Partitioning in Game Design: When less actually is more

By MasterShake2, in X-Wing

Posted at
Partitioning in Game Design: When less actually is more
-
Partitioning in Game Design just involves limiting the number of elements that are accessible at any given time using criteria that can vary pretty wildly.
-
To use a simple example, in the original Mass Effect, there were 6 classes and their playstyles were pretty different despite a lot of overlap in terms of of available powers because each class only had limited access to powers combined with only being able to use certain armor and weapons. If you wanted to run head first at the enemy invincibly with guns blazing, go Soldier. If you wanted to make enemies in helpless floating piniatas or throw them across the room with your mind, go Adept. If you wanted to cower in a corner trying and failing to not die before going back to the character select screen to pick a different class, then go Engineer. As the series went on, though, the elements started to merge a lot with armor classes going away, weapons options opening up a lot more and culminating in the system in Mass Effect Andromeda. In Andromeda, you could basically take whatever abilities you wanted. Some of them required X points spent in Biotic, Tech or Combat trees, but that was about it. In turn, the series went from about 6ish playstyles (depending on whether or not you actually count the Engineer) to only about really 2, maybe 3.
-
This brings us to heart of why so many games partition their elements. When confronted with everything, you'll see a few interesting dark horse options, but generally most players will just gravitate towards a handful of correct answers. This can happen even when all the elements seem, on the surface to be perfectly balanced. For example, if I had a spell in Warmachine that added +2 to all ranged damage and another spell that added +2 to all melee damage, you would think these spells would be equal in game impact, but that's completely false. Mathmetically, sure a unit gets the same benefit from 1 as the other, but a lot of considerations such as what other elements are available, whether other game mechanics or the meta favors one attack type over the other and even what other spells are available to the caster. Despite providing an identical effect, these 2 spells will never be truly equal. In short, there will always be elments or combination of elements that are "more correct" i.e. that simply offer more of an edge in terms of efficiency or application over it's contemporaries. In this regards, if you give players access to every possible option, only a handful will see real play, in other words, the addition of more elements reduces available playstyles/archetypes. This works both for elements in direct competition with these more efficient options for list choices as well as those that have to compete against them from across the table.
-
For these reasons, most games have opted for a sort of artificial partitioning of their elements. Magic was one of the earliest and biggest when they moved heavily to the what was called "Type 2" at the time, but that most more recent players will call Standard today. Hearthstone made a similar move. Warmachine/Hordes has gone heavily into theme lists that, while not specifically banning certain combinations, it does make out of theme lists far less desirable as they'll generally be at about 15-20% disadvantage between free models and theme benefits (which means any combo you're going out of theme for has to be really compelling). The most recent addition to this list is X-Wing with the announced split between Extended (play everything) and Hyperspace (only certain ships/upgrades allowed).
-
To put it simply, Partitioning your game because almost necessary once you're past a certain point. From the player perspective, unless some truly incredible releases hit, the game will generally devolve into a handful of set archetypes and the only question players will bother asking upon new releases is "does this impact an existing archetype? If so, how?" and anything that doesn't fit into the archetype or that doesn't offer a compelling advantage over an element already in an archetype get's mostly discarded. You'll definitely see some elements that are defining enough to create their own archetypes, but those are far and away in the minority. As far as the players are concerned, the meta is relatively static. It will be solved and then resolved fairly quickly after any new release because the other elements that any new piece has to be compared to is already a known quantity. This also presents a troubling conundrum for a design team. How do you introduce more elements that are useful enough to see play, but not so powerful as to remove existing options? It's easy to answer that question early in a game's history, but as time goes on, it's becomes an almost insurmountable challenge that only allows 2 solutions 1: A static meta that people will get quickly bored with 2: Introducing power creep that will outright negate or remove old elements.
