickly to reduce their damage output.
@narcodis - thanks! Glad you got something out of it :)
@Link_2112 - the example written was chosen because it was an easy way to convey the idea of the article, not for realism. I'm definitely with you that actual battles have more interesting choices about which enemy to kill first, and probably more than one party member to help with the job.
I'm lucky to have access to some pretty hardcore RPG players to test and give feedback. They fine tune party equipment, analyze enemy group composition and attack patterns, and develop a counter plan. But there are certain "dud skills" that never make it into that plan, despite being the mathematically superior option for the situation. After digging into why, the answer is simply those skills don't feel good to use.
Discovering synergies and combos between party members feels awesome. Building off of skills used on the character's previous turns feels awesome. Getting a bonus from a well timed use of a situational skill feels awesome. Turning a skill's downside into it's strength feels awesome. Flat damage skill that does like 20% more than all those other options? Just not as cool.
@Link_2112 - the example written was chosen because it was an easy way to convey the idea of the article, not for realism. I'm definitely with you that actual battles have more interesting choices about which enemy to kill first, and probably more than one party member to help with the job.
author=Link_2112
Any moderately skilled RPG player would not be wow'd by big numbers and avoid other tactically valid skills simply because the numbers aren't as high. I would never use a skill based on how it feels. I would use it based on what it does and what I need to get done.
I'm lucky to have access to some pretty hardcore RPG players to test and give feedback. They fine tune party equipment, analyze enemy group composition and attack patterns, and develop a counter plan. But there are certain "dud skills" that never make it into that plan, despite being the mathematically superior option for the situation. After digging into why, the answer is simply those skills don't feel good to use.
Discovering synergies and combos between party members feels awesome. Building off of skills used on the character's previous turns feels awesome. Getting a bonus from a well timed use of a situational skill feels awesome. Turning a skill's downside into it's strength feels awesome. Flat damage skill that does like 20% more than all those other options? Just not as cool.
I read a Gamasutra article once that talked about a similar issue. An FPS developer was having trouble getting people to use a particular shotgun in playtesting. He tried to tweak the numbers to make it better, but people still passed it over and said it was too weak.
The solution that worked? Improve the sound effect. It was nothing at all to do with actual game mechanics. People were fooled into thinking the gun was much more powerful once the sound of firing it was enhanced, and they said "Toldja that gun needed to be stronger, it plays much better now." These were professional developers and playtesters too.
The solution that worked? Improve the sound effect. It was nothing at all to do with actual game mechanics. People were fooled into thinking the gun was much more powerful once the sound of firing it was enhanced, and they said "Toldja that gun needed to be stronger, it plays much better now." These were professional developers and playtesters too.
Ignoring the impact of emotion, feeling, and visceral response is the biggest fuckup that game developers make. People say they do just what works without regard to how it makes them feel, but people actually do exactly according to how shit makes them feel.
Good on you for recognizing that.
Good on you for recognizing that.
Yeah, but don't make them too long. Sure, Knights of the Round was great but goddamn I didn't need to go get snacks that much when playing FF7. Short but snappy beats out overpowered and flashily long in the long run. Bonus points for short but satisfying.
This is a pretty interesting topic. Can you imagine what creating an animation like Knights of the Round in rpg maker would be like? I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. So...many...frames.
Pages:
1


















