Designing Kongai
SirlinThis article explains the origins and design choices of my virtual card game called Kongai, which you can play here:
http://www.kongregate.com/cards
The First Inklings of Kongai
While Jim Greer was the technical director at the casual game site pogo.com, one of the things he oversaw was the pogo badges system. This allows players to earn icons in various games on that site, and show off their achievements to other players. Microsoft used this same idea with their aptly named Xbox Achievements. Now Jim is stealing his own idea back at his new casual game site Kongregate.com.
This time around there's an interesting twist. When you complete the challenges for various casual games on Kongregate.com, you don't *just* win an icon; you win a card that's part of a metagame that ties the whole site together. Jim asked me to design that game. I told him there are many pitfalls in this idea and I could think of at least one hundred ways to do it wrong. Jim asked how I'd do it right.
This is supposed to show that MTG's mythic rare rip-off scheme is ok.The first thing that came to mind was avoiding the style of game where we have artificial rarity for a few very powerful cards. There are going to be some players who get caught up in the fun of collecting cards, and there will be others who actually want to play this metagame. For that second group, I want them to have relatively easy access to all the cards. This doesn't conflict with Kongregate's business plan because the challenges aren't meant to be incredibly hard--they're meant to be interesting enough to bring the average player back to the site. We *could* make some cards extremely hard to get, but only if they have no gameplay differences from the easier-to-get version. For example, a very difficult challenge might get you a different border on the card, or different art, or a different icon for the edition of the card.
Along these same lines, I wanted all the cards to be approximately the same power level. I'm aware of Mark Rosewater's stance over at Magic: The Gathering that there should be a lot of bad cards on purpose to give players the fun of not choosing them. Mark is brilliant and I love his work, but on this point I disagree. I like the Guild Wars philosophy that as you gain more cards (or abilities in that game), you are gaining the ability to create a wider and wider variety of decks, but not more and more powerful decks.
Another thing I wanted to avoid was a game that required a lot of cards to play. So-called constructed decks in Magic: The Gathering have 60 cards, but winning 60 challenges on Kongregate.com just so you can try a new deck would be way too hardcore. Even if we gave you 60 to start, winning 60 ore to make a totally different deck is way too many. I wanted a game that could be played with relatively few cards.
With these ideas in mind--not too hard to get cards, no intentially bad cards, and small deck size--I needed to actually create a game. I had several candidates, not to mention three other card games I was already working on for my own amusement, but one idea rose to the top: Pokemon Netbattle.
Pokemon For Adults
Years ago on sirlin.net, I created a thread asking people to name a game that satisfied my long list of requirements for a good competitive game. I could not really think of any game that met them all, so I asked my readers. An unusually high number suggested Pokemon Netbattle, and it took them a while to get through to me that they didn't mean the Pokemon trading card game, which is a totally different game. What they meant is the turn-based battle system that's inside all the Pokemon role playing games on GBA and Nintendo DS. The fans of the game extracted the combat portion only, including all equations and stats, and created a PC online version that removes all the rpg stuff. Even though I do not have much experience playing this game, when Jim asked me for a metagame for Kongregate.com, I remembered all the good properties of Pokemon Netbattle, and it seemed like a good fit. It has good strategy, requires only one action from the player per turn (simple), and has small decks of 6 cards.
Here's a more complicated version of Kongai, for kids.
Here's a quick note on "good" versus "new." If I copied the Pokemon game exactly, it would not be new. I personally don't care at all about new, I only care about good. Besides, this game would be new to the vast majority of our audience at Kongregate because most people are not familiar with Pokemon Netbattle. That said, I decided to make lots of changes to how the game works, but they were all in the interests of creating a better game that's easier to learn. None of the changes were made for the sake of being new.
I'll tell you how the game actually works, but first I'll list the major areas I changed from the Pokemon game:
- Character switching mechanic changed
- Attack type system vastly simplified
- All math equations vastly simplified, replaced with simple arithmetic
- Mechanic for multiple hits added
- New mechanic for fighting at close range / far range
- Meter management system added/revamped
Most of you probably have no idea how these game work in the first place, so here's a quick explanation of the Pokemon game first. In that game, each player has a deck of 6 characters. Each turn, each player makes only one decision, but it's done in a double-blind simultaneous fashion. Your only choices are a) do one of your character's four possible attacks or b) switch to one of your remaining characters. So you might decide to do your attack A and your opponent might do his attack C. Then these choices are revealed simultaneously. The faster attack hits first, then the slower attack hits second. If one player chose to switch out, then his incoming Pokemon will get hit by the enemy's attack. When you lose all your characters, you lose the game.
