Skip to Content
 

Analysis Paralysis

16 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Analysis Paralysis, was a very common thing during the play test last weekend. It creped in much more than usual. Perhaps due to the experience of the 2 helpers. Or perhaps due to the extended freedom that I offered, just as an experiment to see how it would fair.
Probably the last one.

We where with 3 players in total. And I took a good look at how fast my 2 friends decided on things. As usual, the game is a war game (like A&A but complexer and a hexagon field)

Causes, where they took their time:

- Allowing players to choose their units, this was a free choice for each unit, out of 3 to 5 designs per class. There where 9 classes as usual. It took 45 minutes!

- Allowing players to design their hero units from scratch, this too was a free choice. I needed to help them with this. 30 minutes each. Thus 1 hour in total. Perhaps I should have given them a choice here as well.

- Allowing players to build a starting base themselves. Normally we all have the same base on a 7 hexagon grid. And things grow during game play.
The only free of choice decision in previous games was to give the base a certain direction.
Due to the rules, you have to keep in mind, not to clog up the central path or the exit. However, this seems to be troublesome?? for others. I have no trouble to visualize this. I could design some templates for them to choose from.

Any suggestions in how to tackle these?
How to make them faster or easier? Less choices?
Or should I just scrap all the freedom?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Archetypes

You may want to try setting up archetypal/standard hero & unit packages for players to have a "basic" game. Meanwhile you can include the rules for customizing heroes and unit loadout/composition for advanced and experienced players.

This is also similar to your starting base makeup you mention. Allow choices between several (as in, 3 or more) specific loadouts that players can choose from, each relatively balanced but having particular strengths that cater to different play styles.

If you have a contemporary military game, maybe you have loadouts that focus on quick-hitting assault units, or sniper units, or basic infantry with larger quantity, or demolitions, etc. I'm sure there are several ways to work this out that allow for distinct strengths to be made clear to the players as they make their choices. Heroes can amplify the strategies that players want to work with, depending on their specific skills/abilities you prepare them with.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote:You may

let-off studios wrote:
You may want to try setting up archetypal/standard hero & unit packages for players to have a "basic" game. Meanwhile you can include the rules for customizing heroes and unit loadout/composition for advanced and experienced players.

Well, this is something that I did before. As mentioned in the first post, scrap it all? I guess, I could ask them to do this choosing at home.
Now, for heroes. I can design them all myself on before hand. Simply making one for each class would do.

But if my experienced players have an idea, I'll add the idea to the list of choices.

let-off studios wrote:

This is also similar to your starting base makeup you mention. Allow choices between several (as in, 3 or more) specific loadouts that players can choose from, each relatively balanced but having particular strengths that cater to different play styles.

This is something that I don't have, yet. But easy to do. After all, I know how they build. And I can think of various other ways too.

The main pain here. A path out!
This could differ for each map.
With the basic 7 hexagons. The centre path would be best.
A fully functional starting base luckily only needs 4 hexagons.

let-off studios wrote:

If you have a contemporary military game, maybe you have loadouts that focus on quick-hitting assault units, or sniper units, or basic infantry with larger quantity, or demolitions, etc. I'm sure there are several ways to work this out that allow for distinct strengths to be made clear to the players as they make their choices. Heroes can amplify the strategies that players want to work with, depending on their specific skills/abilities you prepare them with.

This isn't hard.
Stats (Armor, Speed, Damage, Range) simply show what roles an unit can fill.

For specific meat and support roles, I could make this obvious with score points.
The same goes for heroes.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
No choice?? I got myself infected!! Or....?

While I discarded the HQ and introduced structure building units. Just to add 33% more base possibilities. I also created several base options.

Keeping in mind that natural walls are of influence on the choices.

Main variants in paths:
- Sponge bases:
7 out of 7 hexagons are used for the main structures.
Only small units are used.
Medium access in all directions. (42%, )
Units can take cover behind structures and vice versa.
This base is the least depending on the map layout.

