goldilocks effect in randomized gaming

[keylocke]

so i just played a bit of pixel piracy and FTL, and the thing i've noticed is that (like rimworld) there are randomized "choke points" in their difficulty curves, forcing people to adopt "save scumming" strategies.

ie:
-people usually don't want to have 3 nobles as their starting colonists in rimworld (or really crappy colonists either), so they keep randomizing them. They also would like to have a decent map, so they also keep randomizing it until they find something they want.

-in pixel piracy, players would usually like their captains to at least have no bad traits. same thing with their crew. so players would most likely keep save scumming until they find the right one that they can actually work with.

-in FTL, save scumming isn't really much of an issue. i think when the devs take away player "choice" in cherry picking the events that happen to them, chances of failure is much higher than chances of success (on higher difficulty settings). in this game, this is usually beyond the player's gaming skill. it's like playing with a roll of a dice, dressed in a really cool pixelized scifi outfit. either you get lucky or you get dead or you play on easy to unlock most of the cool ships and then play on hard with the strongest ship you have.

-------

and this is the main point of this topic :

in these games, no amount of skill or planning can save players from a string of really bad luck. If there is an option to "save scum" or re-roll, some players would most likely adopt it, rather than waste their investment of several gaming hours, just to lose or be forced to invest more gaming hours just rectify the negative effects of a very bad roll.

anyways, i would like to compare these games to other games whose difficulty curve is mostly "gaming skill" based rather than completely randomized events.

----------

-XCOM enemy unknown/within : sure there are plenty of randomized things in this game, but these things can usually be overcome through careful strategies or increasing the player's gaming skill, even on ironman mode. winning or losing is more dependent on the player's skills and strategies rather than just "getting lucky or unlucky" on a roll.


-dark souls : again, this game is a different genre and there's not a lot of randomness in dark souls, but i'm trying to point out that dark souls' difficulty curve is more dependent on the player's gaming skill rather than getting lucky or unlucky. it is difficult by design, until the enemy attack patterns practically becomes rote memory. it's difficulty focuses more on player skills rather than randomness.

-the forest, minecraft, don't starve, gnomoria :  it rarely doesn't matter where you are dropped in the world or the randomized map generated. the player can still usually function regardless of how "unlucky" they are. because there are no potentially gamebreaking randomized chokepoints at start up. the players can just focus more on actually playing the game, rather than re-rolling on a chokepoint.

----------------------

so i guess my point is that, there are several randomized "choke points" that can be potentially game breaking. (ie : the randomized starting colonists of rimworld, the randomized traits of the captain and crew of pixel piracy, etc..) At these chokepoints, if the player have the option to save scum or keep pressing the randomized button repeatedly to get their preferred results. then they will usually do so. (which defeats the purpose of "artificially" spiking the game's difficulty curve through randomness)

at the same time, if the option to save scum or the option to re-roll is completely taken away from the player (like in FTL) the player is subjected to losing several hours/minutes of gaming investment on a roll of a dice. losing means the player starts again from scratch and then hoping to get lucky on the next round. (which in effect is like save scumming but with a much longer time investment required, since the player starts again from zero)

i think game difficulty should not be heavily dependent on "getting lucky or unlucky", rather it should be more dependent on the gamer's skill, regardless of chance. otherwise, it's just like playing with a glorified high-spec dice, so i think it's necessary to pinpoint those randomized "choke points". 

bottomline is, if a string of really bad luck or really good luck on a roll can be potentially game breaking making it too easy or impossible to play (ie : character/map generation), regardless of player skills, then perhaps it should not be completely randomized at all, so the players don't have to invest too much time on re-rolls.

-in don't starve or gnomoria, there are parameter options to set the map generated within the limits that are specified by the player. it's still randomized, but the map can be as hard or as difficult as the player wants it to be. taking away the game's reliance on chance and focuses more on player skills and strategies.

-in gnomoria, the randomized starting gnomes are well balanced in their roles, so the players don't have to invest too much time trying to "randomize" their preferred starting characters and actually start playing the game, rather than waiting to get "lucky" on a roll.

-------

tl;dr :

anyways, i think that's what i meant by the goldilocks effect in randomized gaming:

if a certain choke point is randomized and a player has a choice to re-roll, then the player will invest time on re-rolling until they reach a preferable result that is "just right" for them.

hence, artificially spiking the game's difficulty curve through randomness choke points, has the negative effect of needlessly consuming the amount of time invested by the player on re-rolls or in the worst-case scenario, starting again from scratch. which seems kinda inefficient.  (or dare i say, a poor design choice on that particular aspect)


regardless. i still play rimworld and pixel piracy, they are great games. (just like i still play don't starve, gnomoria, etc). i just need to invest more time on re-rolls with rimworld and pixel piracy than i do with the other games.

