Increasing Game Space

[CygnusX]

An idea in BBG design is to increase game space by offering more choices to the user.  This, imo, is a good practice as additional choices makes a game more difficult (as a player) to optimize, and attempting to optimize the development of your character/kingdom/ship/etc provides a sense of fun for the player.

But, consider a player that buys choice A 3 times, then buys choice B 3 times against a player that buys choice B 3 times then choice A 3 times.  The end result is the same.  Even though the two players upgraded different items at different times, their final destination is identical.  This severely decreases the game space, imo, making things perhaps a bit too simplistic.

So what are some options here to increase the game space?  I have considered:

1) Have choice A provide additional income whereas Choice B provides additional military strength.  The idea here is that one player will be able to gain more funds over time based on their choice (ie, through military gains, or through natural income).  Even when both accounts get to 3 A upgrades and 3 B upgrades, the net income inbetween will be different.

2) Change the value of choice B based on time.  As the player advances through the game, the cost of option B will go up.  Thus, even if choice B is not the best choice currently, it may be the best choice in the long run.  You give up earnings early game to have better choices late game.

3) Opposite of 2 - Change the value of choice B to lower over time.  So, while B may be the best choice currently, it will be an even better choice if you can hold out long enough to buy it at a discount.  But will your military gains suffer inbetween?

4) Choice B can be stolen.  Though it might seem to provide a better economics benefit, there is a chance another player can steal it from you.

Other options?  This is all I have thought up so far.  As I've been thinking through a lot of the design elements in my game recently, this topic has come up often in my mind.   

[Chris]

An idea in BBG design is to increase game space by offering more choices to the user.  This, imo, is a good practice as additional choices makes a game more difficult (as a player) to optimize, and attempting to optimize the development of your character/kingdom/ship/etc provides a sense of fun for the player.

And that's why you voted during Business Minigame Competition on the game that had the most options, the most optimization dilemmas and the highest level of difficulty And you were not "scared" by agonizing difficult decisions like setting the price

Even though the two players upgraded different items at different times, their final destination is identical.

In Lords I have various technologies that are basicly all bought by all players in the end. I was proposing to change it but players countred it by saying that while indeed they end up with the same set of technologies they have a different order of buying of these which changes their strategies heavily and in reality they do not have the same technologies even though they end up with identical technologies

Change [...] based on time.

Bad.

Choice can be stolen.

It does not sound exciting or playable...

consider a player that buys choice A 3 times, then buys choice B 3 times against a player that buys choice B 3 times then choice A 3 times.

Provide more options. And more interlocking options.
a) flat economy bonus
b) economy bonus based on population
c) increase population growth
d) increase military strength based on weapons
e) increase military strength based on population
f) increase economy bonus and weapon production

[CygnusX]

I always love your input Chris     

And that's why you voted during Business Minigame Competition on the game that had the most options, the most optimization dilemmas and the highest level of difficulty And you were not "scared" by agonizing difficult decisions like setting the price

I liken the economics game design challenge to cooking dinner.  When I'm all alone, I can easily get buy with a bowl of soup, or a simple sandwich.  This is what Zeggy provided... a quick, clean, somewhat-comical simulation game.  When I'm with friends/family, I like a big banquet sized meal.  This is more in line with what you provided.  In contrast, Lords is many times more complicated than Zeggy's economics game, and provides lots of social interaction.  Guess which one I've spent more time playing (and by +1000:1 time ratio).  Hint:  its the large banquet type : P

In Lords I have various technologies that are basically all bought by all players in the end. I was proposing to change it but players countered it by saying that while indeed they end up with the same set of technologies they have a different order of buying of these which changes their strategies heavily and in reality they do not have the same technologies even though they end up with identical technologies

Lords has a few technologies that encapsulate the idea I'm after.  Coronation, for example, gives a flat % gain to glory, and provides +1 citizens / day.  This is great as the user is forced to give up large glory gains by waiting until the end of the game, or give up population throughout the length of the game... both of which are very important for overall score (as population increases income, glory increase score).  This duality of score vs. income increases diversity of outcome, which is why I think it is one of the best technologies in the game.

