لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Degenerate Strategy Ecosystems
As a rule of thumb, you want to be on the lookout for degenerate strategies and keep them out of your game. The ability to win a game by playing in a singular way demonstrates a poor game design, a space of possibility with an unintended, limiting short-circuit. There is, however, an extremely fuzzy line between degenerate strategies and imaginative ways to play a game. There is something exciting about having players explore the space of possibility of your game, rooting around for new strategies and new ways to play. If the game is complex enough and the community of players is large enough, degenerate strategies that do emerge can be countered by new strategies created specifically to oppose the exploits. An ecosystem emerges from the community, in which different styles of play compete for dominance. In real-time strategy (RTS) game player communities, for example, players constantly look for ways to get ahead on the rankings boards. Command and Conquer, like most RTS games, was intended to emphasize steady planning and gradual development. But over time a degenerate strategy evolved called the "tank rush." Instead of slowly building up forces, a player using the "tank rush" strategy could quickly create a group of tanks and wipe out his opponent's base camp in the early game, before his opponent had a chance to prepare his defenses. Although the tank rush degenerate strategy ruined the games of many players that desired a more typical long-term conflict, it also spawned new kinds of defensive strategies. The introduction of a degenerate strategy enlarged the overall space of possibility of the game. Although some player communities are resourceful enough to create their own antidotes to degenerate strategies, it is often necessary for the designers to step in and correct the breach themselves, as in the case of Magic's Black Lotus card. With popular games, play strategies sometimes evolve in a way that necessitates a refinement of the formal structure, like a gardener pruning branches of a tree to improve the overall health of the plant. The process of degenerate strategy correction is ultimately part of the iterative process of game design. One game that has undergone constant refinement is professional Basketball in the U.S.
Over the last several decades, Basketball has undergone a number of rule changes. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, most of the action took place right under the basket, where the chance of scoring was greatest. Play was dominated by tall players that could control this space with the greater offensive and defensive capabilities their height provided. Two rules were introduced that shook up the play of the game and defused degenerate strategies that were beginning to crop up. The three-point line incentivized players to play away from the basket, daring them to risk a longer shot in order to gain an extra point. At the same time, the three-second rule, which kept offensive players from spending more than three seconds parked in the paint under the basket, helped unclog the scoring zone traffic jam. The end result of these two rules is that quick players who could weave into the zone and out from under the basket, perhaps darting back to the three-point line to take a shot, became more important than static, towering giants. The space of possibility of the game expanded to include not just more diverse strategies of play but more diverse physical types of players to implement them. Basketball has plenty of other rules that have been modified over time as well, from the introduction of dribbling near the beginning of the century to the more recent innovation of the shot clock and the back-and-forth controversies over zone defense. In his essay "The Heresy of Zone Defense," cultural critic Dave Hickey eloquently addresses this process of rule iteration: The "illegal-defense rule" which banned zone defenses, however, did more than save the game. It moved professional basketball into fluid complexity…leaving the college game with its zoned parcels of real estate behind. Initially, it was feared that this legislated man-to-man defense would resolve competition in terms of "natural comparative advantage" (as an economist might call it), since if each player is matched up with a player on the other team, the player with the most height, bulk, speed, or quickness would seem to have a permanent advantage. But you don't have to guard the same man all the time; you can switch, and this permission has created the beautiful "match-up game" in which both teams run patterns, picks, and switches in order to create advantageous situations for the offense or the defense-to generate shifting interplay.[1]
Degenerate strategies can lead to iterative design. It is beautiful to think of a game design as a design in process, which can grow and evolve over time, remaining fresh in response to changing needs and invented strategies. As the athletic abilities of players and the strategic acumen of coaches tested the limits of the system, the rules of Basketball were refined. Changes in rules maintained the tautness of the space of possibility while allowing players to move freely within it. Even today, regular changes in the rules continue to keep the game fresh.The act of rule-modification itself-by game designers, players, or administrative bodies-is an important kind of game design which will be addressed further in the pages to come. [1]Dave Hickey, Air Guitar: Essays on Art and Democracy (Los Angeles: Foundation for Advanced Critical Studies, 1997), p. 160-1.