[BetaSpectre]

Get the map and colonist mods and rerolling will become basically a moot point as you can set things up to be tough or easy.

[AstronauticalFerret]

It's still pretty early in development to say the least. Right now the system still needs a lot of work and eventually down the road will be skill based. Besides what does it matter what other gamers do? Does people save scumming affect your own personal ability to play the game? It's an option for people to do, an option that has no affect on you in any amount. If people want to cheap their way through a game, so be it, that's their own fault if they end up not feeling some form of winners gratification in the end by snoozing everything.

Even this early however there are still some parts that may seem impossible that are skill based. IE-  A bogus run = When Cleopatra spawns over 100 raiders all around you by day three-one month in the game you're basically screwed. That's a bad roll and a game over.: A good run is when you get the same thing happened to you but when you actually have a good base and are able to hold our long enough for them to give up. I've had both happen to me.  In the end it's all about tweaking the game.  With how most games in early development go if you fix one thing another three things will break, like the randomness of the story. For some people it's fun to fight and even lose to impossible odds, some people would rather save and "Re-roll". It's all player preference from start to finish in both the gamer side and the dev side.

[keylocke]

Get the map and colonist mods and rerolling will become basically a moot point as you can set things up to be tough or easy.

interesting. i might try this mod out. thanks for the info

It's still pretty early in development to say the least. Right now the system still needs a lot of work and eventually down the road will be skill based. Besides what does it matter what other gamers do? Does people save scumming affect your own personal ability to play the game? It's an option for people to do, an option that has no affect on you in any amount. If people want to cheap their way through a game, so be it, that's their own fault if they end up not feeling some form of winners gratification in the end by snoozing everything.

Even this early however there are still some parts that may seem impossible that are skill based. IE-  A bogus run = When Cleopatra spawns over 100 raiders all around you by day three-one month in the game you're basically screwed. That's a bad roll and a game over.: A good run is when you get the same thing happened to you but when you actually have a good base and are able to hold our long enough for them to give up. I've had both happen to me.  In the end it's all about tweaking the game.  With how most games in early development go if you fix one thing another three things will break, like the randomness of the story. For some people it's fun to fight and even lose to impossible odds, some people would rather save and "Re-roll". It's all player preference from start to finish in both the gamer side and the dev side.

i'm actually one of the save scummers that i was talking about... lol.

for example, i keep re-rolling the 3 starter colonists to have the most optimal chance at start up. i do the same thing with pixel piracy or any other games whenever a gameplay chokepoint is randomized.

ie: i usually don't care much about loot drops or the other colonial immigrants or whatever randomized events happen through the gameplay (i just let it play out as intended). but i feel like the 3 starter colonists and the map seed needs to be at least playable or optimal. And this is what i meant by a randomized gameplay "chokepoint".

(compare the 3 fully randomized colonists of rimworld to the randomized starting gnomes in gnomoria. you usually play the gnomes without a re-roll since they're well balanced from the start, but a bad roll in rimworld and you're gonna be more likely playing a losing game right from the start) (ie: you can't play with 3 nobles as your starter colonists. there are also plenty of colonist types available that are potentially game breaking when they are your starter colonists)

there are people who don't mind playing a losing hand in a game of cards (they might even actually win). but when the probability of losing is too high, it means that time invested in playing that losing hand would be better spent in re-rolling for a decent hand, a hand that actually has a good chance of winning. (unless trying to win a losing hand seems preferable)

i agree with what you said, that it mostly depends on the player. but i'm one of those people who'll rather fold early, and re-roll for a favorable hand rather than throw all my coins in to invest the time and effort in a run that is practically over before i even play it.

hence, getting stuck in re-roll chokepoints, until i get a hand that is actually worth playing.

edit :
-inb4 just mod the files directly.

btw, i wrote this in the off-topic board, 'coz i'm not aiming for rimworld in particular, rather i'm just noticing something that these "randomized" games have in common, and what other randomized games have done to address these chokepoint problems.

[Untrustedlife]

The charm of roguelikes is the random death though! Since everything IS randomized its still interesting even after you die, its is not a poor design decision at all.. its called replayability.. and it keeps people entertained for hours.

Ok lets take an example.. nethack... players usually die because:
A: they didnt understand a part of the game Or
B. Because the random number god kicked there butt.

However when you do win.. it is VERY rewarding due to the difficulty and each time you play you have fun due to the randomness. So players keep playing anyway because it is entertaining.

