Difference between revisions of "Trade-Offs"
(→Using the pattern) |
(→Using the pattern) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
[[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. 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. | + | 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. |
| − | + | ||
| − | 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. [[ | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | 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]]). | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [[ | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [[ | + | |
| − | [[ | + | |
| − | + | ||
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]]. | 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]]. | ||
Revision as of 09:22, 2 September 2016
Gameplay situations where players must choose between several different options and compare values against each other.
This pattern is a still a stub.
Contents
Examples
Anti-Examples
optional
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.
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 performExtended 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-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-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.
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-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-Off. Finally, Attention Swapping can make it more difficult to judge the actual values of the consequences of Trade-Offs.
Consequences
Games where players need to make Trade-Offs often lead to them having to engage in Tactical Planning, so the pattern causes Stimulated Planning. This can also can Tension and since Strategic Knowledge regarding the Trade-off can help players make better choice the pattern can also support a type of Gameplay Mastery. In that Trade-Offs require players to select something negative with something positive or choose between two different strategies, it can have a form of Balancing Effect. A potentially negative effect of Trade-Offs is that they can cause Analysis Paralysis in Turn-Based Multiplayer Games. They typically don't support Cognitive Engrossment in themselves but can add depth to it if it already is supported in a game through adding additional choices and effects that need to be considered.
Relations
Can Instantiate
Balancing Effects, Gameplay Mastery, Stimulated Planning, Strategic Knowledge, Tactical Planning, Tension
in Multiplayer Games which are also Turn-Based Games
Can Modulate
Challenging Gameplay, Cognitive Engrossment, Committed Goals, Stealth
Can Be Instantiated By
Ability Losses, Area Control, Bidding, Budgeted Action Points, Cameras, Chargers, Choke Points, Consumers, Converters, Combat, Deterioration, Drafting Spreads, Equipment Slots, Extended Actions, Freedom of Choice, Guard, Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership, Internal Conflicts, Interruptibility, No-Use Bonus, One-Way Travel, Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties, Producers, Renewable Resources, Resource Management, Resources, Risk/Reward, Selectable Sets of Goals, Sockets, Time Limits, Token Placement, Traces, Units, Upgrades
Ability Losses together with New Abilities
Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences together with Internal Rivalry
Decreased Abilities together with Ammunition or Armor
Improved Abilities together with Ammunition
Limited Resources together with Parties
Tools together with Resources or Deterioration
Can Be Modulated By
Attention Swapping, Limited Resources, Producers, Supporting Goals
Possible Closure Effects
-
Potentially Conflicting With
-
History
An updated version of the pattern Tradeoffs that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design[1].
References
- ↑ Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.
Acknowledgements
-
