given that the coliseum has been a hot topic what with the warrior's way event & the agility changes (which may not have worked out as intended, according to anectodal evidence), i figure now is a good time to discuss the coliseum as a site activity & the nature of player engagement.
i've chosen to make a thread on the topic of coliseum design philosophy- its place & scope as a site activity, the current eliminate meta, the impact of dodge as a system, and thoughts of consideration for a future revamp, in order to bring more visibility to what the playerbase's opinion is on the subject.
even if the following wall of text is inaccessible to read (approx. 9 min reading time; 2,5k words), i encourage you to share your opinion on the afromentioned topics, regardless of my original post. the more words, the merrier discussion.
-
///introduction
as it stands right now, the coliseum, as a site activity, is one of the primary means for players to gain wealth. the system requires player investment in three primary areas- time to actively play, study to know how to play, and attention to what's going on. currently, the amount of personal resource investment required for each, follows the list i wrote- most of all, it requires time, and least of all, it requires attention.
any game, be it turn-based (and especially turn-based, in fact) or otherwise, will inevitably have an optimized, min-max strategy, a most efficient tactic which creates the best ratio between player investment and system return. it is simply how people work when engaging with videogames that demand their time and attention, because people value their time and attention, and the game should respect that.
in order to respect the player engaging in any site activity, their experience should match their expectations. i do not go into the coliseum expecting to play a robust turn-based combat game which will challenge my skills. i go into the coliseum expecting to invest time in order to gain wealth within the larger system of the dragon pet site, using my dragons, by engaging with a mini-game, which is simple enough that it does not require the same amount of attention as a fully fledged turn-based combat game. this is essential, as i expect to be able to multi-task while engaging with the coliseum.
///the status quo
i expect this, because this has been the coliseum experience, consistently, for the entirety of the years i've been engaging with this site activity. it was this experience specifically, that made me interested in it to begin with. given that a coliseum revamp is going to come eventually, i think it's important to mention how changing extant systems to remove player power or playstyle choices almost invariably ends up creating a negative experience, scaling in severity proportionally to the time player power had been at a certain level, as well as the number of players relying on accessing that power within the system.
people are used to eliminate builds, they're used to having the ability to auto-pilot the coliseum if they so choose. the addition of keyboard controls made that even easier, and it was an absolute blessing; it increased accessibility, and was overall a good move from the developers, which increased player engagement with the coliseum, and thus, indirectly, with the site as a whole. to state the obvious, when developers make changes aimed at reducing frustration and increasing ease of use, player engagement and retention increases. of course, such changes need to be carefully measured for long-term impact, it is not as simple as applying every common suggestion; a balance must be struck between player desire, and game design concerns.
the increased accessibility and ease of use further cemented the primary use of the coliseum as a site activity- an accessible time-sink for players who wish to attain wealth. this is to say, now that eliminate builds have existed for years, they cannot in good conscience be taken away, as it would alienate a massive number of players. were a coliseum revamp to remove this playstyle altogether, the vast majority of players would be various shades of furious. it is to be expected- when an individual is used to requiring a certain level of investment for certain returns, and all of a sudden, the investment requirements skyrocket, while the returns stay the same... well, that's gonna be upsetting.
to give an example- currently the elder scrolls online community is expressing perhaps the greatest developer dissatisfaction it has ever had, as the developers have overhauled certain aspects of combat which drastically changed how the game plays, as well as reducing player power. needless to say, the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. people don't like it when the good things that they've become used to are taken away from them, plain and simple.
the coliseum can never have a clean slate, as it is a system that many players have engaged with over the years in a certain manner, cementing certain expectations. the developers should take the status quo in mind, rather than attempting to create a completely new experience. eliminate builds should never go away. they should always remain an option; and for the goal of making the coliseum more engaging and fun, there should be other options given that have rewards proportionately balanced around the status quo- the eliminate builds.
///complexity
however, the coliseum doesn't need to be only "an accessible time-sink for players who wish to attain wealth", completely revolving around eliminate builds. a future revamp should ideally give the players more options for playstyle expression, but this should absolutely not be done at the expense of the current meta playstyle; rather, in addition to it. this, however, would be a great challenge for the game developers.
if flight rising was to pursue creating an engaging coliseum experience by turning it into a robust turn-based combat game, they would need to invest a significant amount of developer resources in order to create a well-balanced, fun experience. given that the coliseum is merely one of many activities within the site, expanding the scope of its complexity does not seem like a justified or necessary investment, as the goals of the site presumably do not include providing a combat experience on par with stand-alone turn-based combat games.
i want to stress here that creating any sort of combat game that goes beyond rudimentary number-crunching and dice rolls, requires significantly more developer effort than most players believe it does. the coliseum, with the complexity scope it has right now, is well balanced between developer investment, and player site activity offering. it would be hard to justify attempting to overhaul its complexity.
///solutions
even if the flight rising developers were to invest into creating an experience that is actively hostile towards autopilot strategies on a design level, all it would accomplish is creating player frustration. because the majority of people who use the coliseum frequently will apply a most efficient tactic; and in time, will inevitably be able to execute that tactic on autopilot, through repetiton. not to mention the status quo point made above.
the simpler a game is, the easier it is to discover optimized autopilot strategies. i'd even argue that this is borderline necessary, in order to retain player engagement with the game. most players will quickly find the game boring if they feel their investment is disproportionate to the returns- be they in fun-having, or wealth-acquiring. expecting the coliseum to be something more complex than (or antithetical to) a minigame accessible for players who wish to play it on autopilot and multi-task, in my opinion, conflicts with the scope of this site activity.
however, in order to offer a broader and richer experience, i believe the best thing that the flight rising developers can do for the coliseum revamp would be to incentivize broader playstyles not by taking away power from min-maxed autopilot tactics, but by offering greater rewards to more engaging playstyles. i.e. if you want to play on autopilot, go level fodder in the mire. if you want to be engaged, take a fully leveled team to the highest level venue, and apply more complex tactics, thereby obtaining greater wealth through better loot, at the cost of needing to engage more meaningfully with the system, by investing more attention alongside time spent.
in order to achieve these, the development team would have plenty of questions to answer- how would these playstyles look?, where could the additional complexity be introduced?, how could the rewards be proportional, when considering eliminate playstyle's rewards?, how balance???, etc.; there are many design challenges that we could openly discuss, but going into such detail is beyond the scope of this thread. except for one thing...
///dodge
humans love consistency.
not removing dodge will not make players go to the coliseum less.
removing dodge, however, will make players have a better experience.
humans hate frustration.
dodge as a mechanic is one of those things that sneaks its way into nearly every game in existence, because it's one of the most basic means of avoiding damage; by moving within three dimensional space. not to bring broader game design talk into the mix, but attempting to apply a dodge system to a 2D, turn-based game, has never ended well when said dodge system was tied primarily to RNG.
while there is an AGI stat that one could invest into, it is known that it is largely irrelevant, as dodging is not completely reliant on AGI, thus there is no minimum AGI requirement to essentially remove dodge from the mix. and even if there was, unless it would be balanced around also being able to meet the required SPD & STR for the eliminate builds, it wouldn't be used. (note: try AGI15+ build)
i believe it is essential to offer the players the ability to never encounter dodges, whether by removing the system entirely, or by offering impactful build choices. it is also essential to strongly consider the status quo when offering player agency, balancing around current expectations, so as to avoid removing too much player power. as mentioned above, that never ends well, and is likely to tank the bottomline of player engagement with the game.
this site, as well as any entertainment form that involves players interacting, absolutely NEEDS players to engage with it as often and as loyally as possible. this is why things such as baldwin exist- it gives you incentive to check the site every half hour. and while you're there, you might as well engage with other parts of the site. for a healthy ecosystem, consistent & sustainable player engagement is essential.
player retention and engagement is best cultivated by keeping players happy. it is in flight rising's best interest to offer a pleasant & rewarding experience to as broad a player base as possible, through as many site activities as possible, accomodating a wide variety of playstyles and engagement level choices. the less frustration a player feels when engaging with a site activity, the better. dodges in the coliseum create frustration, not complexity.
///personal experience
here is a practical, anectodal example, of why drastically changing the status quo in a way that harms current playstyles would be a mistake & why removing player frustration points can lead to greater engagement.
personally, i frequently engage with the coliseum, exclusively to level fodder in the mire, because i can do this while i'm doing something else- such as watching a video. i do have to check the coliseum screen periodically, due to captchas and dodges. i understand the need for the former, and the latter frustrates me. my experience could be made better by removing dodge, whether completely, or by offering a balanced build choice that can be integrated within the current minimum requirements for the mire build to work.
regardless, this is the only way i engage with this site activity.
if a future coliseum change would make it so that i cannot engage with it in this manner, such as requiring me to always look at the coliseum, and think about what i'm doing, i would simply stop engaging with this site activity. in doing so, i would engage with the site less in general. no longer buying, training and exalting fodder; this leading to having less wealth, as well as less opportunity for organically finding dragons to collect; this in turn would lead to having less incentive to invest personal resources into the site; this in turn...