- Point man bases:
6 out of 7 hexagons are used for the main structures.
Besides of the small units, a group of big ones can be used.
Less access in all directions. (33%)
Units can take cover behind structures. But not really vice versa.

- Front and Back Point man bases:
5 out of 7 hexagons are used for the main structures.
Now 2 groups of big units can be used. But have to be mixed up with resource managment for a part!
Lowest access in all directions. (20%, which is less than half than the sponge bases)
Cover? No cover for structures behind only units. Only walls and defences can help here, but their part can be bigger now.
In combination with units, the cover is complete. Lose the defences, and your structure is open for hunt season!

- Central path, Corner Point Man and Side Walk bases, "CCS"
4 out of 7 hexagons are used for the main structures.
3 groups of big units can be used. But have to compete for space for 100% with resource managment.
No access in all directions (0%, dûh!). Except for the path that is open. Players need to keep this in mind with their unit managment. But all 3 groups are mobile. Thus this is doable in 1 round.
There is no cover ability between the base and units. Bases however have full cover from defences.
These 3 are the most depending on the map layout. Thus I grouped them into 1. Since they keep their function the same.

***

Do you know what happened when I supplied the base designs to my top experienced (and email possible) group of play testers?
5 out of 8 responded.
Thus 6 in total have an oppinion.

Myself, I like the very last choice. But there is not choice in those 3. It is completely depending on the map as well.
The other 5, have the same reason!!! Everyone placed the CCS as number 1. And the Sponge as number 2. Thus CCS is the only choice by players.

While we all build sponge bases when starting from scratch. If we start with a finished base. We all choose the CCS bases. And simply get the one that is best for the location where we start. Keep in mind. We actually know that there is no choice here.

I replied to them all, asked; "which one is the most useless?"
Seems that we all 6 again agree!
The Front and Back Point Man bases.
Why? There is only 1 real group of big units possible. Resource managment is already in the way.
Units covering structures is minimal. But nessesary!. This means that units are spread out. And cant act as one group when moving out. Moving out is the slowest here! With 20%, we have a factor 5 here! Thus this means that you spend almost all AP of your round to ready an attack squad.

While the base that is completely sponge. The best design is the one where 2 fields supply 1800 space (50%). Thus only 2 AP are needed to make an attack squad. And there is plenty of AP left to get them to move out the exact same round.

Sponge comes in second. But really, the CCS bases are still several times better in comparisson. We all choose them.

***

It was fun to do. But the results are so... depressing now. (Kinda like life, o well)

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Base-Building Elimination

Well, the good news is that you eliminated choosing how to construct the base. The simplest thing to do seems to give each player the same "optimal" base layout to start the game, and then the choice becomes where to place it. Again, leave base construction rules for advanced/experienced players. It may very well be that one of the other base layouts you've described can work well for advanced/unconventional strategies, which beginning players might never consider.

This cuts down your game's setup time: time now reserved to play the game. This sounds to me like a positive development.

And yes, life is depressing most of the time. But focusing attention on the pleasant surprises and progress when they occur makes it more tolerable, at least for a while. :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The "why?", makes more sense by now

The thing with the no choice, but choice comes later for advanced players?
Should have been now actually. And perhaps, it is? I simply did not notice it yet.

We could say that they are all advanced players now, since they have chosen the same as me independently from each other. That is a major progress. Not only that, it is and remains a change to our normal sponge bases that we all had.

I have been thinking about it.
This is clearly how RTS work as well.
Isn't it weird how in multi-player, we choose a choke point for defences, and make a sponge like base along the way?

But when we use a map editor. We design the base with more order. Just to find everything from the start with ease. And to get things done in a better way. Like pushing out an army that exits together.

After all, in the beginning, you need to prepare. The base isn't a part of it. Sponge bases are a better way to prepare when from scratch. An ordered base with path serves pushing out an army in a better way. Everything is immediately together.

