Forced wait between actions. Does it hook the players more?

[hiigara]

As opposed to the traditional browser games where you actions are performed immediately as long as you have turns, lots of games these days, like evony, include a 3 minute-5minutes delay between clicking a button and actually get something built or getting a soldier trained.
For example in a soccer game I have seen you click a button to send a player to the gym, and then you have to wait the 3 minutes or so before the skill is increased and the player is available again.

• This delay has nothing to do with limiting the number of times you can do something, no. The actions usually cost resources, and this cost in itself limits the number of times you can do it. For example in evony it costs gold, or stone or whatever to build something, and it cost progressively more the higher the level of the building. So even if the building is finished instantaneously you may have to wait another 12 hours for your resources to fill up again before you upgrade it to the next level. Sometimes when the building is finished a new cheap upgrade or action is available and you can perform it immediately. So this trick keeps you glued to the screen waiting to see what new goodies will be available when the building is finished.
  
• The delay has nothing to do with strategy either. Although games like evony claim to be real time, they are not like command and conquer where you can loose your base in 30 seconds. The fact that the building is finished now or in 3 minutes is not going to alter the faith of your city.
  

So basically while a traditional game you play all your turns in 20 minutes and are satisfied for the day, games with forced wait will keep you artificially logged in for 1 hour or more to achieve the same you could achieve in 20 minutes.
My question is do these small delays make the game more addictive or not?

[Mutant]

I think with a lot of these games it's just a way to get you to pay. Usually if you pay something, you can speed up your building, etc.

Personally, I hate when a game makes me wait around for something to happen. A minute or two is maybe OK, but any longer starts to get ridiculous.

[Sim]

I believe small delays do hook players more instead of instant results.. To long of delays may cause troubles though as Mutant said.

[coreyman]

I feel the same as sim and mutant.

Like on kingdom of loathing - you have to wait a whole day to refill your adventures on one character before you can go again. It makes you want to create multiple characters.

[Chris]

I dislike waiting, could not make myself to play such games even if tried hard (but I played one like that for a whole week once! That's my lifetime record ). But I'm probably not a kind of player that is worth marketing efforts anyway...

[hiigara]

I found an article which may shed some light on the subject:
http://www.kongregate.com/forums/91-game-design/topics/181954-deeper-topic-futile-actions-and-useless-wastes-of-time

The way I see it, in the subconscious of the player, if something is just a little harder to get, then it becomes more valuable and something to pursue. Of course some people may not like it, but you cannot satisfy everybody, you have to concentrate on milking the players who pay.

[Nox]

I guess it does, although I despise any intentional focus on addictivness

[Chris]

you have to concentrate on milking the players who pay.

Continue thinking that way lead to quitting making games, because statisticly there are always more profitable ventures (business software for example) that make you earn money much faster and with less effort
(don't delude yourself, game programmers ALWAYS earn less that their business programmers collegues)

[hiigara]

Continue thinking that way lead to quitting making games, because statisticly there are always more profitable ventures (business software for example) that make you earn money much faster and with less effort
(don't delude yourself, game programmers ALWAYS earn less that their business programmers collegues)

I agree:

• in terms of business there are more profitable and safer ventures than games. In normal conditions I would rather invest 20,000€ to start my own small groceries store or newsagent than in a risky business like games, in fact than in any software business.
  Investing your life savings in software is generally a bad idea, if you don't have other sources of revenue.
• Game programmers not only are not payed very well, but very often they are pushed harder with deadlines after deadlines, than programmers in other areas. I think you are referring to employees, not self-employed programmers. Right?

But, if I am going to write a game, I am going to aim high, even if I don't intend to support myself with its income, even if I am writing the game motivated mostly by pure pleasure.
"You will not reach a higher goal than you set for yourself"
If zynga brings a gun to a fight, I am not going to fight them with a sword.

[Chris]

you are referring to employees, not self-employed programmers. Right?

Well, if you are self employed you are even more pushed for deadlines and if you fail you eat no breakfast No, the employees have it easier

"You will not reach a higher goal than you set for yourself"
If zynga brings a gun to a fight, I am not going to fight them with a sword.

Finally someone with a proper mind set No whinning and no "I can't do it".

[CygnusX]

There is a good article on wikipedia on positive and negative reinforcement.  A part of it discusses reward intervals.  Basically, you have the following:

Constant reward - you get a reward for every click
Variable reward - you get rewarded randomly
Ratio reward - you get a reward for every 5th click

The problem with constant and variable rewards is that players tend to click as fast as possible for a few burst seconds, and then stop once they've obtained the thing they want.  This leads to extinction of the clicking behavior.  Players call this 'not fun'.

With variable rewards, players tend to click for longer periods of time because you never known when the next click is going to yield big results.  This is why casino games are made the way they are.

There is another phenomenon of decay.  Ie, you can slowly increase the time between rewards, but doing this too quickly leads to extinction (ie, players saying things are no longer fun).  And for whatever reason, players see the random rewards as fun and exciting.

The best combination, IMO, is a game where 1) a user can take as many turns as they want, 2) there is a brief delay between actions 3) rewards are both random and fixed-ratio, with the time between reward increased very slowly to a maximum cap.