-
To try and contextualize this further, let's say Privateer Press didn't move heavily into themes for Warmachine/Hordes and wanted to introduce a new melee unit right now for Retribution of Scyrah, a roughly mid-sized faction. That new melee unit would have to be a viable option compared against, but not replacing all of these units:
Mage Hunter Infiltrators
Houseguard Halberdiers
Dawnguard Sentinels
Ryssovass Defenders
House Ellowuyr Swordsmen
Releasing a new unit under that criteria would be really difficult and the most likely result is that it either becomes a dust collector or replaces 1 more of them. Now let's intrudcue a new melee unit in a Theme heavy game. It's going to go into the Legion's of Dawn Theme, what does it have to compete with? Well, just the Dawnguard Sentinels whose role is pretty clear as armored and hard-hitting. That's a much easier task to undertake and you have a higher likelihood of just creating a viable options without replacing an existing one.
-
In terms of players, a meta with more partitioning means that each element within a given partition is far more impactful and more important. This creates far more dynamicism in terms of list building and variety and also creates a clearer distinction as to what each partition's role is and what's it's well suited for. For an example, Introducing a new ship into X-Wing likely won't do a whole lot in the extended format unless it's just better than other options. On the other side of the equation, Hyperspace only has 4 ships per faction currently, so upping that to 5 is pretty significant. It has a much higher potential to shake up current archetypes or create new ones. Additionally, because of the narrow partitioning in Hyperspace, even options that are not exactly optimal (things like U-Wings and TIE Strikers) have a much higher chance of seeing meaningful play than they ever would in Extended.
-
That being said, why do players always push back against partitioning? Well, definitely not all players do, but it's rare to see a game make a much narrower format without seeing at least some dissatisfaction. Part of it is the "I can't use my entire collection of cards/miniatures/ships" argument, but in truth, you couldn't use all of them anyways both in terms of list/deckbuilding restrictions and the fact that without the partition, many of those elements are just too inefficient to bother with. There isn't a meaningful difference between a game explicitly saying you can't use something and that element being so ineffectual into the meta that the game might as well be saying you can't use it. If you are worried about competitive play, they're basically the same, if you're not, who cares, play whatever format you want. Another part of it is the flawed argument that you're losing options. Quick question, are there are more viable archetypes (not specific lists, but list archetypes) in Extended X-Wing over Hyperspace X-Wing? Looking at tournament results so far, I'm only counting about 5 archetypes in Extended with an odd Dark Horse list here and there. I suspect we'll see about the same for Hyperspace, but only time will tell. You have a few more options to kind of mix and match specific upgrades in Extended and maybe throw an oddball pilot in your list as a spoiler, but the actual archetypes are pretty limited.
-
What I find interesting, is that most players, even the ones against partitioning have already accepted it's necessity. What would X-Wing look like if there were no faction restrictions on anything, ship or upgrade? What would magic look like if the color system was done away with and everything costed colorless mana? What would Hearthstone look like without class restrictions? What would Warmachine/Hordes look like if you could literally take any combination of models? Players have broadly already accepted that partitioning in the form of factions/mana colors/classes is not only necessary, but outright healthy for the game as a whole, so is it that hard to believe that as the game has progressed and new elements constantly added that further partitioning may be necessary to keep the game as a potentially dynamic and engaging experience?
Edited by MasterShake2
Posted at

