This topic has been stirring in my head for a very long time, and at the end of the day way more complicated than this post will do justice. Attempts will be made!
Design of any consumable service follows the same general themes. You want the majority of people to take a specific path, allow for some variance, and put in guardrails for the lead chip lovers. I keep thinking of Lemmings in that sense… rarely will you hit 100%, and most realistic goals are to hit 80%.
In the game design space, this applies in the general sense, then again at the activity level. You want people to participate along a designed path and reach a designed end point. You build mechanisms to re-enforce that message, and try to keep people in the same general line. You launch and use various metrics to measure the success of those mechanisms. Then re-adjust, launch more mechanisms, and analyze FOREVER.
The trick here is the mechanisms, which typically fall into the carrot/stick archetypes. Reward good actions and punish bad ones. The scope of those impact the % of people who follow the line. Most of the time. In some games the end point is so poorly planned that players reach it early/late/never and the whole thing falls to pieces. I can’t say I’m surprised at how quickly Ragnaros dropped in WoW Classic, but I can say I’m disappointed that people thought that was the actual goal.
Good design has a linear path, appropriate ramps to get people on/off that path, and an end goal that players understand early on. It appears achievable, and is desirable. E.g. a car race and you want to be in 1st.
Great design has a non-linear path, and intersects with other systems. It has layered goals, that are not necessarily linear in structure, but have inter-dependencies. There’s a continuous feedback loop, and a gradual feeling of progress. e.g. pretty much any PnP RPG is built on this model.
Content vs Consumption
A big problem as games have become services. It always takes longer to build something than to break it down. 4 hours of baking and 15 minutes of eating. Years of research and writing, read in a half day. Where the wins come is from volume. If it’s 4 hours of baking, and 20 people take 15 minutes, well that’s a decent exchange. Sell 10,000 books, ok. Design for 6 months and 6,000 people play it… uh, maybe not?
Game designers have learned to depend on time-gating mechanics. Sure, the original reason was to slow down the locusts that broke other systems (gold faucet/sink economies are fragile in that respect) but as time went on, this started applying to everyone. The fatigue mechanic in nearly all F2P games is a good example, where the drive in monetization (and in a capitalistic sense, reasonable).
The fatigue mechanic in a system that cannot be bypassed… that gets irritating. Especially if you’re gating a high-volume/fun activity. But how do you know if that activity is viewed as fun, rather than simply rewarding? LFR in WoW is free epics, while the original goal was simply to expose raiding design investment to more of the population. Take out the epics and see how many people do LFR. I mean really, take out the epics and remove the raid lockout restrictions – see what happens.
It’s F2P and the monetization system is based on 2 streams: battle passes and cosmetics. From a financial perspective, they want people to take the battle pass, so the pricing structure clearly favors that, rather than 1-off customization options. But the design of the game is predicated almost entirely on group-based combat, so they need a lot of people to make it attractive.
So they made the battle pass work for both free players and paid players. Paid players get extra bonuses on that track, and a miniscule amount of extra drops in a fight (you get more if you don’t get knocked out). Progress on this bar is through 3 methods:
- Daily collections in town (for 100 pts)
- Random drops from hunts (really random…)
- Completing tasks (20, 40 or 100pts)
Tasks used to be assigned with 1 weekly and 3 dailies. They could be anything – hunt with repeaters, collect flowers, stun 5 times, attack with fire. If you got bad rolls, then you may end up with objectives you didn’t want to do. I dislike Pikes, and I really disliked any task that deal with Pikes. Not to mention the need to actually build a decent Pike first.
The new Bounty system provides 4 slots of tasks. You need a token (get some per week, as battle pass reward, or random drops) and that gives a random set of 3 tasks to pick from. In the 50 or so times I’ve done this, only once has there been 3 options I didn’t like – and it made me play the game in a fashion I disliked even more. In 75% of the cases, it had no impact at all since it mapped to my preferred playstyle. In the rest, it was a minor tweak (e.g. swap to a fire weapon, or focus on stunning rather than breaking) that made the fight marginally more interesting.
Now, clearly there are heatmaps and metrics and data sets that will come from this. I can’t imagine anyone purposefully selecting “collect 40 rocks” unless the other 2 options were more painful (e.g. use a grenade to stun). There’s some tweaking that’s left. Yet, the system itself does work. It lets you keep playing the way you want, but opens up alternatives that you may not have considered. It also means that multiple playstyles can all work to the same overall goal – so that a lowly Pike player can get success just as much as an Axe fanatic.
There is however a gap once people complete the battle pass. Since there’s no real hard time gating (a bit of RNG for extra token drops), entirely possible that people get it all done in a few days of hardcore grinding. But there’s still the long term mastery system goals, and the weekly time trials to keep folks going. Whether those two goals are actual things people want… another discussion, for another time.