Population Control Methods

Todd D. has responded to my post on the mathematics of vampire games and request for ideas on how to handle the inherent problems by suggesting:

Todd D. said...
Ideas:
-The vampires are more wrapped up in internal politics and infighting once their numbers increase?
-Bloodline dilution - the newer vampires are less awesome than the master vampires and more vulnerable...
-The human population begins responding more effectively as the threat is known. Perhaps vampire hunters arise spontaneously and make certain areas more difficult to hunt? This would be more interactive as each vampire player now has choices of where to hunt, and whether to eat the easy humans or fight vampire hunters.

Let's take a look at each of these in turn.

1) The vampires are more wrapped up in internal politics and infighting once their numbers increase

This idea has several things going for it. Firstly, it solves the problem. It represents an inefficiency that appears once a certain population size has been reached. Secondly, it represents a "rubber-band" mechanic that automatically helps game balance. If one player pulled too far ahead early, the rubber-band would slow him or her down and help the other players catch up. (Google "Mario Kart blue shell" for the best example of this kind of design.) Lastly, it is thematic. Vampires are often depicted as directly fighting each other as the clan grows stronger.

2) Bloodline dilution - the newer vampires are less awesome than the master vampires and more vulnerable

This idea does solve the problem. Having new vampires be "weaker" should prevent the exponential growth curve normally seen. One could also claim it is thematic. However, my problem with this suggestion is that it makes for a boring endgame. If you look at most games, the power curve is upward-sloping. Players like the idea that they're building something greater than that with which they started. Games should build to an exciting crescendo. The last couple turns of a game with a downward-sloping power curve would be anticlimactic.

3) The human population begins responding more effectively as the threat is known. Perhaps vampire hunters arise spontaneously and make certain areas more difficult to hunt? This would be more interactive as each vampire player now has choices of where to hunt, and whether to eat the easy humans or fight vampire hunters.

This idea is my favorite one of the bunch, for several reasons.

First, it definitely solves the problem. The humans becoming more resilient as the vampire population grows would turn the exponential growth curve into a much flatter one that only asymptotically approached 100%.

Secondly, it is dripping in flavor. Humans taking notice of the fact that half of their neighbors suddenly don't reflect in mirrors makes sense. Humans have always had a singular love of responding to threats with violence.

Thirdly, it increases interaction. This would incentivize staying away from certain risky areas, leading to more conflict between players vying for the few safe harbors.

Finally, it does the opposite of the previous idea when it comes to the game's power curve. As the game progresses, things get harder for the vampires and players need stronger units and more complex maneuvering to achieve dominance over the other players amid the growing human menace. The game can sit on a razor's edge as bigger risks are taken for the few remaining resources. Now that sounds like an exciting endgame.

What do you think? Which of Todd's ideas is the best? Do you have a better method? Let me know in the comments.

Vampire Games Require Zombie Math

The Freakonomics blog highlighted a mathematical analysis of a zombie attack. This is pretty nice timing for me.

It is no secret that (good) game design generally involves a strong grasp of mathematics. Messrs. Knizia and Garfield each have a PhD in Mathematics that predates their design careers.

This is not a coincidence, as they are not alone among game designers in being mathematically inclined. Designing a complex, interactive system that doesn't spin out of control requires an ability to intuitively understand the math of that system.

Some weeks ago, I had the following back-and-forth with a gaming friend of mine:

Dan:
vampire themed board game based on resource (humans) management. start working on it

Me:
Brilliant! Oh, man I actually think that is a pretty cool idea.

Dan:
i figure you all play as a vampire house...and when yu eat people, they join you, but then you have to support your house and there are less people to feed on...etc

Me:
I was also thinking a house, but you would have two choices for each human captured: convert to vampire or turn into food. There would also have to be a mechanic about human population control. Take too many humans, and the population disappears.

Dan:
your point about population is my thought exactly, and that will be one of the key strategic impacts - balancing the population while at the same time feeding...maybe even protecting your "herd" from opposing houses?

Me:
I'm still trying to figure out how the interactive component would work.

I have other projects I'm currently working on, so I haven't done much with the idea since then. But I did turn it over in my mind for a few hours here and there, and one of the problems with a vampire resource management game is that the system seems perfectly designed to spiral out of control and collapse in on itself at the end.

Now I have a formal proof of what I had intuited. The paper I linked to at the start of this post mathematically models a zombie attack. Though the game idea concerned vampires, the paper was still relevant.

Zombies and vampires, while obviously different in the real world (ahem), are mechanically quite similar in games. They both attack humans for food (be it brains or blood). They both reproduce by converting humans. Thus they both run into the problem of their population growing as their food supply shrinks.

When I do get around to designing around this idea, I'll need to find a balance between vampire population growth and human population preservation. If you have any suggestions on how to do this, let me know in the comments.

Economy of Design

The Economist had an article a couple of weeks back on design trends in consumer electronics. It discussed the Flip Mino and the Asus Eee PC. It did not find them notable for their features, but for their success despite the lack thereof.

What impressed him about the design was not simply the gadget’s diminutive proportions and low price, but the way the developers had so ruthlessly resisted all the marketing pressure to add further features—and had single-mindedly maintained the design’s clarity of purpose.

I call attention to this article because it highlights something that has always bothered me. In the race to differentiate their product from the competition, designers pile on feature after feature; it reaches the point where the features far exceed anything the consumer can mentally process.

What does this have to do with game design?

Whenever I compare my prototypes, later versions invariably have one glaring difference from their predecessors: simplicity. I have realized that I tend to pile on mechanics (features) in my initial designs. It is only through testing that I (painfully) whittle away rules, choices, and mechanics from a prototype in an effort to make it both comprehensible and playable by my target audience.

In Pioneer, I used to have two in-game reverse auction points. This was important for two reasons.

First, it fit in with the flavor of the game. It made sense for pioneers to reach a "last outpost" at which to restock for the rest of their journey.

Second, it helped with gameplay. The auction point at the start of the game would take too long if players had to buy twice as many goods to last the entire length of the trail.

However, because of the nature of how goods were priced in this reverse auction, it represented a major speed bump in gameplay. It required far too many cards to be on the table at the same time, resulting in information overload.

I eventually eliminated this auction point and substituted a simple mechanic where players could buy cards from the top of the deck. Flavor-wise, it makes no sense. Gameplay-wise, it introduces the randomness I dread. However, I think it was the right move. The game is just more . . . fun, even if I feel the design is less interesting.

So which method of design is superior? Should a designer go my route, starting with an overwhelmingly complex jungle of features and cutting the vines away until a clear gameplay path emerges? Or should a designer follow the example of consumer electronics companies, beginning with a simple game and adding features until it becomes "superior" to existing games?

What do you think? Let me know in the comments.

New Round of Submissions

I have given up on hearing back from publisher alpha, to whom I sent my prototype for Titans of Industry almost a full year ago.

I completely understand if a publisher doesn't want to look at a prototype. I understand if a publisher looks at a prototype and decides it is not good enough. I understand if a publisher is busy and will take a long time, or even longer than expected, to look at it.

However, what has annoyed me about this publisher is that it gave me a time frame for looking at the prototype and not only didn't get back to me by then, but hasn't gotten back to me at all or responded to multiple e-mails spread over many months. Zero response. Not even a "we can't get to it right now". Just silence.

I find that to be unprofessional and will not approach this publisher again. I know that they won't care, or even know, that I have decided this. But I feel it is important to not be treated so rudely.

Anyway this is my way of explaining that I have made a couple of changes to Titans of Industry, printed up a new prototype, boxed it up (as seen in the picture), and shipped it to publisher Beta (with whom I've been in contact over the past couple of months.

I intend to send them another one of my games soon, probably something significantly lighter, in order to cover whatever they may be looking for right now.