you see where i'm going with this.
for a positive impact, if dodge were to be removed, personally, i'd engage with the coliseum even more than i already do. like i mentioned before, i only do so when i have another activity which leaves my hands free; such as watching a video. sometimes, however, i simply am not in the mood to shift my attention to refresh the coliseum whenever i notice a dodge in my peripheral vision (this, crucially, being more disruptive than a captcha). therefore, i do not engage with the coliseum whenever i theoretically can, only when i have the patience & energy to deal with the frustration of dodges. i don't expect to never have to shift my attention; but i'd like it not to be frustrating when i have to do so.
the captchas, like the dodges, are a mechanism that draw my attention away; however, despite the fact that they can be difficult for somebody with vision impairment, they do not frustrate me like dodges do, simply and completely because they serve a very tangible & necessary purpose- to prevent scipting/botting. by having this quantifiable value, the captchas are different from the dodges. they're tolerable, and (arguably) fair, by virtue of their necessity.
-
///conclusion
in closing, obviously players have a wide variety of playstyles they enjoy, both within the larger scope of the site, and within the coliseum. for some, efficient collection of wealth is not a concern. i respect that, and i believe those players should have the option to engage with any and all site activities in a manner that fulfills their own priorities; just as well as players like me should have the option to engage in an efficient manner.
every player, regardless of playstyle, deserves to have a good, frustration-free experience, and it is the responsibility of the developers to assure this and maintain balance between the wide plethora of factors that influence their decisions. it goes without saying that this is a challenging endeavor, deserving of respect. as players, it is up to us to respectfully offer feedback based on our experience, in order to help developers make informed decisions.
my words & opinion are largely centered around my own experience & expectations, thus are limited by these factors. with this consideration in mind, i wanted to incite broader discussion on the topic, where players with different priorities are invited to express their own feedback & concerns.
///TL;DR:
1. remove dodge.
complete & universal removal right now, then reintroduce but allow the option for complete dodge mitigation through build choices in the revamp.
2. incentivize non-eliminate playstyles through greater rewards in both fun and wealth, but keep current eliminately playstyles viable, with their current investment/reward ratio.
let people be efficient if they want to be.
give people greater rewards for greater investment.
choice is good. ease of access is good.
frustrating game mechanics are bad.
i've chosen to make a thread on the topic of coliseum design philosophy- its place & scope as a site activity, the current eliminate meta, the impact of dodge as a system, and thoughts of consideration for a future revamp, in order to bring more visibility to what the playerbase's opinion is on the subject.
even if the following wall of text is inaccessible to read (approx. 9 min reading time; 2,5k words), i encourage you to share your opinion on the afromentioned topics, regardless of my original post. the more words, the merrier discussion.
-
///introduction
as it stands right now, the coliseum, as a site activity, is one of the primary means for players to gain wealth. the system requires player investment in three primary areas- time to actively play, study to know how to play, and attention to what's going on. currently, the amount of personal resource investment required for each, follows the list i wrote- most of all, it requires time, and least of all, it requires attention.
any game, be it turn-based (and especially turn-based, in fact) or otherwise, will inevitably have an optimized, min-max strategy, a most efficient tactic which creates the best ratio between player investment and system return. it is simply how people work when engaging with videogames that demand their time and attention, because people value their time and attention, and the game should respect that.
in order to respect the player engaging in any site activity, their experience should match their expectations. i do not go into the coliseum expecting to play a robust turn-based combat game which will challenge my skills. i go into the coliseum expecting to invest time in order to gain wealth within the larger system of the dragon pet site, using my dragons, by engaging with a mini-game, which is simple enough that it does not require the same amount of attention as a fully fledged turn-based combat game. this is essential, as i expect to be able to multi-task while engaging with the coliseum.
///the status quo
i expect this, because this has been the coliseum experience, consistently, for the entirety of the years i've been engaging with this site activity. it was this experience specifically, that made me interested in it to begin with. given that a coliseum revamp is going to come eventually, i think it's important to mention how changing extant systems to remove player power or playstyle choices almost invariably ends up creating a negative experience, scaling in severity proportionally to the time player power had been at a certain level, as well as the number of players relying on accessing that power within the system.
people are used to eliminate builds, they're used to having the ability to auto-pilot the coliseum if they so choose. the addition of keyboard controls made that even easier, and it was an absolute blessing; it increased accessibility, and was overall a good move from the developers, which increased player engagement with the coliseum, and thus, indirectly, with the site as a whole. to state the obvious, when developers make changes aimed at reducing frustration and increasing ease of use, player engagement and retention increases. of course, such changes need to be carefully measured for long-term impact, it is not as simple as applying every common suggestion; a balance must be struck between player desire, and game design concerns.
the increased accessibility and ease of use further cemented the primary use of the coliseum as a site activity- an accessible time-sink for players who wish to attain wealth. this is to say, now that eliminate builds have existed for years, they cannot in good conscience be taken away, as it would alienate a massive number of players. were a coliseum revamp to remove this playstyle altogether, the vast majority of players would be various shades of furious. it is to be expected- when an individual is used to requiring a certain level of investment for certain returns, and all of a sudden, the investment requirements skyrocket, while the returns stay the same... well, that's gonna be upsetting.
to give an example- currently the elder scrolls online community is expressing perhaps the greatest developer dissatisfaction it has ever had, as the developers have overhauled certain aspects of combat which drastically changed how the game plays, as well as reducing player power. needless to say, the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. people don't like it when the good things that they've become used to are taken away from them, plain and simple.
the coliseum can never have a clean slate, as it is a system that many players have engaged with over the years in a certain manner, cementing certain expectations. the developers should take the status quo in mind, rather than attempting to create a completely new experience. eliminate builds should never go away. they should always remain an option; and for the goal of making the coliseum more engaging and fun, there should be other options given that have rewards proportionately balanced around the status quo- the eliminate builds.
///complexity
however, the coliseum doesn't need to be only "an accessible time-sink for players who wish to attain wealth", completely revolving around eliminate builds. a future revamp should ideally give the players more options for playstyle expression, but this should absolutely not be done at the expense of the current meta playstyle; rather, in addition to it. this, however, would be a great challenge for the game developers.
if flight rising was to pursue creating an engaging coliseum experience by turning it into a robust turn-based combat game, they would need to invest a significant amount of developer resources in order to create a well-balanced, fun experience. given that the coliseum is merely one of many activities within the site, expanding the scope of its complexity does not seem like a justified or necessary investment, as the goals of the site presumably do not include providing a combat experience on par with stand-alone turn-based combat games.
i want to stress here that creating any sort of combat game that goes beyond rudimentary number-crunching and dice rolls, requires significantly more developer effort than most players believe it does. the coliseum, with the complexity scope it has right now, is well balanced between developer investment, and player site activity offering. it would be hard to justify attempting to overhaul its complexity.
///solutions
even if the flight rising developers were to invest into creating an experience that is actively hostile towards autopilot strategies on a design level, all it would accomplish is creating player frustration. because the majority of people who use the coliseum frequently will apply a most efficient tactic; and in time, will inevitably be able to execute that tactic on autopilot, through repetiton. not to mention the status quo point made above.
the simpler a game is, the easier it is to discover optimized autopilot strategies. i'd even argue that this is borderline necessary, in order to retain player engagement with the game. most players will quickly find the game boring if they feel their investment is disproportionate to the returns- be they in fun-having, or wealth-acquiring. expecting the coliseum to be something more complex than (or antithetical to) a minigame accessible for players who wish to play it on autopilot and multi-task, in my opinion, conflicts with the scope of this site activity.
however, in order to offer a broader and richer experience, i believe the best thing that the flight rising developers can do for the coliseum revamp would be to incentivize broader playstyles not by taking away power from min-maxed autopilot tactics, but by offering greater rewards to more engaging playstyles. i.e. if you want to play on autopilot, go level fodder in the mire. if you want to be engaged, take a fully leveled team to the highest level venue, and apply more complex tactics, thereby obtaining greater wealth through better loot, at the cost of needing to engage more meaningfully with the system, by investing more attention alongside time spent.
in order to achieve these, the development team would have plenty of questions to answer- how would these playstyles look?, where could the additional complexity be introduced?, how could the rewards be proportional, when considering eliminate playstyle's rewards?, how balance???, etc.; there are many design challenges that we could openly discuss, but going into such detail is beyond the scope of this thread. except for one thing...
///dodge
humans love consistency.
not removing dodge will not make players go to the coliseum less.
removing dodge, however, will make players have a better experience.
humans hate frustration.
dodge as a mechanic is one of those things that sneaks its way into nearly every game in existence, because it's one of the most basic means of avoiding damage; by moving within three dimensional space. not to bring broader game design talk into the mix, but attempting to apply a dodge system to a 2D, turn-based game, has never ended well when said dodge system was tied primarily to RNG.
while there is an AGI stat that one could invest into, it is known that it is largely irrelevant, as dodging is not completely reliant on AGI, thus there is no minimum AGI requirement to essentially remove dodge from the mix. and even if there was, unless it would be balanced around also being able to meet the required SPD & STR for the eliminate builds, it wouldn't be used. (note: try AGI15+ build)
i believe it is essential to offer the players the ability to never encounter dodges, whether by removing the system entirely, or by offering impactful build choices. it is also essential to strongly consider the status quo when offering player agency, balancing around current expectations, so as to avoid removing too much player power. as mentioned above, that never ends well, and is likely to tank the bottomline of player engagement with the game.
this site, as well as any entertainment form that involves players interacting, absolutely NEEDS players to engage with it as often and as loyally as possible. this is why things such as baldwin exist- it gives you incentive to check the site every half hour. and while you're there, you might as well engage with other parts of the site. for a healthy ecosystem, consistent & sustainable player engagement is essential.
player retention and engagement is best cultivated by keeping players happy. it is in flight rising's best interest to offer a pleasant & rewarding experience to as broad a player base as possible, through as many site activities as possible, accomodating a wide variety of playstyles and engagement level choices. the less frustration a player feels when engaging with a site activity, the better. dodges in the coliseum create frustration, not complexity.
///personal experience
here is a practical, anectodal example, of why drastically changing the status quo in a way that harms current playstyles would be a mistake & why removing player frustration points can lead to greater engagement.
personally, i frequently engage with the coliseum, exclusively to level fodder in the mire, because i can do this while i'm doing something else- such as watching a video. i do have to check the coliseum screen periodically, due to captchas and dodges. i understand the need for the former, and the latter frustrates me. my experience could be made better by removing dodge, whether completely, or by offering a balanced build choice that can be integrated within the current minimum requirements for the mire build to work.
regardless, this is the only way i engage with this site activity.
if a future coliseum change would make it so that i cannot engage with it in this manner, such as requiring me to always look at the coliseum, and think about what i'm doing, i would simply stop engaging with this site activity. in doing so, i would engage with the site less in general. no longer buying, training and exalting fodder; this leading to having less wealth, as well as less opportunity for organically finding dragons to collect; this in turn would lead to having less incentive to invest personal resources into the site; this in turn...
you see where i'm going with this.
for a positive impact, if dodge were to be removed, personally, i'd engage with the coliseum even more than i already do. like i mentioned before, i only do so when i have another activity which leaves my hands free; such as watching a video. sometimes, however, i simply am not in the mood to shift my attention to refresh the coliseum whenever i notice a dodge in my peripheral vision (this, crucially, being more disruptive than a captcha). therefore, i do not engage with the coliseum whenever i theoretically can, only when i have the patience & energy to deal with the frustration of dodges. i don't expect to never have to shift my attention; but i'd like it not to be frustrating when i have to do so.
the captchas, like the dodges, are a mechanism that draw my attention away; however, despite the fact that they can be difficult for somebody with vision impairment, they do not frustrate me like dodges do, simply and completely because they serve a very tangible & necessary purpose- to prevent scipting/botting. by having this quantifiable value, the captchas are different from the dodges. they're tolerable, and (arguably) fair, by virtue of their necessity.
-
///conclusion
in closing, obviously players have a wide variety of playstyles they enjoy, both within the larger scope of the site, and within the coliseum. for some, efficient collection of wealth is not a concern. i respect that, and i believe those players should have the option to engage with any and all site activities in a manner that fulfills their own priorities; just as well as players like me should have the option to engage in an efficient manner.
every player, regardless of playstyle, deserves to have a good, frustration-free experience, and it is the responsibility of the developers to assure this and maintain balance between the wide plethora of factors that influence their decisions. it goes without saying that this is a challenging endeavor, deserving of respect. as players, it is up to us to respectfully offer feedback based on our experience, in order to help developers make informed decisions.
my words & opinion are largely centered around my own experience & expectations, thus are limited by these factors. with this consideration in mind, i wanted to incite broader discussion on the topic, where players with different priorities are invited to express their own feedback & concerns.
///TL;DR:
1. remove dodge.
complete & universal removal right now, then reintroduce but allow the option for complete dodge mitigation through build choices in the revamp.
2. incentivize non-eliminate playstyles through greater rewards in both fun and wealth, but keep current eliminately playstyles viable, with their current investment/reward ratio.
let people be efficient if they want to be.
give people greater rewards for greater investment.
choice is good. ease of access is good.
frustrating game mechanics are bad.