Dwarf Fortress Death reasoning:
A: Player doesnt understand the full scope of the game, and they die because of it
B. The place that they chose to embark/start kicked their butt
C. The simulation kicked their butt (could be merged with A)
D. The random Number God Kicked their But

Or a combination of all 4.

Players keep playing because, it is the same philosophy as nethack.. maybe next time ill do better
Or they get better at it by learning how to play (skill)
There is no way to win that game, the reward is having a fort that survives awhile (long enough for you to screw with game mechanics) or dies in the most epic way possible (a la boatmurderd)


Rimworld in this case should be more like dwarf fortress (Not ftl/nethack)
Where skill AND randomness can factor into a death or win.
And "winning" is still very enjoyable because all eh death that happened before it. (A reward)

[keylocke]

The charm of roguelikes is the random death though! Since everything IS randomized its still interesting even after you die, its is not a poor design decision at all.. its called replayability.. and it keeps people entertained for hours.

Ok lets take an example.. nethack... players usually die because:
A: they didnt understand a part of the game Or
B. Because the random number god kicked there butt.

However when you do win.. it is VERY rewarding due to the difficulty and each time you play you have fun due to the randomness. So players keep playing anyway because it is entertaining.

Dwarf Fortress Death reasoning:
A: Player doesnt understand the full scope of the game, and they die because of it
B. The place that they chose to embark/start kicked their butt
C. The simulation kicked their butt (could be merged with A)
D. The random Number God Kicked their But

Or a combination of all 4.

Players keep playing because, it is the same philosophy as nethack.. maybe next time ill do better
Or they get better at it by learning how to play (skill)
There is no way to win that game, the reward is having a fort that survives awhile (long enough for you to screw with game mechanics) or dies in the most epic way possible (a la boatmurderd)


Rimworld in this case should be more like dwarf fortress (Not ftl/nethack)
Where skill AND randomness can factor into a death or win.
And "winning" is still very enjoyable because all eh death that happened before it. (A reward)

ok, try winning a rimworld game with 3 nobles as your starting colonist (or any other combination that prevents you from doing any manual labor)

this is what i meant by a chokepoint. no matter how good a player's gaming skill is, a bad roll becomes unwinnable. devs should be able to recognize these chokepoints and formulate new mechanics to deal with it, instead of relying on players themselves to mod them.

---------------------------

as for rogue-like games, i play rogue legacy and i know about the fun of randomness. but the difference between rogue legacy and rimworld randomness is that, a bad roll in rogue legacy is still winnable with player skill, so i consider rogue legacy a skill-based game.

a bad roll on rimworld or pixel piracy or FTL most likely results on a gameover or a reload, no matter how good the player's skill is, which is why i consider these games luck-based games because of certain chokepoints. (ie: a bad roll on 3 starter colonists in rimworld, a crappy captain and a crappier starting crew in pixel piracy, a string of bad luck in FTL).

----------------

anyways, it's not really a big deal. i was just playing pixel piracy before this and i was like.. "why the hell don't they just display the crew traits in the tavern so players can just easily choose who to hire?" so i kept wasting time save scumming to get the crew i want, which was intended to save me more time from being wasted, trying compensate for a bad roll, and i was like.. "ugh.. this is rimworld all over again.. pressing randomize over and over again just to get a decent starting crew"

and by that, i meant that both games are equally enjoyable, save for some randomized chokepoints that can potentially break the game or force players to invest more time to compensate for a very bad roll.

again, not a big deal. i just felt like sharing some needless frustration (which players need not experience by a few minor tweaks in game mechanics). haha. mod away peeps.

[a89a89]

#WallOfText

[StorymasterQ]

Keylocke, I see what you mean. You prefer a skill-based death than a luck-based one. That way, when someone sucks at the game, they will have to own up and say that they actually suck at the game, instead of enabling them to blame luck (or lack of it).

I agree that perhaps RimWorld should make an effort to ensure that starting colonists are able to do all work between themselves. They may not be good at it, or there may not be anyone who can do everything, or perhaps only one person can do all the necessaries (meaning you can't divide work), but at least it's not a Three Noble impossibility. The last one is a definite do-over, the rest are skill-based probable.

[keylocke]

Keylocke, I see what you mean. You prefer a skill-based death than a luck-based one. That way, when someone sucks at the game, they will have to own up and say that they actually suck at the game, instead of enabling them to blame luck (or lack of it).

I agree that perhaps RimWorld should make an effort to ensure that starting colonists are able to do all work between themselves. They may not be good at it, or there may not be anyone who can do everything, or perhaps only one person can do all the necessaries (meaning you can't divide work), but at least it's not a Three Noble impossibility. The last one is a definite do-over, the rest are skill-based probable.

affirmative