Pokemon Is Really Complicated For No Good Reason
These mechanics are very simple, but learning the game is actully not simple so there was a lot I thought I could improve on. To understand this, let's look at how a Pokemon player should go about deciding what to do during his turn. Why choose Attack A over B? Why switch characters instead of attacking? A lot of the strategy of the game comes from a concept called resistence. There are 17 attack types in Pokemon (such as fire, grass, psychic, dragon, etc.). There is a 17 x 17 chart telling you how good each attack type is against each other attack type. In some cases, you'll do double damage, others you'll do normal damage, others you'll do half damage, and in others, no damage at all. If you understand and internalize this chart, you can use attacks that are very effective against your enemy's resistance, and force him to attack with attacks that are weak or have no effect because of your resistances.
Just internalize this chart and you're ready to play Pokemon.
On top of all that, each move is classifed as either a normal or special attack. Your character might have good resistance to normal attacks but weak to special attacks, in addition to the layer of resistances provided by the 17 x 17 chart. When both players understand this, it leads to interesting mind games. If your current active character has a very favorable mathup against my currently active character, we both know I'd like to switch out. But will I? Because of the metagame (players know which Pokemon are popular and tend to be in decks), you can probably guess which exact Pokemon I'd like to swtich to in order to counter yours. If you're really clever, you'll do an attack that's strong against the Pokemon I might switch in (that you haven't even seen yet!) instead of doing the obvious move of a strong attack against my current active character.
The problem is that none of this is interesting at all until both players have internalized an unreasonable amount of data. Ironically, little kids have a better chance at this, because they have been explosed to so much Pokemon media (games, tv show, movies, card games) that they already instinctively know whether grass-type beats bug-type or not (nope) and whether dark-type beats ghost-type or not (yep). We need a simpler system that doesn't require a 17x17 chart.
I decided to go with only three attack types: physical, light magic, and dark magic. Each character has three resistance numbers, one for each attack type. I also got rid of all complicated math that goes on behind the scenes. If you attack with for 15 physical damage and your opponent has 4 physical resistnace, then you will do 15 - 4 = 11 damage. Very straightforward. Note that it doesn't matter how much or little resistance the enemy has to light or dark magic when you do a physical attack.
This makes the game much easier to understand, but it removes too much strategy. There isn't enough "play" in dancing between three attack types as there is in dacing between 17. I needed to create more nuances. The first was the concept of multiple-hitting attacks. The rule is that resistances are subtracted from *each hit* of a multi-hitting attack. For example, if an attack does 10x4 damage (that's 10 damage four times in succession), then a resistance of 3 would make it do (10-3)x4 = 28 damage. But if that same attack had been a single hit for 40, then a resistance of 3 would only take it down to 37 damage. So all things being equal, you'd rather do a single hit for 40 than a multiple hit that adds up to 40, because the single hit is less susceptable to the enemy's resistances.
There are a couple other factors to consider though. Each character has a health meter and an energy meter. The energy meter is similar to a Rogue's energy meter in World of Warcraft. It holds 100 points of energy, starts full, and refills quickly (20 points per turn). But moves cost energy to perform, so now you have to coniser not just how much damage a move does, but also how much energy it costs. As part of the basic game design, it costs less energy to do a multi-hitting move for X damage than it does to do a single hit move for X damage. So the best possible case for you is if you fight an enemy with, say, no resistance at all to your multi-hitting move. You will then get to do all damage from every hit, and you didn't even have to pay the higher energy cost of a single hit. If the enemy *does* have resistance to whatever type your multi-hit move is though, it will probably be very ineffective. You'd be better off paying a bit more for a single hit move that isn't effected much by resistance.
