Difference between revisions of "Trade-Offs"

Revision as of 08:41, 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.

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 activating Producers, gaining 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. 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. 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.

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).

Can Be Instantiated By

Area Control, Cameras, Choke Points, Combat, Freedom of Choice, Guard, Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership, Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties, Renewable Resources,

Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences together with Internal Rivalry

Can Be Modulated By

Attention Swapping, Limited Resources, Producers, Supporting Goals

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

Analysis Paralysis

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

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

Acknowledgements

-