If you have a start from scratch, building with order requires more skill and planning. That is something that makes the start harder. For example, you want to put up defences more to the border of your base. If you have not reached that far yet, you have to put some inside your base.

This was a natural consequence for what we are doing. And what the world does in RTS.

Indeed, the good side is that we now have 30 extra minutes to play. Now to tackle the army and hero's.
I think I have to go back to 1 army for all.
If players want things to be modified. They are allowed to tell me afterwards. Thus each is going to evolve their army over time. But not during game play.

gilamonster
Offline
Joined: 08/21/2015
Regarding armies: you can

Regarding armies: you can always give each player a fixed base-army, but allow them to choose a small number of extra units up to a fixed cost. Done right, that might give just enough flexibility and choice to tailor the player's without requiring hours to choose.

For the hero, I'd go with a large but not unwieldy number of pre-defined heroes to choose between (which also lets you add character, back-story and so on if you like), but include guidelines for creating custom heroes.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
gilamonster wrote:Regarding

gilamonster wrote:
Regarding armies: you can always give each player a fixed base-army, but allow them to choose a small number of extra units up to a fixed cost. Done right, that might give just enough flexibility and choice to tailor the player's without requiring hours to choose.

For the hero, I'd go with a large but not unwieldy number of pre-defined heroes to choose between (which also lets you add character, back-story and so on if you like), but include guidelines for creating custom heroes.

I have been pondering about this since my last post in the topic. Already had written 3 replies to this situation. But deleted them. Make that 4.

The problem does not lie within designing itself. The problem lies in how simple the choosing can take place.

And the complaints about removed freedom is annoying. While when they have freedom, they complain about they don't know what to do.

The simplest way to deal with this is to keep pumping unit statistic cards. (I like to do that any way) And simply tell them to choose 9 or 18 from these.

Thus, leaving the designs to me. Yet allowing them to choose from a big pile.
They have to do this before a game night happens.

If they would like to see something they wish, I can pump out this card as well.

"And stop asking me, what combination goes best." I think I have to reply with that to them. Right?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Bounce It Back

X3M wrote:
"And stop asking me, what combination goes best." I think I have to reply with that to them. Right?
You can reply with, "Have I told you how much I appreciate you being a playtester?"

:D

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote:X3M

let-off studios wrote:
X3M wrote:
"And stop asking me, what combination goes best." I think I have to reply with that to them. Right?
You can reply with, "Have I told you how much I appreciate you being a playtester?"

:D


Don't worry, sarcasm remains here.
Beer and Pizza goes over there with the compliments, of course.

;)

But seriously, while they play test for me. I wonder how to reduce all the questions. Is this normal? We aren't talking about 10 per player, 60 in total. We are talking here about 100 per player, 600 in total. And each player is having different questions. This never happened in the past when I simply used a "here it is" principle. (Picture 6 "that kind of" headbangers together, and each thinks they are the best, and search reconfirmation from me. Ain't that nice??)

Giving freedom is something that I should not have done. Now they all want to out smart each other by using my knowledge of the game.

Oooooh, this gives me an idea. I think I will tell them that the next round is going to have all suggestions. Handed out back randomly. Nah, that will backfire as well.

I don't know any more at this point. -.-
[Rage against the machine - Freedom]

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Quote:The simplest way to

Quote:

The simplest way to deal with this is to keep pumping unit statistic cards. (I like to do that any way) And simply tell them to choose 9 or 18 from these.

Thus, leaving the designs to me. Yet allowing them to choose from a big pile.
They have to do this before a game night happens.

If they would like to see something they wish, I can pump out this card as well.

This, and that lesson #7 that I just watched from Mark Rosewater. I am going for this.

Edit:
Another lesson thought me to allow players to have their, input. Now I am tempted to get a decent template done in Excel. Just to allow players to design their own unit statistics cards.

Yup, I am stuck right now.

