Trade-Offs - Revision history

Staffan Björk at 10:55, 18 March 2018

2018-03-18T10:55:10Z

Staffan Björk at 16:06, 3 October 2016

2016-10-03T16:06:12Z

Staffan Björk at 10:03, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T10:03:50Z

Staffan Björk at 10:01, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T10:01:22Z

Staffan Björk: /* Examples */

2016-09-02T09:55:12Z

‎Examples

Staffan Björk: /* Examples */

2016-09-02T09:54:15Z

‎Examples

Staffan Björk: /* Using the pattern */

2016-09-02T09:22:42Z

‎Using the pattern

Staffan Björk: /* Using the pattern */

2016-09-02T09:05:51Z

‎Using the pattern

Staffan Björk: /* Using the pattern */

2016-09-02T08:50:36Z

‎Using the pattern

Staffan Björk: /* Using the pattern */

2016-09-02T08:48:30Z

‎Using the pattern

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 == Using the pattern ==
-[[Trade-Offs]] can be used to add complexity to [[Challenging Gameplay]] but also introduce different types of risks in for example [[Stealth]] challenges. They can also be added to [[Committed Goals]] by having positive effects for succeeding with them and negative ones for failing with them, thereby making players have to choose between actually trying to succeed with the goal or being willing to take the disadvantage to be able to focus upon other goals in the game.
+[[Trade-Offs]] can be used to add complexity to [[Challenging Gameplay]] but also introduce different types of risks in for example [[Stealth]] challenges.
-The construction of [[Trade-Offs]] follow one of two formats. The first is having to select between several choices which all have positive but different consequences (or all negative and different). The second is having to choose if one wants to take an action with both a negative and a positive consequence, or alternatively having to choose between several different choices with such pairs of consequences. This means that [[Trade-Offs]] are based on selecting negative or positive consequences, or both. Typical positive consequences suitable for this include gaining [[Area Control]], activating [[Producers]], getting [[Resources]], receiving [[Upgrades]], expanding [[Time Limits]], and acquiring [[Units]]. Examples of suitable negative consequences include suffering [[Ability Losses]], activating [[Consumers]], experiencing [[Deterioration]], having to perform [[Extended Actions]], risk [[Interruptibility]], losing [[Resources]], reducing [[Time Limits]], leaving [[Traces]], and losing [[Units]]. As can be noted, several patterns can be used to create either negative or positive consequences. Some pairs of negative and positive consequences are common are worth mentioning. First, [[New Abilities]] combined with [[Ability Losses]] of other abilities are [[Trade-Offs]] as is having [[Internal Rivalry]] while [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]]. Similarly, using limited [[Ammunition]] to have [[Ammunition]] requires players to make [[Trade-Offs]]. Other examples include [[Armor]] that protect but makes one slower or [[Ammunition]] that increases penetration or chances to hit but have reduced damage. Other patterns package negative and positive consequences together and thereby have self-contained [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] structures. [[Bidding]], [[Budgeted Action Points]], [[Cameras]], [[Chargers]], [[Combat]], [[Converters]], [[Drafting Spreads]], [[Equipment Slots]], [[Internal Conflicts]], [[No-Use Bonus]], [[One-Way Travel]], [[Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties]], [[Resource Management]], [[Risk/Reward]], [[Selectable Set of Goals]], [[Sockets]], and [[Token Placement]] are all examples of this. [[Guard]] has this less clearly but does make players choose between guarding securely and putting their attention towards other goals. Similarly, [[Choke Points]] in themselves may contain consequences related to [[Trade-Offs]] but require players to make [[Trade-Offs]] if they want to risk going to them or alternatively choosing to [[Guard]] them. [[Freedom of Choice]] gives players many actions to choose from, and as long as not all can be done imply that they need to make [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]] forces players to make [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] decisions as soon as they cannot make use of all game elements they own. More specific versions of this can be achieved by having [[Limited Resources]] together with [[Parties]] (since one has to select whom should receive what), by having [[Tools]] that need [[Resources]] or suffer [[Deterioration]] when used (since these negative effects have to be countered by positive consequences of using the [[Tools]]). [[Renewable Resources]] whose production rate depends on how much of the [[Resources]] exist force players wanting to use the [[Resources]] to choose between taking much short-term or restricting themselves short-term to be able to take more [[Resources]] later.
+The construction of [[Trade-Offs]] follow one of two formats. The first is having to select between several choices which all have positive but different consequences (or all negative and different). The second is having to choose if one wants to take an action with both a negative and a positive consequence, or alternatively having to choose between several different choices with such pairs of consequences. This means that [[Trade-Offs]] are based on selecting negative or positive consequences, or both. [[Committed Goals]] is another example of the second format which allows [[Trade-Offs]] to concern gameplay aspect larger than single actions. They can in themselves support [[Trade-Offs]] but do so more (in the sense that it is more likely players need to consider them in more detail) when players need to choose from several [[Committed Goals]] that are [[Excluding Goals]] to each other.
 Some patterns can affect [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Limited Resources]] make consequences related to [[Resources]] more important; while [[Producers]] can be a consequence of a specific [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]], the presence and possible activation in the future can instead make the role of consequences related to [[Resources]] be less important. [[Supporting Goals]] can tilt the weights of consequences since they can become tied to goals not related to the current context of the [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]]. Finally, [[Attention Swapping]] can make it more difficult to judge the actual values of the consequences of [[Trade-Offs]].
@@ Line 39: / Line 41: @@
 [[Challenging Gameplay]],
 [[Cognitive Engrossment]],
 [[Stealth]]
@@ Line 53: / Line 54: @@
 [[Converters]],
 [[Combat]],
 [[Deterioration]],
 [[Drafting Spreads]],
@@ Line 81: / Line 83: @@
 [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]] together with [[Internal Rivalry]]
 [[Decreased Abilities]] together with [[Ammunition]] or [[Armor]]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 [[Trade-Offs]] can be used to add complexity to [[Challenging Gameplay]] but also introduce different types of risks in for example [[Stealth]] challenges. They can also be added to [[Committed Goals]] by having positive effects for succeeding with them and negative ones for failing with them, thereby making players have to choose between actually trying to succeed with the goal or being willing to take the disadvantage to be able to focus upon other goals in the game.
-The construction of [[Trade-Offs]] follow one of two formats. The first is having to select between several choices which all have positive but different consequences (or all negative and different). The second is having to choose if one wants to take an action with both a negative and a positive consequence, or alternatively having to choose between several different choices with such pairs of consequences. This means that [[Trade-Offs]] are based on selecting negative or positive consequences, or both. Typical positive consequences suitable for this include gaining [[Area Control]], activating [[Producers]], getting [[Resources]], receiving [[Upgrades]], expanding [[Time Limits]], and acquiring [[Units]]. Examples of suitable negative consequences include suffering [[Ability Losses]], activating [[Consumers]], experiencing [[Deterioration]], having to perform [[Extended Actions]], risk [[Interruptibility]], losing [[Resources]], reducing [[Time Limits]], leaving [[Traces]], and losing [[Units]]. As can be noted, several patterns can be used to create either negative or positive consequences. Some pairs of negative and positive consequences are common are worth mentioning. First, [[New Abilities]] combined with [[Ability Losses]] of other abilities are [[Trade-Offs]] as is having [[Internal Rivalry]] while [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]]. Similarly, using limited [[Ammunition]] to have [[Ammunition]] requires players to make [[Trade-Offs]]. Other examples include [[Armor]] that protect but makes one slower or [[Ammunition]] that increases penetration or chances to hit but have reduced damage. Other patterns package negative and positive consequences together and thereby have self-contained [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] structures. [[Bidding]], [[Budgeted Action Points]], [[Cameras]], [[Chargers]], [[Combat]], [[Converters]], [[Drafting Spreads]], [[Equipment Slots]], [[Internal Conflicts]], [[No-Use Bonus]], [[One-Way Travel]], [[Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties]], [[Resource Management]], [[Risk/Reward]], [[Selectable Sets of Goals]], [[Sockets]], and [[Token Placement]] are all examples of this. [[Guard]] has this less clearly but does make players choose between guarding securely and putting their attention towards other goals. Similarly, [[Choke Points]] in themselves may contain consequences related to [[Trade-Offs]] but require players to make [[Trade-Offs]] if they want to risk going to them or alternatively choosing to [[Guard]] them. [[Freedom of Choice]] gives players many actions to choose from, and as long as not all can be done imply that they need to make [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]] forces players to make [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] decisions as soon as they cannot make use of all game elements they own. More specific versions of this can be achieved by having [[Limited Resources]] together with [[Parties]] (since one has to select whom should receive what), by having [[Tools]] that need [[Resources]] or suffer [[Deterioration]] when used (since these negative effects have to be countered by positive consequences of using the [[Tools]]). [[Renewable Resources]] whose production rate depends on how much of the [[Resources]] exist force players wanting to use the [[Resources]] to choose between taking much short-term or restricting themselves short-term to be able to take more [[Resources]] later.