A second thing to consider is that any bonuses you have (such as +1 damage) apply to each hit of your moves. So a multi-hit move can be powered up much more than a single-hit move. The point is, this system creates several nuances, but all of them are goverened by straight arithmetic and no elaborate chart is needed.
These days you can play games on the web with chat built right in.
Character Switching
One of the major changes I made was the character switching mechanic. As always, when you switch character, you gave up your chance to attack that turn. But Kongregate's game needed more ways for you to maneuver around attacks. Without the vast design space of the 17 x 17 chart, you needed some extra ways to avoid stuff when you know it's coming. This is why in Kongregate's game, switching characters lets you COMPLETELY AVOID all damage from your enemy's attack. If you know they will attack, you can make them waste the energy they paid to attack, and make them deal zero damage. Of course, they'll need a counter to this if they know you will switch, which is why I added the new mechanic called intercept.
Intercept does nothing at all if the enemy attacks--you just get hit. But if the enemy switches characters, your inercept will prevent the switch AND deal 35 damage, a huge amount. That means your opponent skipped his attack (because he chose to switch characters instead), he doesn't get to switch, and he takes a huge amount of damage. This intentionally creates a game of paper, rock, scissors with highly weighted outcomes. If you have an opponent down to very little life, everyone knows he wants to switch out (he'll heal one hit point per turn while switched out, by the way). Or, if your opponent's character has little or no energy left to pay for moves, everyone knows he wants to switch out. So the "textbook" thing to do is to intercept him in this case. This creates a good mind game where you have to read how crazy your opponent is. Is he crazy enough to actually attack when his character has 2 hit points left? Is he crazy enough to attack two turns in a row? Three turns in a row?!
Fighting at Close or Far Range
So far, we have energy meter management, we have paper/rock/scissors system of attack/intercept/switch, and we have single/multi-hit attacks and three types of resistances. This almost gives the players enough wiggle room to use good strategy, but I wanted players to have one more tricky way to influence the fight: attack ranges.
Each turn, the fight will take place at either close range or far range. Each attack in the game is designated as either a cloes range attack, a far range attack, or both (can be done at either range). Some characters must be far to be most effective, others must be close to be most effective, and others are able to fight at both ranges. This mechanic lets you try to change the range in order to get an advantage, but it's intentionally expensive to change ranges: it costs 50 energy points (half your energy meter) to attempt to change it.
This brings the total number of decisions per turn from 1 to 2. Now, you must first decide wheither you want to try to get close (50 energy), try to get far (50 energy) or just go with the flow (0 energy). If you decide to go with the flow (which you usually will because spending 50 energy is a lot), then you're allowing the enemy to pick the range for the turn. If one player chooses close and the other chooses far, then the choices cancel each other and the range is set to whatever it was last turn.
The double-blind nature of the choice can make it a hard decision sometimes. Imagine that you are playing a character who is great at close range, but poor at far range. The range is currently close (yay!) but now you must choose which range you want for this turn. You'd like to pass (go with the flow), so'll get to keep your 50 energy and fight at your optimal range. But your opponent might move to far and then you'll be very unhappy. To guard against this, you decide to choose close range (50 energy) even though you're already at close range. This guarantees you'll fight at close range, because if the enemy chooses far, that will just cancel out your choice and the range will remain the same. So you choose close (50 energy). Remember this choice is double-blind, so after you committed your choice, it's revealed that your enemy chose to pass (0 energy). You psyched yourself out into spending 50 energy for nothing. The fight would have been at close range even if you passed.
One good thing about the range mechanic is that it's visual. Your characters on-screen are either standing far apart or close together, and it's obvious which range you're at. It's also a lot easier to deal with three resistances in your head than it is to deal with 17. It's easier to deal with simple arithmetic that you can easily compute yourself before you attack, than relying on a hidden algorithm to determine stats and damage. And finally, it's easier to actually participate in the paper, rock, scissors part of the game with attack/switch/dodge than it is to participate in the 17 x 17 version of the paper, rock, scissors in Pokemon.
Focus on Strategy and Reading the Opponent
Can Kongai improve your yomi skills?