Important question right now:
To prevent one very recurring question of them; would it be better to make several pages for calculating backwards?
Or should I make a calculations table that shows all valid options to choose from? (I think the latter, but it would be very complex to design and read)

To make things clear:
Sometimes a design shows weird balancing numbers like 62,5 or 83,333. Brick numbers are most likely not used. But it is then up to the designer to find the very best next thing. Which is easy for me. But hard for others.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I'll stick with what my last quote was.

Seems my friends don't like to play with numbers.

Sure they wanted to design their own. Yet, they don't want to think and calculate.

All they can say is if they want something weak or strong. Well, they want everything to be strong.

However, I can't fullfill their wishes entirely. Only partially.

No other choice for me than to stick with the quote. Design them myself. Then let them choose. Taking notes on complaints. However, I think I have caused a situation. Where each player is unhappy with the design. While the design fits their wishes, it is often that they have a feeling of underpowered. Or even overpowered units.

This means that by trying to make them happy. They have become even unhappier with the situation.

1 option remains. And that is to make new designs that support no wishes at all. And simply let them choose without hearing their wishes.

???

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Balanced vs. Unbalanced

X3M wrote:
Seems my friends don't like to play with numbers.

Sure they wanted to design their own. Yet, they don't want to think and calculate.

All they can say is if they want something weak or strong. Well, they want everything to be strong.

However, I can't fullfill their wishes entirely. Only partially.

That's an interesting problem. And it makes me wonder about my own game. See my interest is to create two (2) *NEW* Races. But I wanted to have variance and change the card distribution. So making a Race that is VERY defensive - might be a turn-off to many players.

Yeah - I know I was going to make a Race that is VERY offensive... too.

But I figured I'd do "defensive" FIRST and "offensive" NEXT. Why? Well the existing race (Terrans - Exterras) are 100% BALANCED. But when you introduce a player that is stronger OFFENSIVELY, that tips the favor for the offensive player (Granted he will be weaker in defense - so some balancing).

But if you use the DEFENSIVE race vs. OFFENSIVE race, that too balances out... Ergo my desire to design the defensive race first!

Does this make sense???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
O my, tldr post ahead. O well, title goes here I guess.

I understand it somewhat, yes.
Actually, maybe this is my biggest problem. I am the game MASTER. Literally. Yet trying to get them all to get an understanding of the game completely!

Players tend to have something in mind. Yet they don't see the complete picture. Actually, about 1% might, perhaps, very small chance, and thus so on...

Designing an army might be very logical to me. But for them it is blahblahblahblah, wut? wah? numbers?

Here is how a game would occur:
When they would, let's say, go entirely offensive.
I would respond with an army that is primarily, not against entirely offensive. In fact. I would have a good back bone for my defences, of course. But I got units that are good in midfield. They rush out, do their thing with the attacker. Then they rush back in for repairs. An unit or several units, with that task in mind.

But these units will never go with the main force for an attack. Nor will they stay in the base for defending. Some sort of midfielders if you will.

Most players can't see this example. And have their mind focussed on only 1 or 2 things.

In this case:
High numbers are good!
And if the strong are cheap, they are better!

I designed my game in such a way that high and low numbers have their own weak and strong points.

Higher range
Is in most cases weaker. They don't really understand it. Can't grasp the correct feeling. Illogical in some situations. Yet by practical examples, I managed to explain to them, when higher range is the better choice.

Higher speed
The same goes for speed.
Higher speed, was an all time favourite to them.
They rushed here, there, everywhere.
They assaulted each other, here, there, everywhere. Until... they.. assaulted... me...
I simply sat there and said; (Black Jack style) "okey".

I took the assault by simply show a cheek.

Then the next round, their assaulting units where trapped by me and died a very very slow and very very painful death. Yessiryh! DEAD DEAD DEAD.
Simply because I know the correct way to deal with something like assaulting units.

Suddenly, my unit design was declared OP. They said that the pricing was incorrect etc. Even Math boy didn't believe what was happening. etc. Thus I pulled out, once again, my excel worksheet for calculating unit prices etc. And to their surprise. The unit was just as fair as any other unit..... etc.

