Difference between revisions of "Cooperation"

Revision as of 09:40, 10 April 2011

The performing of actions, and exchanging of information and resources, done by several agents in order to reach common goals or subgoals of the game.

Cooperation is simply the intentional joint effort by several agents to try and reach a goal. In games, this allow players to divide tasks between them and rely upon each others' abilities and resources to work more efficiently together than would have been possible alone. It may enable players to perform otherwise impossible actions or may make players feel that they are part of a team.

Examples

Very many sports, e.g. Soccer, Basketball, and Baseball are team based and require the players to cooperate well in order to have a chance of winning over the opposing team. Laying Jigsaw Puzzles together with friends has Cooperation between the players, but one can still see the puzzle as containing Competition (or even Conflict) against the game system or designers of the puzzle.

In Lord of the Rings, the board game, the players have to work together in order to defeat Sauron. The gameplay her is fully cooperative since the main goal, defeating Sauron, is common to all players, that is, either the players win the game or they all lose. Space Alert has the same main design even if in a different setting. In contrast, Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game and Shadows over Camelot ensure that at least one player is a traitor but still requires all players to cooperate, at least until it has been revealed who the traitor is. Games do not have to have any concept of teams for Cooperation to be necessary; So Long Sucker and Diplomacy make players join up to beat other players only to later have to battle each other.

Although only one needs to make it to a safe room for a level to be completed in the Left 4 Dead series, players can cooperate by healing each other, saving them from being incapacitated, or hand over healing equipment to each other.

See the category of Co-Op Games on this wiki for additional examples.

Using the pattern

The simplest way to achieve Cooperation is to use Teams, but equal levels of Cooperation can be achieved by introducing Mutual Goals combined with Shared Rewards to players. The Mutual Goals, however, do not need to be the highest level goals in the game; that is, it is possible to have Competition and Conflict between the players as a high level goal and use Mutual Goals as subgoals for reaching the high level goal. One way of doing this is to introduce Collaborative Actions as the only way of performing aggressive actions - this design solution can be found in So Long Sucker and in practice is required to win in Diplomacy. Collaborative Actions in general make players cooperate, even if it is not clear who benefits the most, something often the case in Trading.

Making players have to do actions that require Timing in relation to each other, e.g. most Team Combos, is a more difficult type of Cooperation in that it requires Coordination. Games wanting to use this type of Cooperation can consider using Landmarks (including Geospatial Game Widgets) since these ease Coordination.

All Alliances, even Uncommitted Alliances ones, are based on Cooperation between the players. Even the lowest level of Alliance, agreeing not to hinder or harm the other player, is a form of Cooperation, as the players coordinate their actions, even though they might not be trying to achieve Mutual Goals. While Enemies in themselves do not support Cooperation they can do so by making the typically Dynamic Alliance of My Enemy’s Enemy is my Friend.

Related to this is Cooperation where the benefits are unequal, even to be point where only one part is helped due to Individual Rewards. This can however be beneficial to all involved parties due to Delayed Reciprocity, that is some players help other players under the belief that they may later be helped in return. Altruistic Actions, such as Free Gift Inventories, is one way of ensuring this type of inequality since the player performing the action does not get any direct benefit.

Betrayal can be added to games with Cooperation to create Inherent Mistrust and Tension. This can either be voluntary action by players for personal gains or be forced upon some players by designating them as Traitors, as for example is done in Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game or Shadows over Camelot. Shared Resources gives players the opportunity for Cooperation in how to use the Resources but can have the same effects as Betrayal and both can easily introduce Conflict into the gameplay. Shared Resources also add the Social Dilemmas to the gameplay which Betrayal only does if not forced upon players (i.e. not instantiated through the use of Traitors). However, Cooperation can also emerge from the Negotiation of handling Social Dilemmas concerning Continuous Goals (often Shared Resources but not necessarily so). Stronger than Betrayal, Internal Conflicts can make Cooperation impossible.

Although Cooperation is most natural to consider for Multiplayer Games, it does not need to be limited to these - Agents controlled by Dedicated Game Facilitators can better guarantee that Cooperation is always maintained than players can. Likewise, Companions based upon Algorithmic Agents or Non-Player Characters with Supporting Goals will not betray or trick unless designed to. If a player does not have enough players, or the right players, to have Cooperation with a solution can be to support Invites, but this makes is necessary to also support Drop-In/Drop-Out or Late Arriving Players.

Even if a game is not a Multiplayer Game other people can become involved in Cooperation. This either through Public Interfaces which makes it difficult to judge how many are actually providing input (an example of this can be found in the iPad version of Flight Control), or through Non-Player Help that allows people not playing a game to have Cooperation with those playing.

For Multiplayer Roleplaying games players need to engage in Cooperation regardless of if their Characters do so to uphold an Alternate Reality, so combining Roleplaying and Multiplayer Games is one way to require Cooperation.

Consequences

Cooperation increases Social Interaction between the players, as they have to do Coordination of their actions in order to reach the goals of the game. Having, or having the possibility, to cooperate allows players to make use of Competence Areas and provides a form of Constructive Play as the Coordination in itself is a common accomplishment. Cooperation is also the basis for having Social Organizations in a game, and when Shared Resources are used or Betrayal is possible Social Dilemmas are likely to occur. Different levels of Game-Induced Player Social Status may lead to spontaneous chains of command in Cooperation situations.

Games where Cooperation and Competition coexist give rise to more Complex Gameplay, and while it may increase the amount of Social Interaction it can also introduce Tension between the players. When there is a possibility of Betrayal for the cooperating players, this also tends to raise the Tension and sometimes lowers the motivation for Cooperation due to the Inherent Mistrust.

Relations

Can Instantiate

Constructive Play, Delayed Reciprocity, Social Interaction, Social Organizations

with Competition

Complex Gameplay, Tension

with Betrayal or Shared Resources

Inherent Mistrust, Social Dilemmas, Tension

with Traitors

Inherent Mistrust, Tension

with Geospatial Game Widgets, Landmarks, or Transferable Items

Coordination

Can Modulate

Competence Areas, Multiplayer Games

Can Be Instantiated By

Agents, Alliances, Altruistic Actions, Collaborative Actions, Free Gift Inventories, My Enemy’s Enemy is my Friend, Non-Player Help, Public Interfaces, Teams, Team Combos, Trading, Transferable Items, Uncommitted Alliances

Algorithmic Agents together with Companions

Mutual Goals together with Shared Rewards

Non-Player Characters together with Supporting Goals

Continuous Goals together with Negotiation and Social Dilemmas

Multiplayer Games together with Roleplaying

Can Be Modulated By

Betrayal, Game-Induced Player Social Status, Individual Rewards, Invites, Timing, Traitors

Possible Closure Effects

-

Potentially Conflicting With

Betrayal, Internal Conflicts

History

A revised version of the pattern Cooperation that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design^[1].

References

1. ↑ Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.