The only problem with the above is that I do not want to present 2 sides of every choice.    I desire diversity in choice types, which is why I'm going to restate my previous considerations and give a lords type equivalent.  I think you will appreciate it more this way:

2) Change the value of choice B based on time.  What if Walls/Rams start at 500 a piece, but raised by 2 GP per population?  By the time you had 250 recruits, the cost of Walls/Rams has doubled (you could justify this by saying living quarters makes building walls more difficult, etc).  This again forces a split decision, though of a slightly different type (ie, the cost is money, not a permanent asset such as glory or population).  If Walls/Rams are not a highly valued choice early game for increasing power, they very well may be a highly valued choice later in the game....  but now the cost is double.  If only you had built them previously, you could have saved lots of money.  But would it be worth the interim loss of gains through combat?  This is a great conflicting choice imo.

4) Choice B can be stolen.  Lets say players could steal technologies in Lords.  This probably wouldn't work well specifically to your game, but the idea is still viable to me.  Perhaps gaining +1 citizen/day tech is a highly valued option.  Knowing it is so highly valued, and knowing other players are sure to get it, you opt not to in hopes of being able to steal it for free.  You could then, if successful, use your money elsewhere to gain a tactical advantage.  Again, we set up a conflicting, risky choice in hopes of big rewards.

I've believe that the core of just about every BBG is the same.  There are lots of variations, but the types of choices we present to the users, and their effects, are rarely unique to our specific game.  My goal was simply to identify as many choice types as I could to help design for additional diversity.  That, and sometimes, I just like talking things out through the forum 

[Chris]

I liken the economics game design challenge to cooking dinner.

Some see browser games as a quick lunch not as a banquet. Anyway, as long as you see at least *some* exceptions to the thing you wrote I'm content

Change the value of choice B based on time.  What if Walls/Rams start at 500 a piece, but raised by 2 GP per population?

Then it is based on an asset not on time. I was opposed only to direct affecting choices by passage of time.

are not a highly valued choice early game for increasing power, they very well may be a highly valued choice later in the game

I would call it "small early vs big late benefit dilemma". I'm a big fan of this mechanic, but be warned, it is a dangerous one. I used it to this extend in Lords by choice, and I knew I would lose some players because of it. You have to be very careful, you can easily turn a game into boring one if you abuse it. Right now I'm very careful to not introduce any further dilemmas of this type to Lords, these are already on borderline quantity.

In a degenerated case you would turn the game into saving all the time and then in the last day one big battle that determine everything.

Actually, I have some mechanics to counter this dilemma. Like universities and requirement of technologies to unlock more technologies (prevention of saving to unlock the best top tier technologies).

Choice B can be stolen.

Since I know you won't get offended I will use the most precise words to convey my thoughts, "this is lame"

[CygnusX]

Some see browser games as a quick lunch not as a banquet. Anyway, as long as you see at least *some* exceptions to the thing you wrote I'm content Smiley

There are always exceptions.  (Pardon the cheesiness of the joke.)

You have to be very careful, you can easily turn a game into boring one if you abuse it.

Agreed, which is why I'm looking for a diversity of options.  Having a major pro and major con coupled to all choices is certainly not a good design.  But the reverse is also true.  Having only Pros (and no cons) means that one pro is greater than another pro, which reduces game space.  Eventually, players will learn which pro is the best, and focus it.  This reduces replayability, which is undesirable.  My desire is for a diverse variety of complicated options.  Some may have direct tradeoffs... some may have indirect tradeoffs... and some are just purely positive.

The trick, of course, is in the combination of all choices.

Since I know you won't get offended I will use the most precise words to convey my thoughts, "this is lame" Cheesy

: P  No offense taken.  But, I'm going to give a second example just to try my luck.  What if we had a mechanic where a player could purchase land, and land produced gold/resources.  And as part of this mechanic, you could steal another players land only if they had more land than you.  The choice then becomes one of land/gold/resources vs. military strength.   Typically, gaining additional income would be the better option as you could always upgrade your military later, making more money in the interim.  However, this 'better choice' has many associated risk... namely, losing the very thing you purchased and all the money you put into it.