And yet for all this simplification, you still have a lot of opportunity to be smart and sneaky. I've only told you the basic skeleton of the game, but there's also a lot of twists and turns added because every character has his own special ability (that automatically takes place--you don't have to click anything to make it happen). Also, every attack has a chance at producing an extra effect of some sort. And finally, as in Pokemon, you can equip one item card to each character which gives him even one more automatic ability. None of these require any extra clicks from you, but they create more opportunity for strategy.
With attack/switch/intercept, resistnaces, changing ranges, and automatic special abilities, you can really size-up what kind of person you think your opponents is and start to outplay them by reading what you think they will do. There's enough going on that players tend to develop patterns you can use against them. And most importantly of all, it's relatively easy for players to go from beginners with no clue about anything to intermetidates who grasp enough of the game to develop decision tendencies.
Head over to Kongregate.com, win some challenges, and try it out for yourself.
--Sirlin
Reader Comments (43)
TheTurnipKing, I think the key thing to remember about Pokemon is that a lot of the design decisions made regarding its battle system were made to facilitate the RPG and collection aspects of the game and the large list of resistances, the algorithms, etc. help create a depth of play that is sustained over a long period of time. If you chop out all the RPG and collection elements of Pokemon then it would make sense to streamline the battle system for short term play since the original is built around a long term system of growth. While Kongai might be inspired by Pokemon's battle system it is not built for gradual strategic development like Pokemon is, it is built for immediate battle-by-battle strategic development. I think the problem you may have is that you are comparing what you think are two apples when in reality one of them is an orange.
I like Kongai, I wish more played it. However, I do not like the fact each attack has a chance to miss. I mean, why make it 98%? That mean's that there is a 1 in 50 chance of missing, which makes it luck based and, maybe because I'm extremely unlucky, is what irritates me the most. I don't mind Popo's Slingshot have an accuracy of 60% because it's a powerful attack for little cost, but surely 98% is just a little silly? You're about to kill your opponents character and oh no you miss, and they win? It really, really, ticks me off. But apart from that, I actually like the game quite a lot.
Sirlin:
Any comment on the new set of cards being released? I'd love to hear what you think.
I like the 90+% chance to hits moves. It forces you to take into consideration that luck CAN happen. And you plan for it, just like the small chance of a 3% critical on all normal moves. It also creates hilarious outcomes, sometimes in your favor, and sometimes not. They provide good stories to share with other people.
Sure I've lost games where luck was involved, but people tend to forget the ones they won due to it. I faintly remember the time when my Ambrosia fought an Onimaru (both of us on our last chars) and she lucked out on 2 damage stun kicks till he died of Bleed damage over time. I joked that Oni had hemorrphage from getting kicked in the crotch one too many times.
My comment on the new cards? I designed them all, so I like them in general. They add new mechanics and interactions, and they are fairly well balanced, but balance could always be better. Cool art too.
The existence of ~95% accurate moves is the primary reason I didn't get more into Kongai. It's an enjoyable game and well put together, but I feel that the randomness in the game is a bit too coarsely-grained for my tastes.
When a move advertises 95% accuracy, this means that you should expect to miss with it about one in twenty times. The problem is that (in my experience) you don't often use a single move anywhere close to twenty times in a single game of Kongai. Randomness will balance out over a large enough period of time, but within a single game of Kongai, it is not uncommon for a 95% move to miss once while a 60% move hits several times in a row. Coupled with the fact that a single miss or a single critical can drastically swing the outcome of a game (especially when it occurs on an expensive "big shot" move), this starts to cause situations where a player loses due to events outside of their control.
I realize that there are many fine games in which the players have to "play the odds," but most of the better ones either involve a sufficiently high number of random events that the randomness balances itself out within the course of a single game (i.e. Risk) or are meant to be played over a long period of time (i.e. you don't play a single round of poker; you play an entire evening). Perhaps if I'd played Kongai in sets of 10 or 20 matches I'd have found the randomness more palatable, but as it is, I find it to be a bit of a turn-off.
Hey I like this game because it combines math with psychology, and I like both fields.
Wouldn't it be more fun for players if instead of most of the hit rate being 95%, you have more moves that do high damage but only 5 percent chance of hitting? It's pretty much the exact same thing except people will look at it positively instead of negatively.