I even explained to them how to beat the unit. With the ones they have on the board too!!
In fact.
After that explanation.
They won!
and I
I lost!
(Huray, for teaming up you f*$&$rds)

I have many more examples:
And the same goes for low armour versus high armour. And the same goes for low damage versus high damage.
And the same goes for low durability versus high durability.
And the same goes for low accuracy versus high accuracy.

O man, low accuracy rocks so much in my game!!! :) And I can know.
But (new) players
...HAVE...NO...CLUE...WHAT-SO-EVER!

In fact. A complete strategy guide, if ever seeing the day light. Would completely make the game manual pale in comparison.

***

To put things short. Yeah, I understand you. You make sense.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Depends on the player, I guess?!

X3M wrote:
...I even explained to them how to beat the unit. With the ones they have on the board too!!...

See that's the thing. When you are there to explain things, the players are usually more "accepting" of what you tell them.

But it's more of a challenge if they are on their own.

In my case, I am worried that everyone is going to be like: "Why do we need a defensive race?" "Who are we worried about?"

And the answer to this is "nobody for-now". But when the third race will be designed and introduced, it will be an offensive race. And to balance out the power of that race, it is best to combine with a defensive race...

So as you were saying "newbies" know nothing about your game. Yet it is quite possible that "newbies" might BUY the game (if they like it...) But will they know HOW to play that race - IDK...?

Perhaps since in my case it's an "extended" race, even "newbies" will have experience playing the original race (Terrans - Exterra Edition). And maybe they won't understand HOW to use the new race - at the beginning - but it may take a few games/losses to figure out how to use this "new" race.

Do you have such a problem? That players only focus on a "core" of units and ignore the others - because they don't understand their value or how to use them to their advantage???

Cheers.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Thematic Link

X3M wrote:
Players tend to have something in mind. Yet they don't see the complete picture. Actually, about 1% might, perhaps, very small chance, and thus so on...
Is there some other way to address this thematically? As in, it would make sense for a player to relate that unit you talk about as a "midfield" unit because it thematically makes sense? That heavy-artillery are meant for staying in the base and bombarding from afar? That blitzkrieg units are fast, expendable, and pack a hard punch?

Is there a way to offer a signal via the game's theme that there are certain basic concepts an effective player will add to their strategy?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote: Do you have

questccg wrote:

Do you have such a problem? That players only focus on a "core" of units and ignore the others - because they don't understand their value or how to use them to their advantage???

Cheers.


The answer to that question is, YES.

let-off studios wrote:
X3M wrote:
Players tend to have something in mind. Yet they don't see the complete picture. Actually, about 1% might, perhaps, very small chance, and thus so on...
Is there some other way to address this thematically? As in, it would make sense for a player to relate that unit you talk about as a "midfield" unit because it thematically makes sense? That heavy-artillery are meant for staying in the base and bombarding from afar? That blitzkrieg units are fast, expendable, and pack a hard punch?

Is there a way to offer a signal via the game's theme that there are certain basic concepts an effective player will add to their strategy?


Well, "Combat" is the best name that I can think of. (Or Battle).
I also have "Assault" units, that are fast, relatively cheap and expendable, with a hard punch. And they do very good in combination with the Assault Action and Assault Event Card.
"(Mobile) Artillery" units are used from afar. But often have decent protection themselves.
Then we have the "Sniper", "Killer" and "Buster" units that kill at least 1 infantry, tank and bunker with a single shot for sure.

Perhaps, while I thought of a score system for how much meat and support an unit can give.
I could instead give a name?
Best used for...Combat
Best used for...Assault

Then of course, while Assault is an obvious one. I have to explain the Combat suggestion.

A little story of the unit and how it is best used, is perhaps the best way to deal with this. But players that already play the game, might not read the story. New players might. Perhaps, simply give all possible hints in the story?

If I had just as much players as MtG, then I shouldn't have worried about this. There are always players that can think of combinations that even I can't think of.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut