Comments on: Antipatterns: Elimination http://www.rule0.com/archives/58 We don't fight. We're Euro-Vikings. Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:20:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Nevin http://www.rule0.com/archives/58#comment-49 Nevin Mon, 08 May 2006 11:09:54 +0000 http://www.rule0.com/archives/58#comment-49 I see this pattern as part of a larger issue. When designing a game, you have to ask yourself whether you want it to feel like anyone could win up until the last turn, or if you want someone to be able to become the likely/obvious winner before then. (For these purposes, I consider a game where people are eliminated to be equivalent to a game where they are forced to play for a while after they lose hope of winning. Either way, it is boring for them.) Traditionally, games have been about elimination or the rich getting richer, but the modern Euro trend has brought an emphasis on keeping it "everyone's game" until the end. I don't think this issue can be solved as easily as saying that one way is always wrong. True, designers who don't know what they're doing often assume that their game has to involve player elimination, and players who don't know what they're doing often start a player-elmination game in the wrong situation, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the right mechanic to use sometimes. For one thing, Euros often feel contrived, and you can come away from some games feeling like the first 2/3s of it hadn't really mattered. If anyone can win at the end, why bother trying hard at the beginning? Also, games where everyone stays in the running until the end usually feel more abstract than games where you can knock people out or take a commanding lead. Theme is important to me in games, and the visceral thrill of knocking someone out often makes up for the frustrations that go along with it. I wouldn't call elimination an antipattern so much as saying that it's an element with significant strengths and weaknesses, and a game designer needs to carefully consider them when deciding how the game will work. I see this pattern as part of a larger issue. When designing a game, you have to ask yourself whether you want it to feel like anyone could win up until the last turn, or if you want someone to be able to become the likely/obvious winner before then. (For these purposes, I consider a game where people are eliminated to be equivalent to a game where they are forced to play for a while after they lose hope of winning. Either way, it is boring for them.) Traditionally, games have been about elimination or the rich getting richer, but the modern Euro trend has brought an emphasis on keeping it “everyone’s game” until the end.

I don’t think this issue can be solved as easily as saying that one way is always wrong. True, designers who don’t know what they’re doing often assume that their game has to involve player elimination, and players who don’t know what they’re doing often start a player-elmination game in the wrong situation, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t the right mechanic to use sometimes. For one thing, Euros often feel contrived, and you can come away from some games feeling like the first 2/3s of it hadn’t really mattered. If anyone can win at the end, why bother trying hard at the beginning? Also, games where everyone stays in the running until the end usually feel more abstract than games where you can knock people out or take a commanding lead. Theme is important to me in games, and the visceral thrill of knocking someone out often makes up for the frustrations that go along with it.

I wouldn’t call elimination an antipattern so much as saying that it’s an element with significant strengths and weaknesses, and a game designer needs to carefully consider them when deciding how the game will work.

]]> By: John http://www.rule0.com/archives/58#comment-47 John Sun, 07 May 2006 16:22:14 +0000 http://www.rule0.com/archives/58#comment-47 As an avid (probably obsessive) M:TG player I have considered multiple variants for the three player game. It can suffer horribly from both problems mentioned in this article. First by creating the "No one can win" scenario, then (in many games played by more experienced players) leaves the remaining two players in a stand off for a while because both have built up their defenses and saved the cards that deal with their opponents threats. Fortunately http://www.wizards.com/magic/welcome.asp?regionset=true has a lot of variants to try that mitigate these issues. One of the most inventive I think is “Zombie” where who ever dealt the killing blow to the first one out adds that person to their team. The player gets some amount of life back and continues to play from the board position they had. This encourages players to be offensive early so they can wipe someone out and gain the advantage. It also lets player do something after they have been eliminated. As an avid (probably obsessive) M:TG player I have considered multiple variants for the three player game. It can suffer horribly from both problems mentioned in this article. First by creating the “No one can win” scenario, then (in many games played by more experienced players) leaves the remaining two players in a stand off for a while because both have built up their defenses and saved the cards that deal with their opponents threats. Fortunately http://www.wizards.com/magic/welcome.asp?regionset=true has a lot of variants to try that mitigate these issues. One of the most inventive I think is “Zombie” where who ever dealt the killing blow to the first one out adds that person to their team. The player gets some amount of life back and continues to play from the board position they had. This encourages players to be offensive early so they can wipe someone out and gain the advantage. It also lets player do something after they have been eliminated.

]]> By: DrObviousSo http://www.rule0.com/archives/58#comment-46 DrObviousSo Fri, 05 May 2006 19:56:33 +0000 http://www.rule0.com/archives/58#comment-46 Brother brother and best friend across the road spent a lot of time trying to make M:tG work for three players. In that game, it always came down 2 people attacking each other, and the thrid killing off the surviver. We had the exact same problem with Risk. IIRC, the Vampire card game by white wolf required you to attack the person to your right only, and you could only activly defend against the person on your left. These two behaviors use a few common resources, but mostl they where seperate. I may not be remebering everything correctly though. Not sure. It seems like one other way to mitigate this is to award some sort of short term reward for victories that cost recourse to compensate for the lost resources. This is actually the opposite of what Risk does, where you get long term benifits from early battles, but you are usually pretty weak right after the fight. This encourages the third man out to move against you right as you are removing the first player. Brother brother and best friend across the road spent a lot of time trying to make M:tG work for three players. In that game, it always came down 2 people attacking each other, and the thrid killing off the surviver. We had the exact same problem with Risk.

IIRC, the Vampire card game by white wolf required you to attack the person to your right only, and you could only activly defend against the person on your left. These two behaviors use a few common resources, but mostl they where seperate. I may not be remebering everything correctly though. Not sure.

It seems like one other way to mitigate this is to award some sort of short term reward for victories that cost recourse to compensate for the lost resources. This is actually the opposite of what Risk does, where you get long term benifits from early battles, but you are usually pretty weak right after the fight. This encourages the third man out to move against you right as you are removing the first player.

]]>