Like how lotteries you don't have 95 percent chance of winning 25 cents but 5 percent chance of loosing 5 dollars that's just no fun.
Myself I don't mind about the miss rate because I factor that in while I make my decisions and understand that it doesn't really matter over a large number of games, but some people always remember those misses.
Recently discovered the game through Kongregate, and this site as a result of Kongai. I've greatly enjoyed a lot of the topics on game design and balance, and have taken some notes on the creative ways you use to balance the other games you've worked on.
One question I have relating to the topic of moves hovering around the 90-95% range: what factors dictate a decision that a certain relatively high accuracy move requires a bump or reduction in accuracy? I've only joined in the last few weeks, so I haven't seen the impact of, say, Starbuck's Gigaton punch at 95% accuracy, but it does seem like it would take a lot of finesse to manipulate properly. Do you yourself heavily playtest these characters? Rely on expert player opinion?
Lastly, I noticed a mention that you were thinking about a change on the yellow rock. I'm not sure if you thought it too strong or weak, but I thought it would be interesting to bring back to the table the idea of extending the no-switchout time an extra turn, most likely on a chance to proc on opponent switchout. I think it might provide an interesting side to the metagame when there's a potential for two characters needing to range-dance for an additional turn.
Hey Sirlin, I understand your rationale for incorporating miss chances. However, did you ever consider using damage ranges instead? That approach could have added the requisite unpredictability but would've been more psychologically palatable. Obviously it wouldn't be feasible to change Kongai to this model now, but I'm curious as to what your thoughts were for this approach.
YB: I originally thought damage ranges make it even harder to tell what's going on, and how to plan for things. It's kind of nice that a 6x7 attack against 2 armor is a 4x7 attack, so you know it does 28 damage. With damage ranges, instead of knowing that 95% of the time your calculation is right, you'll know like 0% of the time how much damage it will do. You might say that you can't tell what's going on anyway because all the buffs and debuffs there are now, and not knowing which order they are applied in. You'd have a point there.
Also, damage ranges instead of miss % would greatly increase the number of checkmate situations in the game. Imagine this very crude form of a damage range: if you miss, you deal half damage instead of full. Now think of how many more situations where a victory is guaranteed and even optimal play by the other guy has zero chance of letting him live.
Anyway, damage ranges do add enough unpredictability to be a feasible idea. They roll the game back to pokemon though, and I thought people would prefer the precision of being able to calculate how much a 6x7 attack (or whatever) actually does.
I am certain I'm addicted to Kongai. To know the reasoning behind the design decisions has gotten me more hooked into the game. As a former competitive player of fighting games, this game is right up my alley. I see a lot of people asking questions about miss chances and such, so if you're up to it Sirlin, I'm sure me and some others would love to read a full article about the reasoning behind it (even though you've addressed it right here in the comments).
Personally, I see the miss chances as representing "human error" in fighting games. By the way of an example, in Super Smash Brothers Melee, every now and then, in select situations, you'd mis-time a very technical maneuver, and fall off the edge, immediately losing a full life, sometimes at 0%. When I'm playing C.Viper in Street Fighter 4, I do plenty of technical moves, but sometimes, just rarely (and frustrating) enough, I'd screw it up and get punished.
Just pretend that tiny bit of randomness represents that little bit of human error in a combo you'd usually execute perfectly.
I've been playing Kongai for the past few days, and I have to say, I really like the design. I feel like the character balance goes a long way (although there is at least one item I feel is a smidgen unbalanced - personal assessment). Although I think the game does rely a bit on luck more than advertised, I genuinely enjoy the mind game aspect of it.
For example, just today, I intercepted a character two turns in a row for the kill, giving me a buff and an energy return - recognizing that this player switched very frequently went a long way, but not as much as A) knowing I had a speed advantage, B) knowing that he knew I knew I had a speed advantage AND C) knowing that he'd never think I was crazy enough to intercept twice in a row. Well-done, sir. You've made me irretrievably paranoid and overanalytical. And I'm having a blast. =)
I really enjoy the psychological aspects of this game. When I play games (mostly FPS's), I usually pride myself on predicting how an enemy will react if i throw a frag grenade at him or if i let him follow me around a corner. That being said, I really enjoy the mind games that Kongai creates, and (like rock-paper-scissors, oddly enough) I feel that I do a pretty good job at predicting what my oppoenents will do.