+The construction of [[Trade-Offs]] follow one of two formats. The first is having to select between several choices which all have positive but different consequences (or all negative and different). The second is having to choose if one wants to take an action with both a negative and a positive consequence, or alternatively having to choose between several different choices with such pairs of consequences. This means that [[Trade-Offs]] are based on selecting negative or positive consequences, or both. Typical positive consequences suitable for this include gaining [[Area Control]], activating [[Producers]], getting [[Resources]], receiving [[Upgrades]], expanding [[Time Limits]], and acquiring [[Units]]. Examples of suitable negative consequences include suffering [[Ability Losses]], activating [[Consumers]], experiencing [[Deterioration]], having to perform [[Extended Actions]], risk [[Interruptibility]], losing [[Resources]], reducing [[Time Limits]], leaving [[Traces]], and losing [[Units]]. As can be noted, several patterns can be used to create either negative or positive consequences. Some pairs of negative and positive consequences are common are worth mentioning. First, [[New Abilities]] combined with [[Ability Losses]] of other abilities are [[Trade-Offs]] as is having [[Internal Rivalry]] while [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]]. Similarly, using limited [[Ammunition]] to have [[Ammunition]] requires players to make [[Trade-Offs]]. Other examples include [[Armor]] that protect but makes one slower or [[Ammunition]] that increases penetration or chances to hit but have reduced damage. Other patterns package negative and positive consequences together and thereby have self-contained [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] structures. [[Bidding]], [[Budgeted Action Points]], [[Cameras]], [[Chargers]], [[Combat]], [[Converters]], [[Drafting Spreads]], [[Equipment Slots]], [[Internal Conflicts]], [[No-Use Bonus]], [[One-Way Travel]], [[Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties]], [[Resource Management]], [[Risk/Reward]], [[Selectable Set of Goals]], [[Sockets]], and [[Token Placement]] are all examples of this. [[Guard]] has this less clearly but does make players choose between guarding securely and putting their attention towards other goals. Similarly, [[Choke Points]] in themselves may contain consequences related to [[Trade-Offs]] but require players to make [[Trade-Offs]] if they want to risk going to them or alternatively choosing to [[Guard]] them. [[Freedom of Choice]] gives players many actions to choose from, and as long as not all can be done imply that they need to make [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]] forces players to make [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] decisions as soon as they cannot make use of all game elements they own. More specific versions of this can be achieved by having [[Limited Resources]] together with [[Parties]] (since one has to select whom should receive what), by having [[Tools]] that need [[Resources]] or suffer [[Deterioration]] when used (since these negative effects have to be countered by positive consequences of using the [[Tools]]). [[Renewable Resources]] whose production rate depends on how much of the [[Resources]] exist force players wanting to use the [[Resources]] to choose between taking much short-term or restricting themselves short-term to be able to take more [[Resources]] later.
 Some patterns can affect [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Limited Resources]] make consequences related to [[Resources]] more important; while [[Producers]] can be a consequence of a specific [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]], the presence and possible activation in the future can instead make the role of consequences related to [[Resources]] be less important. [[Supporting Goals]] can tilt the weights of consequences since they can become tied to goals not related to the current context of the [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]]. Finally, [[Attention Swapping]] can make it more difficult to judge the actual values of the consequences of [[Trade-Offs]].
@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 [[Resources]],
 [[Risk/Reward]],
-[[Selectable Sets of Goals]],
+[[Selectable Set of Goals]],
 [[Sockets]],
 [[Time Limits]],

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:Patterns]]
 [[Category:Dynamic Patterns]]
 [[Category:Needs revision]]
 [[Category:Needs examples]]
 [[Category:Needs references]]
 [[Category:To be Published]]
 ''Gameplay situations where players must choose between several different options and compare values against each other.''
@@ Line 13: / Line 10: @@
 === Examples ===
-Concrete examples of [[Trade-Offs]] provided in games are having to select which buildings or technologies to pursuit (in the [[Civilization (video game) series|Civilization series]]) or whether to rush opponents or build up ones own bases in games such as [[DoTA]] or the [[Starcraft series]].
+Concrete examples of [[Trade-Offs]] provided in games are having to select which buildings or technologies to pursuit (in the [[Civilization (video game) series|Civilization series]]) or whether to rush opponents or build up one's own bases in games such as [[DoTA]] or the [[Starcraft series]].
 The creation of characters in most [[:Category:Roleplaying Games|Roleplaying Games]] requires [[Trade-Offs]]. In some cases, e.g. [[Dungeons & Dragons]], the [[Elder Scrolls series]], and [[World of Warcraft]], this is mainly about what abilities and powers one should have based on what race and occupation one chooses. In others where players by abilities, powers, and skills for points, e.g. [[Champions]] and [[GURPS]], these players can choose to have more points by giving their character negative traits.
@@ Line 20: / Line 17: @@
 [[Trade-Offs]] can be used to add complexity to [[Challenging Gameplay]] but also introduce different types of risks in for example [[Stealth]] challenges. They can also be added to [[Committed Goals]] by having positive effects for succeeding with them and negative ones for failing with them, thereby making players have to choose between actually trying to succeed with the goal or being willing to take the disadvantage to be able to focus upon other goals in the game.
-The construction of [[Trade-Offs]] follow one of two formats. The first is having to select between several choices which all have positive but different consequences (or all negative and different). The second is having to choose if one wants to take an action with both a negative and a positive consequence, or alternatively having to choose between several different choices with such pairs of consequences. This means that [[Trade-Offs]] are based on selecting negative or positive consequences, or both. Typical positive consequences suitable for this include gaining [[Area Control]], activating [[Producers]], getting [[Resources]], receiving [[Upgrades]], expanding [[Time Limits]], and acquiring [[Units]]. Examples of suitable negative consequences include suffering [[Ability Losses]], activating [[Consumers]], experiencing [[Deterioration]], having to perform[[Extended Actions]], risk [[Interruptibility]], losing [[Resources]], reducing [[Time Limits]], leaving [[Traces]], and losing [[Units]]. As can be noted, several patterns can be used to create either negative or positive consequences. Some pairs of negative and positive consequences are common are worth mentioning. First, [[New Abilities]] combined with [[Ability Losses]] of other abilities are [[Trade-Offs]] as is having [[Internal Rivalry]] while [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]]. Similarly, using limited [[Ammunition]] to have [[Ammunition]] requires players to make [[Trade-Offs]]. Other examples include [[Armor]] that protect but makes one slower or [[Ammunition]] that increases penetration or chances to hit but have reduced damage. Other patterns package negative and positive consequences together and thereby have self-contained [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] structures. [[Bidding]], [[Budgeted Action Points]], [[Cameras]], [[Chargers]], [[Combat]], [[Converters]], [[Drafting Spreads]], [[Equipment Slots]], [[Internal Conflicts]], [[No-Use Bonus]], [[One-Way Travel]], [[Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties]], [[Resource Management]], [[Risk/Reward]], [[Selectable Sets of Goals]], [[Sockets]], and [[Token Placement]] are all examples of this. [[Guard]] has this less clearly but does make players choose between guarding securely or putting their attention towards other goals. Similarly, [[Choke Points]] in themselves may contain consequences related to [[Trade-Offs]] but require players to make [[Trade-Offs]] if they want to risk going to them or alternatively choosing to [[Guard]] them. [[Freedom of Choice]] gives players many actions to choose from, and as long as not all can be done imply that they need to make [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]] forces players to make [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] decisions as soon as they cannot make use of all game elements they own. More specific versions of this can be achieved by having [[Limited Resources]] together with [[Parties]] (since one has to select whom should receive what), by having [[Tools]] then need [[Resources]] or suffer [[Deterioration]] when used (since these negative effects have to be countered by positive consequences of using the [[Tools]]). [[Renewable Resources]] whose production rate depends on how much of the [[Resources]] exist force players wanting to use the [[Resources]] to choose between taking much short-term or restricting themselves short-term to be able to take more later.