Good topic. A few thoughts.

Part of it is that those partitions were introduced with the game. Magic always had colors, most wargames begin with particular factions, etc..., so the player base conceptualizes the game as having those divisions, while the partitioning they push back against is divisions that are added later, they break to framework of how the game is “supposed” to be in the players mind, and so they reject it. Whereas adding a new partition at the same level as existing ones, like adding a new faction, is just expanding the game, not dividing it.

The other thought i had was how, if continued long enough, creates increasing levels of partitioning. In your Warmahordes example, you have the primary partitions of faction, and then a secondary partition of theme within the faction, allowing PP to introduce a new unit to the Legion of Dawn more easily because there is less competition in the LoD for particular roles. Great. If things proceed long enough, even that space starts to become more crowded and they need to create tertiary partitions because even the theme levels have become so crowded. In 40k this can be seen in space marine armies, which are technically part of the imperium, but needed to be their own faction. Then they needed specific chapters of space marines to be separate factions. Then each of those needed specific theme within the chapter. And so on.

Privateer recently relaunched their old game monsterpocalypse. The original game had 6 “agendas”, each of which initially had 1, later 2 “factions” in it that people could play. With the relaunch they have trimmed that down to only 2 agendas and all the monsters and units are divided up among those two, with the factions being more theme style forces. If the game continues to grow, I fully expect them to, sooner or later, reorganize things and reinstate the original agendas.

Posted at
2 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Good topic. A few thoughts.

Part of it is that those partitions were introduced with the game. Magic always had colors, most wargames begin with particular factions, etc..., so the player base conceptualizes the game as having those divisions, while the partitioning they push back against is divisions that are added later, they break to framework of how the game is “supposed” to be in the players mind, and so they reject it. Whereas adding a new partition at the same level as existing ones, like adding a new faction, is just expanding the game, not dividing it.

The other thought i had was how, if continued long enough, creates increasing levels of partitioning. In your Warmahordes example, you have the primary partitions of faction, and then a secondary partition of theme within the faction, allowing PP to introduce a new unit to the Legion of Dawn more easily because there is less competition in the LoD for particular roles. Great. If things proceed long enough, even that space starts to become more crowded and they need to create tertiary partitions because even the theme levels have become so crowded. In 40k this can be seen in space marine armies, which are technically part of the imperium, but needed to be their own faction. Then they needed specific chapters of space marines to be separate factions. Then each of those needed specific theme within the chapter. And so on.

Privateer recently relaunched their old game monsterpocalypse. The original game had 6 “agendas”, each of which initially had 1, later 2 “factions” in it that people could play. With the relaunch they have trimmed that down to only 2 agendas and all the monsters and units are divided up among those two, with the factions being more theme style forces. If the game continues to grow, I fully expect them to, sooner or later, reorganize things and reinstate the original agendas.

I agree with Monpoc, my best guess, looking at the release schedule, was that releasing suffcient models to allow 6 or so factions to all have interesting options was simply going to be inviable with available resources, but I wouldn't be surprised if they put stricter limitations later.

Posted at
4 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:
...

I actually agree with the premise and much of the thought in this post. I also love the detailed examples in use throughout.

I do think though that it misses (or doesn't weigh heavily enough) the things people don't like about Hyperspace. The assumption for the players that are fighting Hyperspace is they will have to play it. Now with that as a given there are a lot of casual and semi serious players that only like 1 or 2 factions, a specific set of ships, or specific archetypes and they are losing the ability to play the things they enjoy (or potentially even the ability to play at all if they only own a small number of ships that are no longer legal). This is further compounded by the sunk cost of buying the ships initially and more importantly the cost of converting them. So with that and the initial post in mind (that increased partitioning increases options), maybe the correct problem was identified but the wrong solution developed.

I think about the need for partitioning and about lots of talk about encouraging Scum themes like Hutt Cartel, Black Sun, Bounty Hunters etc... what if the solution instead of a ban list was just to further break apart the large factions either into isolated sub-factions or themes where you had to pay a point penalty if all of your ships weren't of a theme. Since Empire is what I know best here is an example of how it could be done:

Early Empire: TIE Fighters, TIE Strikers, TIE Reapers, TIE Advanced v1, (and maybe another ship, upgrades would be things like Krennic etc...)

Main Empire: TIE Fighters, TIE Interceptors, TIE Bombers, TIE Advanced x1, Lamda Shuttle (Darth Vader, and Emperor Palpatine crew cards would be here)

Imperial Skunkworks: TIE Defenders, TIE Phantoms, TIE Punishers, Alpha-Class Starwings, Decimators (appropiate upgrades)

I am sure something similar could be done with Rebels as well. That way no actual chassis is banned, but some of the power combos are broken up and you get some additional comparable options. You could easily break apart pilots as well. Saw's Raiders being separate from the other Rebel groups being one part. Maybe make Inferno Squadron a part of the Imperial Skunkworks instead of the other sub-factions.

