Difference between revisions of "Collaborative Actions"

Revision as of 18:40, 6 February 2011

Compound actions that require several agents to perform specific individual actions for them to occur.

Some effects in games require several players to do act together for them to take place at all. These actions are called Collaborative Actions since the players are either actively collaborating or can be seen to do so by others even if the players themselves are not aware of it.

Examples

One of the simplest cases of Collaborative Actions is found in Tug of war since both teams need to coordinate their efforts to be more efficient than the other.

The computer game Tekken Tag Tournament in the Tekken series allows players in the Pair Play Mode to performed special combination maneuvers by switching which player is active in th middle of attacks. Team Fortress Classic allows players to get their avatars to places normally not available but standing on each others shoulders, building `human' pyramids. Further, computer-based games can easily let players not close to each other in the game still perform Collaborative Actions. For example, affecting the opposing teams tick counter in the Battlefield series requires one team to by in control of a majority of the existing flag points, something that can only be done by several players working together.

Using the pattern

Altruistic Actions

Collaborative Actions are often used in games supporting Teams so that not only do players have Mutual Goals but that working together is more efficient than working alone. As simple way of achieving this is by making Team Combos possible.

Collaborative Actions require that the players are able to combine and coordinate their actions either by performing actions together at a certain time or by having actions by one or more players support other players' actions. The results of this type of coordinated actions are, usually, more effective and in some cases it is even impossible to succeed with precise coordination.

When designing Collaborative Actions in games the following things have to be taken into account: how much coordination is required between the players; how the outcome of the action is based on the precision and type of the coordination; how are the possible rewards shared and in which way; how different are the actions required; and how is the coordination is made possible as in, for example, Player Decided Results.

Collaborative Actions can be achieved by requiring two or more actions to be performed simultaneously or by requiring several specific game elements with Asymmetric Abilities to perform different actions. The first case can be instantiated by having several Incompatible Goals that have to be completed at the same time, for example holding several Goal Points at once. Transfer of Control which is not based on Conflict is often based on Collaborative Action of Negotiation.

Examples of Collaborative Actions include Negotiation, especially Bidding in the form of voting and Trading. Ganging up is a form ofCollaborative Action that is typically used to gain tactical advantages in Combat but can be found in any Competition situation where players may decide to act together against perceived leaders, in the latter case creating Balancing Effects through Collaborative Actions.

While Shared Rewards can be used to encourage players to start Collaborative Actions, the use of Shared Penalties can make the completion of the actions, which are also Extended Actions, into Committed Goals and lessen the risk for Betrayal, or at least creating a cost for betraying.

To provide more Complex Gameplay, Collaborative Actions can have Delayed Effects. Besides requiring more Coordination this also opens up for Betrayal since individual actions can be hidden. Making Collaborative Actions only benefit one player, i.e. making any possible Reward a [[Individual Rewards]Individual Reward]], typically makes the agents that help fulfill the action to assume that it is a case of Delayed Reciprocity. As with any other type of actions, Collaborative Actions can be made into Extended Actions to provide more Challenging Gameplay.

Stretching the definition of agents, players may be able to do Collaborative Actions on their own when they control several Units, but this requires Attention Swapping.

Interface Aspects

Games that wish to encourage Collaborative Actions may require Game State Indicators or Game State Overviews to let players know what other players are doing, or at least the effects of players actions (e.g. holding flag points in the Battlefield series). By doing so, they can provide Perceivable Margins as support Cooperation.

Consequences

Collaborative Actions is one way to achieve Cooperation in games, although it can be created in other ways also (e.g. striving towards Mutual Goals or being part of the same Team). All Collaborative Actions can be seen as forms of Combos done by several players, Avatars, or Units rather than one. However, performing Collaborative Actions often requires the players to engage in Negotiation as an Extra-Game action and they also often needed Timing. All this provides Stimulated Planning and Constructive Play, as well as making Social Interaction necessary. Being able to coordinate Collaborative Actions is thus often a basis for Game Mastery in games where they are possible, especially so in games where Teams match up against each other.

Even if Collaborative Actions may let players do things they otherwise could not, they in one sense modulate their Freedom of Choice since they require Coordination This is especially true when the Collaborative Actions are also Extended Actions, in which case the actions can be seen as a form of Committed Goals. Similarly, Collaborative Actions do not have to be made by means of formalized Teams, but performing them at least creates Dynamic Alliances while the actions are being performed. They can be encouraged by Shared Rewards or Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties. Collaborative Actions where the possible Rewards is only one Individual Reward to a single player can give rise to Delayed Reciprocity and by that also Betrayal.

Relations

Can Instantiate

Combos, Constructive Play, Coordination, Cooperation, Dynamic Alliances, Extra-Game Actions, Game Mastery, Negotiation, Player-Decided Distribution of Rewards & Penalties, Shared Rewards, Social Interaction, Stimulated Planning, Team Combos, Timing

with Delayed Effects or Delayed Reciprocity

Betrayal

with Individual Rewards

Delayed Reciprocity

Can Modulate

Freedom of Choice

Can Be Instantiated By

Attention Swapping together with Units

Can Be Modulated By

Extended Actions, Game State Indicators, Game State Overviews

Possible Closure Effects

Potentially Conflicting With

History

An updated version of the pattern Collaborative Actions 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

-