I also understand how the hit chances add a special element to the game, as it allow me to never give up hope (although many of my opponents will) when things look like they are making a turn for the worst.
I started collecting cards from challeneges on Kongregate long before I started playing, just incase I did. And I am glad I did! I just started playing a few weeks ago, and though I only have 30 cards to work with, I am very much addicted to this game! I am having a great time with it, well done, Sirlin!
Thanks for bringing us such a great game. I like chess, poker and rpg's, and Kongai is definitely in that tier.
I never liked to play random; I always use the same three cards that I chose without knowing what was the game about, and that later i'd become to love: Marquis, Anex and Higashi.
I used to begin with marquis until I realised how to use intercepts. Now I begin with Higashi, the only player who can kill or injure badly others without spending a single energy point. If intercepting is like an orgasm, intercepting with Higashi is tantric sex. Do you know how many players that use a strong character to begin with try to switch out if you get far in your first movement with Higashi¿ Do you realise that a lot of them, after being intercepted in their first movement (-60), just forfeit¿¿
Then, there's marquis. He is just inmortal, truely. I love all the psychology inherent to recovering 20hp when switching out with him.
And Anex. She's ... i've got no words. Once I reached a 137 damage with a critical power toss being under 20 hp. I wonder if that is the most vicious attack in the whole game.
So thanks a lot for all this joy. I use to play up to 3 matches a day, with some exceptions (2-3 h with pauses).
Most advices here on how to improve the game are worthless. You know what's missing here¿ a statistics system. That would enhace x100 the whole system. Because that is what this is about, isn't it? I'd love to know what is my intercept %. or my average combat time, and who is the card in my desk that deals more damage.
I hope that you find this a good idea to add interest to the game without changing its mechanics at all!
Hope to hear from you,
Stavrogin
HOLY MOLY! I was playing Battalion on Kongragate and this game popped up. I was intrigued and was completely blindsided by this post. Not only did I gain invaluable info on Kongai(which almost exists nowhere else) but also learned a few things about gaming theory, math, pokemon and stupid comments.
Should keep my busy until Diablo 3.
No one's trying to insult, just saying that the whole thing about Pokémon types isn't as black and white(no pun intended) as you claim it to be. Each type advantage is there for a reason, and they are mostly logical. (still don't understand why Ice beats Dragon and Fighting beats Dark though).
I love playing Kongai. I started when I had won a few challenges on Kongregate and figured that I should at least check it out. I enjoy being able to figure the mathematics behind each move exactly, which you can't or don't want to do in most games. Great article, and great game!
By the way, as a casual MTG fan I found that Kongai and MTG shared many aspects. Perhaps when Kongregate does a MTG thing like it just did for the holidays, it could direct participants to Kongai? It could get more people playing the game.
Also, for the people who want superpowered cards, you could make some but they would only be legal in unranked play.
I enjoyed collecting the cards for Kongai, but I didn't enjoy the game very much.
EVERYTHING is double-blind, which makes EVERYTHING a guessing game. If you're right, you get to feel like a clever jerk. If you're wrong, you feel like an idiot. There's no middle area where both players get to feel like they've done something well - that only happens in noobie vs noobie battles where both players will typically choose to make an attack. They both attack, they both deal damage, and they both get to feel like they've done something effective.
In short, when playing with good players, the "fun" of a correct move is completely cancelled out by the "anti-fun" of an incorrect move. Turns wherein neither player looks like a complete idiot are few and far between.
Contrast with something like Starcraft, where both players can fight each other and keep their armies intact several times before the game reaches a tipping point. One army doesn't get instantly obliterated because the player failed to guess that his opponent was going to say "potato" or click on the sky. In chess, players can both enjoy capturing pieces and fighting for control of the board before a victor is determined.
Both players get to enjoy move-fun-move-fun-move-frustration-move-fun for awhile before the game rules finally dictate YOU SUCK to one player and YOU WIN to the other. Kongai skips straight to the chase and randomly says YOU SUCK or YOU RULE every single turn with no opportunity for a breather or set-up rounds.