"So if killing is the best way to go then it''s not a choice."

well how exactly are you going to kill them? Rocket launcher or shotgun? Tank push or wraith containment? Magic Missle or Turn Undead? Those are fine choices, the problem is when it becomes dragoon horde vs dragoon swarm.

Basically when a game is well balanced all other concerns fall away and people just start playing. So the question becomes, is this a balance issue or an issue that would go away if we worked on the balance issues? Oh and as you might have guessed I like mastering game systems. Mastering a poorly designed game system is called powermaxing, mastering a well designed game system is called "skill"

Paul Cunnigham -"The is why powermaxing doesn''t work, is because the enemies are always the same as you regardless. "

This is one of the reasons that I suggested the concept of levelling downwards, in the Levelling Down thread. As the monsters would become harder, because you would be relatively weaker.

quote:
Then the "roleplayers" will choose at random and the "powergamers" will choose the best one. The distinction between the two groups would not exist if all choices were valid, or if there was no choice at all.

hehe, typical munchkin propaganda ...
basically powergamers would be the hackers of RPG, they''ll use and abuse the system of the game to progress in the story through sheer brute force (it''s a methaphor) rather than use their brains. On the other side, roleplayers will play a role, which means that they won''t concentrate on the system they are using, but rather on the story itself ...
I know quite a bunch of nerds who are totally up there as$ because they have achieved this skill and that skill and pumped their stats to the max through some clever use of the system ("so you see, I set my charisma to 1, because really, we never use it, and with the points I spare, I can put all of them in Strength, ain''t that cool ? hin hin") ... and of course they loved the story yeah, what was it again ?

Anyway ... to answer Paul, yes I''d say powermaxing is addictive. Actually it''s not powermaxing, it''s the reward process. It''s very similar to the Pavlov''s dog experiment. "good answer, beep, candy; bad answer, buzz, electric shock" ... after a while the dog salivate just by hearing the "beep". Look at the features that are described in some game reviews "and so you see, in this version of the game, they decided to raise the maximum levels, and at last, we can reach level 30" ... WTF ?! What do I care ? Does that mean the game is gonna be more interesting ?
I remember my father studied something like that for rats. It''s called the reward process. Everytime something is achieved, the rats get candies, and so they keep doing the thing they are trained to do over and over, ad nauseam.
The question I have is : where is the reward in clicking and getting more points ??? I still fail to see that. I mean, I have had my powermaxing period, when I was 12. Then I realised how true the french saying is "a vaincre sans peril, on meure sans gloire" (to win without risk, you die without glory)... and I started playing roles.

Adastra : I think you are probably not far from the truth. The reward, in the reward process, need to be tangible. But, in a computer game, what is tangible ? Except what you see. So those little numbers, growing, and growing, are probably a derivative way to reward the player ("gooood player, goood ! Here, you get another point ! Ooooh, you''ve 1035463633 now, that''s daddy''s player !")
As well, I''d say, give us better character, not wimps that have to be pumped like an inflatable doll before they can do anything...
If only we had new ways to reward the player for playing ...

Ketchaval : I don''t think leveling downwards is a good term. Personally I would try to explain something like "skill erosion" ? I would like to see a system where you can increase skill, the better you get, the slower they increase. The less you practice, the more you lose skill. The amount of loss depending on your level in a skill (you lose faster at high level, but the basics never really disappear) ... but that''s probably another topic.

Well, anyway, I''ll keep saying it until I die, but we are really no better than those we call animals ...

youpla :-P

"they''ll use and abuse the system of the game to progress in the story through sheer brute force (it''s a methaphor) rather than use their brains."

what if the system was designed well such that you couldn''t progress through brute force? I think you have it all wrong, there are people who find pleasure in the elegance of math, the maximization, the hard choices between specialization and versatility (I personally always choose versatility), getting the mix just right, etc... if the main source of fun in a game is the story go grab a book. If it''s the action go play a sport. graphics/movie, etc... there are those of us who want a mental exercise

"On the other side, roleplayers will play a role, which means that they won''t concentrate on the system they are using, but rather on the story itself ..."

yeah I do that too, but usually with my friends around the gaming table or by myself with a good book. Video games aren''t supposed to be primarily story based. I do admit to enjoying a bit of story oriented gaming now and then but that''s not what it''s about in the end

("so you see, I set my charisma to 1, because really, we never use it, and with the points I spare, I can put all of them in Strength, ain''t that cool ? hin hin")

you see if charisma is never used it shouldn''t be in the game. If strength is so important it should be two or three scores. Or vice versa in a game where charisma is very important and physical abilities less so. The point is to make all choices equally good/bad so that decisions matter.

"As well, I''d say, give us better character, not wimps that have to be pumped like an inflatable doll before they can do anything..."

do you know why they start people off like that? It''s because they don''t care enough about balance. You might not like the gamers who think balance is important but they are responsible what little there is.

"If only we had new ways to reward the player for playing ..."

Perhaps the fun of playing should be reward enough?

Some qualities good games have:

sessions ~30 minutes long
nearly every click or button press is a real decision
mistakes don''t make the game less fun, just more challenging
minimal downtime (watching animation, walking between areas, sitting around)

my 2p:

I dont think the problem is caused by the fact that the character can advance or ''level up'', but the way in which the advancements are earned (namely, killing every damned monster on the map)

I think that removing the ability to improve your character would be bad. After a few hours the player gets bored with his basic set of abilities, he wants to see something new. The prospect of getting new powers gives the player something to aspire to, an additional reason to keep playing. That cannot be a bad thing. The leveling down idea is IMHO crazy, that would discourage players from playing the game. Sure, the improvements might be purely aesthetic, but the point is that the player doesnt know that. As far as he is concerned, if he goes down a level he will think he is being punished.

The problem really is the fact that nearly all CRPGs only award XP for two basic things: completing a quest and killing monsters. I remember from playing pen and paper RPG''s that the DM would give out far more experience for good roleplay than he would for killing monsters. Hence the only way to really be a power gamer is to also be a roleplayer. Of course, getting a computer to identify good roleplay is a task in itself, but I reckon once someone makes the effort to try the CRPG genre will be in for a revolution.

what about a system (mainly for crpgs) that allows the player greater freedom in customization and exploration, but limits linear growth. ie, you can decide what you want to concentrate on, but you don''t just get better and better from playing longer. like, for instance, you could try and become a master mage, but as you get better at it, your combat skills erode. this way instead of getting better and better as the player plays longer, they are becoming closer to what they want, whatever that may be. this system could also go into equipment and spells and things. instead of getting a "longsword +1," characters could attain more interesting and rare items, but they wouldn''t be fundamentally better than more common ones. this would also help to balance any sort of pvp system, allowing more room for players to explore different tactics and strategies instead of just finding those with less ''xp'' than them. hm....I''m starting to like this idea .

ok, enough rambling for now,
tef

Sandman Quote "I think that removing the ability to improve your character would be bad. After a few hours the player gets bored with his basic set of abilities, he wants to see something new. "

That isn't necessarily true, think about Doom or other games like that, where the weapons that you had were enough. You didn't have to increase your skill level in using the Shotgun to make it fun. (It was the Player's agility / mental skill in playing that mattered.

Edited by - Ketchaval on September 20, 2000 6:30:43 PM

Elementary Behavioral Psychology. Put a rat in a cage with a button. The button produces some cheese when pushed. What will the rat do?

Push the button.

Over and over and over and over and over and over...

OK sure, you could let the character remain the same and simply allow him to pick up bigger and better weapons. But surely if you are relying on different weaponry to keep the player interested then you are going to end up with a lot more hack&slashers and fewer roleplayers, and the CRPG genre will just get swallowed up by the FPS genre.

Well as with any addiction the first thing you have to do is remove the reliance factor (causing agent) from the user. So what is the reliance factor in powermaxing? I think that in games the "causing agent" is a methodology. I don''t think that taking away the killing in games is a very tactful approach. I believe that removing the constant need in games to progress through killing is the method causing addiction for most of us. Combat in crpg''s is overused, it should be left in because it adds variety to the game but it should be shared equally with other game elements.

I think bringing in some detective elements into the users capablities would help, so the player should be put in the place where they don''t know if unsheathing their sword is the best option. This would help ween down the powermaxing desire because it''s less needed to progress.

If you think about it, powermaxing does take a hell of a long time to do, so if the game doesn''t need a player who''s been spending 40days boosting up their character then people won''t do it will they?!

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!