In short, I think the OP correctly identifies the problem, and does a good job of explaining what it causes and possible solutions. I just don't think FFGs solution is a good one.

Edited by GeneralVryth
Posted at

i think the biggest reason 'some' ppl are anti hyperspace is because it doesn't let them fly what they like to fly.

another potential negative is it restricts how they can qualify for the top tier events. its too simplistic to say 'just play extended' because half of the qualifying events will be hyperspace format... what if there is only a hyperspace event in your local area? Your hands are tied - you either conform to hyperspace or you dont play in the event.

I think if theyd opened up the options of ship available a little more, they would have gotten fewer negative responses. I realize this would have created an unbalance with the newer factions (initially).

FFG want u to buy their new toys. Making them playable in hyperspace right away sells their product. For this reason hyperspace was likely created for new players entering the game. Same old story. Existing players either buy the new ships or play extended OR play Hyperspace.

Edited by Da_Brown_Bomber
Posted at

I don’t care in the slightest about “organized play”, so I haven’t been paying any attention to the hyperspace format, but the impression I got was that it was a limited format designed to put veterans who converted large collections and new players just buying 2.0 packs on the same competitive footing, so as to not scare away new players, and that it would be gradually expanded as more packs are updated to 2.0 until there isn’t really much of a difference between hyperspace and standard.

Posted at

Hyperspace so far plays with slightly less of the stuff thats not fun available, even though some of it will still need to be dealt with via adjustments. So I kinda like hyperspace. But both are fine. Play whatever.

Edited by Boom Owl
Posted at

Partitioning in printed media makes sense. The whole reason for Type 1 was because of all problems associated with power creep and oversaturation of the pool. The issue I have is partitioning in a digital medium. The whole point of an online digital medium is you can make corrections thus removing the need for partitioning.

I know this argument fell on deaf ears in the Hearthstone community but when the discussion of formats came along I was against it for many reasons. One is they were already able to make changes to the cards in the game, increasing the cost, altering the stats, removing or adding a trait. Anything that was overpowered could easily be corrected. Also on the digital medium a type 2 would naturally be made in a sequel. In Hearthstone 2 you can't import your collection from Hearthstone 1, everything would have to be reset, and your collection start from new. When Hearthstone introduced the new formats, it made the card packs (which were the embryotic stages of the loot box we now know and despise) have an expiration date. After a year, everything you had bought would become worthless. Sure there is the wild format but it is also under the auspicious of the official format with all the core cards being nerfed to make room for the new sets.

Needless to say, I left Hearthstone because of rotating partitions, and I know I wasn't the only one. Hearthstone is fine because it is an online game thus you only need power and an internet connection and with enough players it is okay. It is much more difficult to set up a table top game than play an online. segmenting it off will do more to split and hurt the community than to help it, and table top games are more vulnerable to splitting the player base than online games. The draw behind 2nd edition was we still had our ships from 1st edition we can play with. Take that away, then why even bother?

Posted at
4 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

I don’t care in the slightest about “organized play”, so I haven’t been paying any attention to the hyperspace format, but the impression I got was that it was a limited format designed to put veterans who converted large collections and new players just buying 2.0 packs on the same competitive footing, so as to not scare away new players, and that it would be gradually expanded as more packs are updated to 2.0 until there isn’t really much of a difference between hyperspace and standard.

IHMO, I think this is how Hyperspace is being "sold" to the old timers right now.

I would not be surprised one bit to find that it evolves into a rotation of a handful of curated ships per faction that are played for a single season and then selectively stirred and strained for the next.

It has all the advantages FFG needs: tweak/refresh the meta, balance the meta, and sell new ships. In the long run "XWM Meta" = "Hyperspace."

The only downside is players complaining they can't play Ship X. Except the official response can be: "Sure you can. There's Extended." Or, the 2.0 conversion process will drag on so long people will have forgotten the Auzituck (random victim on my part) ever existed, and no one will really complain at all.

Edited by Darth Meanie