+The construction of [[Trade-Offs]] follow one of two formats. The first is having to select between several choices which all have positive but different consequences (or all negative and different). The second is having to choose if one wants to take an action with both a negative and a positive consequence, or alternatively having to choose between several different choices with such pairs of consequences. This means that [[Trade-Offs]] are based on selecting negative or positive consequences, or both. Typical positive consequences suitable for this include gaining [[Area Control]], activating [[Producers]], getting [[Resources]], receiving [[Upgrades]], expanding [[Time Limits]], and acquiring [[Units]]. Examples of suitable negative consequences include suffering [[Ability Losses]], activating [[Consumers]], experiencing [[Deterioration]], having to perform [[Extended Actions]], risk [[Interruptibility]], losing [[Resources]], reducing [[Time Limits]], leaving [[Traces]], and losing [[Units]]. As can be noted, several patterns can be used to create either negative or positive consequences. Some pairs of negative and positive consequences are common are worth mentioning. First, [[New Abilities]] combined with [[Ability Losses]] of other abilities are [[Trade-Offs]] as is having [[Internal Rivalry]] while [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]]. Similarly, using limited [[Ammunition]] to have [[Ammunition]] requires players to make [[Trade-Offs]]. Other examples include [[Armor]] that protect but makes one slower or [[Ammunition]] that increases penetration or chances to hit but have reduced damage. Other patterns package negative and positive consequences together and thereby have self-contained [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] structures. [[Bidding]], [[Budgeted Action Points]], [[Cameras]], [[Chargers]], [[Combat]], [[Converters]], [[Drafting Spreads]], [[Equipment Slots]], [[Internal Conflicts]], [[No-Use Bonus]], [[One-Way Travel]], [[Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties]], [[Resource Management]], [[Risk/Reward]], [[Selectable Sets of Goals]], [[Sockets]], and [[Token Placement]] are all examples of this. [[Guard]] has this less clearly but does make players choose between guarding securely and putting their attention towards other goals. Similarly, [[Choke Points]] in themselves may contain consequences related to [[Trade-Offs]] but require players to make [[Trade-Offs]] if they want to risk going to them or alternatively choosing to [[Guard]] them. [[Freedom of Choice]] gives players many actions to choose from, and as long as not all can be done imply that they need to make [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]] forces players to make [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] decisions as soon as they cannot make use of all game elements they own. More specific versions of this can be achieved by having [[Limited Resources]] together with [[Parties]] (since one has to select whom should receive what), by having [[Tools]] that need [[Resources]] or suffer [[Deterioration]] when used (since these negative effects have to be countered by positive consequences of using the [[Tools]]). [[Renewable Resources]] whose production rate depends on how much of the [[Resources]] exist force players wanting to use the [[Resources]] to choose between taking much short-term or restricting themselves short-term to be able to take more [[Resources]] later.
 Some patterns can affect [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Limited Resources]] make consequences related to [[Resources]] more important; while [[Producers]] can be a consequence of a specific [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]], the presence and possible activation in the future can instead make the role of consequences related to [[Resources]] be less important. [[Supporting Goals]] can tilt the weights of consequences since they can become tied to goals not related to the current context of the [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]]. Finally, [[Attention Swapping]] can make it more difficult to judge the actual values of the consequences of [[Trade-Offs]].

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ''Gameplay situations where players must choose between several different options and compare values against each other.''
-This pattern is a still a stub.
+Many games tend to try and provide players with interesting choices. This is often in the form of having to choose between several good things, between several bad things, or whether to choose one or more things which have both good and bad consequences. All these choices force players to consider the [[Trade-Offs]] between the different alternatives or between the bad and good consequences of one choice.
 === Examples ===
-Many games include [[Trade-Offs]] since games in general tend to try and provide players with interesting choices and this implies [[Trade-Offs]]. More concrete examples of [[Trade-Offs]] provided in games are having to select which buildings or technologies to pursuit (in the [[Civilization (video game) series|Civilization series]]) or whether to rush opponents or build up ones own bases in games such as [[DoTA]] or the [[Starcraft series]].
+Concrete examples of [[Trade-Offs]] provided in games are having to select which buildings or technologies to pursuit (in the [[Civilization (video game) series|Civilization series]]) or whether to rush opponents or build up ones own bases in games such as [[DoTA]] or the [[Starcraft series]].
 The creation of characters in most [[:Category:Roleplaying Games|Roleplaying Games]] requires [[Trade-Offs]]. In some cases, e.g. [[Dungeons & Dragons]], the [[Elder Scrolls series]], and [[World of Warcraft]], this is mainly about what abilities and powers one should have based on what race and occupation one chooses. In others where players by abilities, powers, and skills for points, e.g. [[Champions]] and [[GURPS]], these players can choose to have more points by giving their character negative traits.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 === Examples ===
-Many games include [[Trade-Offs]] since games in general tend to try and provide players with interesting choices and this implies [[Trade-Offs]]. More concrete examples of [[Trade-Offs]] provided in games are having to select which buildings or technologies to pursuit (in the [[Civilization series]]) or whether to rush opponents or build up ones own bases in games such as [[DoTA]] or the [[Starcraft series]].
+Many games include [[Trade-Offs]] since games in general tend to try and provide players with interesting choices and this implies [[Trade-Offs]]. More concrete examples of [[Trade-Offs]] provided in games are having to select which buildings or technologies to pursuit (in the [[Civilization (video game) series|Civilization series]]) or whether to rush opponents or build up ones own bases in games such as [[DoTA]] or the [[Starcraft series]].
 The creation of characters in most [[:Category:Roleplaying Games|Roleplaying Games]] requires [[Trade-Offs]]. In some cases, e.g. [[Dungeons & Dragons]], the [[Elder Scrolls series]], and [[World of Warcraft]], this is mainly about what abilities and powers one should have based on what race and occupation one chooses. In others where players by abilities, powers, and skills for points, e.g. [[Champions]] and [[GURPS]], these players can choose to have more points by giving their character negative traits.

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 The construction of [[Trade-Offs]] follow one of two formats. The first is having to select between several choices which all have positive but different consequences (or all negative and different). The second is having to choose if one wants to take an action with both a negative and a positive consequence, or alternatively having to choose between several different choices with such pairs of consequences.
-This means that [[Trade-Offs]] are based on selecting negative or positive consequences, or both. Typical positive consequences suitable for this include gaining [[Area Control]], activating [[Producers]], getting [[Resources]], receiving [[Upgrades]], expanding [[Time Limits]], and acquiring [[Units]]. Examples of suitable negative consequences include suffering [[Ability Losses]], activating [[Consumers]], experiencing [[Deterioration]], having to perform[[Extended Actions]], risk [[Interruptibility]], losing [[Resources]], reducing [[Time Limits]], leaving [[Traces]], and losing [[Units]]. As can be noted, several patterns can be used to create either negative or positive consequences. Some pairs of negative and positive consequences are common are worth mentioning. First, [[New Abilities]] combined with [[Ability Losses]] of other abilities are [[Trade-Offs]] as is having [[Internal Rivalry]] while [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]]. Similarly, using limited [[Ammunition]] to have [[Ammunition]] requires players to make [[Trade-Offs]]. Other examples include [[Armor]] that protect but makes one slower or [[Ammunition]] that increases penetration or chances to hit but have reduced damage. Other patterns package negative and positive consequences together and thereby have self-contained [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] structures. [[No-Use Bonus]], [[Bidding]], [[Budgeted Action Points]], [[Chargers]], [[Converters]], [[Drafting Spreads]], [[Equipment Slots]], [[Internal Conflicts]], [[One-Way Travel]], [[Resource Management]], [[Risk/Reward]], [[Selectable Sets of Goals]],  [[Sockets]], and [[Token Placement]] are all examples of this.
+This means that [[Trade-Offs]] are based on selecting negative or positive consequences, or both. Typical positive consequences suitable for this include gaining [[Area Control]], activating [[Producers]], getting [[Resources]], receiving [[Upgrades]], expanding [[Time Limits]], and acquiring [[Units]]. Examples of suitable negative consequences include suffering [[Ability Losses]], activating [[Consumers]], experiencing [[Deterioration]], having to perform[[Extended Actions]], risk [[Interruptibility]], losing [[Resources]], reducing [[Time Limits]], leaving [[Traces]], and losing [[Units]]. As can be noted, several patterns can be used to create either negative or positive consequences. Some pairs of negative and positive consequences are common are worth mentioning. First, [[New Abilities]] combined with [[Ability Losses]] of other abilities are [[Trade-Offs]] as is having [[Internal Rivalry]] while [[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]]. Similarly, using limited [[Ammunition]] to have [[Ammunition]] requires players to make [[Trade-Offs]]. Other examples include [[Armor]] that protect but makes one slower or [[Ammunition]] that increases penetration or chances to hit but have reduced damage. Other patterns package negative and positive consequences together and thereby have self-contained [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]] structures. [[No-Use Bonus]], [[Bidding]], [[Budgeted Action Points]], [[Chargers]], [[Converters]], [[Drafting Spreads]], [[Equipment Slots]], [[Internal Conflicts]], [[One-Way Travel]], [[Resource Management]], [[Risk/Reward]], [[Selectable Sets of Goals]], [[Sockets]], and [[Token Placement]] are all examples of this. [[Guard]] has this less clearly but does make players choose between guarding securely or putting their attention towards other goals.
 More specific versions of this can be achieved by having [[Limited Resources]] together with [[Parties]] (since one has to select whom should receive what), by having [[Tools]] then need [[Resources]] or suffer [[Deterioration]] when used (since these negative effects have to be countered by positive consequences of using the [[Tools]]).
@@ Line 31: / Line 32: @@
 [[Combat]],
 [[Freedom of Choice]],
 [[Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership]],
 [[Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties]],

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 [[Renewable Resources]],
-Some patterns can affect [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Limited Resources]] make consequences related to [[Resources]] more important; while [[Producers]] can be a consequence of a specific [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]], the presence and possible activation in the future can instead make the role of consequences related to [[Resources]] be less important.
+Some patterns can affect [[Trade-Offs]]. [[Limited Resources]] make consequences related to [[Resources]] more important; while [[Producers]] can be a consequence of a specific [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]], the presence and possible activation in the future can instead make the role of consequences related to [[Resources]] be less important. [[Supporting Goals]] can tilt the weights of consequences since they can become tied to goals not related to the current context of the [[Trade-Offs|Trade-Off]]. Finally, [[Attention Swapping]] can make it more difficult to judge the actual values of the consequences of [[Trade-Offs]].
-−
-=== Can Be Modulated By ===
-[[Attention Swapping]],
-[[Supporting Goals]]
 == Consequences ==