Zero sum wargames
Jan. 28th, 2014 10:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luckykaaSeems there's big news in the EVE Online universe - someone forgot to pay their rent, resulting in quite an epic battle. We're seeing some impressive screenshots as a result.
This has actually made the news (even outside of the tech sites) because in this sort of game these conflicts are quite rare. Usually either one side is completely outmatched and will either be destroyed or will realise they're outmatched and bug out quickly. If they're evenly matched, the engagements don't usually happen in the first place. Battles are expensive in terms of in game money (this has a real world dollar cost as well, but that's less of a factor). Even if you win the engagement, your own losses are going to be considerable.
Generally speaking the winning move in war is not to play. Good advice in reality, but a serious problem for game design. Combat is fun! This is the only reason people are building warships that fire shells the size of railway locomotives at each other after all. It's not just EVE Online. I always found it disappointing that this was a losing strategy in Civilization as well, and outside of the downtime system, But it's not an easy situation to solve. It's possible to make combat the sole purpose of the game, which is fun, but it's still nice to have some sort of continuity, especially in a multiplayer game.
Violence needs to be incentivised more than "it's fun". Somehow this doesn't seem to fit the players' mental narrative - another oddity in game design is that players don't always work in their own best interests.
Ultimately what we need is a prize. This is what we have in this situation and why we have the battle we see here. The prize is the control of the entire sector. It's a useful lesson in game design.
This has actually made the news (even outside of the tech sites) because in this sort of game these conflicts are quite rare. Usually either one side is completely outmatched and will either be destroyed or will realise they're outmatched and bug out quickly. If they're evenly matched, the engagements don't usually happen in the first place. Battles are expensive in terms of in game money (this has a real world dollar cost as well, but that's less of a factor). Even if you win the engagement, your own losses are going to be considerable.
Generally speaking the winning move in war is not to play. Good advice in reality, but a serious problem for game design. Combat is fun! This is the only reason people are building warships that fire shells the size of railway locomotives at each other after all. It's not just EVE Online. I always found it disappointing that this was a losing strategy in Civilization as well, and outside of the downtime system, But it's not an easy situation to solve. It's possible to make combat the sole purpose of the game, which is fun, but it's still nice to have some sort of continuity, especially in a multiplayer game.
Violence needs to be incentivised more than "it's fun". Somehow this doesn't seem to fit the players' mental narrative - another oddity in game design is that players don't always work in their own best interests.
Ultimately what we need is a prize. This is what we have in this situation and why we have the battle we see here. The prize is the control of the entire sector. It's a useful lesson in game design.
