[MUD-Dev] Cognitively Interesting Combat (was Better Combat)

[Paolo Piselli]

--- David Kennerly <kennerly at finegamedesign.com> wrote:

> But before continuing, I need to know: What is a metric of
> cognitive demand?

I would propose the following metric, given a production-rule model:

   The cognitive demand that an instance of combat places on the
   player can be measured on several axes: first, by the number of
   different rules that fire during the combat task; second, by the
   rate at which rules fire; and third, by the total number of rules
   is fired.

This metric matches our intuitions that doubling the speed of combat
doubles the cognitive load (at least along the rate-of-fire axis),
because rules will be firing twice as fast.

Lets consider a hypothetical "solvable-MUD" where there are optimal
fixed sequences of moves when fighting different mobs.  For mob X it
is "stun, whack, stun, whack", for mob Y it is "stun, whack, slice,
smash", for mob Z it is "slice, slice, burn, slice".  We could make
a very simple production model to capture an experienced player's
understanding of combat:

  MOB-X-RULE:
    if entering combat with mob X
      then execute fixed sequence "stun, whack, stun, whack"

  MOB-Y-RULE:
    if entering combat with mob Y
      then execute fixed sequence "stun, whack, slice, smash"

  MOB-Z-RULE:
    if entering combat with mob Z
      then execute fixed sequence "slice, slice, burn, slice"

The cognitive load of combat in this game is one rule, because for
any given combat instance, only one production rule will fire - and
only once at the beginning of combat.  Thus, on our cognitive axes,
combat in this game rates as: 1 rule fired at a rate of 0
rules-per-second (no second rule-firing data point) for a total of 1
rules fired.  Even if we had hundreds of different mobs in this
game, each with a different optimal strategy, the cognitive load
would still be nearly nil for each combat (assuming that executing
each of stun, whack, slice, smash and burn takes a simple
loosly-timed button press).  The only interesting thing is in
recalling the optimal strategy, but this only happens once per
combat.

Now let's compare this to the "novice" puzzle fighter rules that I
whipped up.  The number of rules in my proposed novice-level model
was 5, and it is most likely that each one will have a chance to
fire over one combat.  The total number of rules fired over one
"combat" instance will be equal to the total number of pieces
dropped.  The rate will be equal to the number of pieces dropped
over the duration of the combat.

So let's make up a lower bound for the cognitive demand of this
novice level Puzzle Fighter combat using my metric: I think we could
all agree that blocks drop at an average rate of at least one every
ten seconds, and that "combat" lasts at least one minute.  Even with
these absurdly leanient numbers and an unsophisticated player model,
our metric for Puzzle Fighter is 5 active rules, firing at a rate 6
rules-per-minute, with a total of 6 rules fired overall.  By this
metric, Puzzle Fighter is clearly more cognitively demanding than
the "solvable-MUD".

Does this metric sound reasonable, at least for production-models?

-Paolo

=====
Paolo Piselli
ppiselli at yahoo.com
www.piselli.com , www.bestcoastswing.com
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev