Hi everyone here is part one of a three part thing Im researching to understand what makes for good trait mapping and how we might design an awesome trait matrix for Aavegotchi.
Part 1 - What is the trait trinity and why is it good?
Executive summary
Goal: Analyse themes from popular video game traits to construct a mental model for trait mapping as a baseline for validating any design decisions within a proposed paatch.
Outcomes: Defined a trait trinity as being more than just a triad of player ability values but in fact a system of six trait polarities that are arranged into combinatory and opposing dynamics that achieve game balance and player experience of creativity.
What makes a trait trinity work is not only that there exists a sensible trade off of opportunity cost between select opposing traits (principle #2), but that complimentary traits are packaged up into Master traits that ensure the opportunity cost trade offs are equally balanced across the trait matrix (principle #3.) The integrity of a well functioning trait trinity is maintained by an unbroken unidirectional continuity of trade off between trait polarities (principle #1.) Breaking that continuity unbalances gameplay and destroys a player’s ability to experience creativity within their preferred play style.
Next steps: Model the proposed Aavegotchi trait mappings and hold that model against the discussed principles to evaluate how viable the proposed design is to achieving game balance and good player experience outcomes.
Introduction
I’m a user experience researcher from a financial services background and I nurse a hobbying passion for video game design: in particular the holy trinity, rock-paper-scissors, agility-strength-intelligence, damage-attack-support from much loved RPGs, MOBAs and MMOs. I wish to contribute to this conversation thematic analysis that might challenge our assumptions and arrive at design systems with better gameplay outcomes for players. My goal is to attempt to construct a mental model for trait mapping that might be useful to validate any design decisions within a proposed paatch.
Research goals
Im going to tackle this in three steps:
-
Part 1. (this report) What is the trait trinity and why is it good?
Research a mental model that defines the design principles within the classic trait trinity: create a baseline for good trait mapping
-
Part 2. (a following report) How do the current state proposed Aavegotchi traits compare to the classic trinity design principles?
Evaluate how the current state proposed Aavegotchi traits compare to the classic trinity: identify what (if any) problems currently exist in the proposed traits
-
Part 3. (if that then) Re-design the Aavegotchi trait map
Design a future state model for Aavegotchi trait mapping: Identify what (if any) opportunities to improve gameplay outcomes might be possible to propose within a core prop
Method
Warning: Qualitative analysis is messy, always iterating and every model is wrong - but some are useful. Look at this research as a conversation you are welcome to participate in. I have used these types of activities to reduce risk in implementations from banking applications to child protection systems. I trust in this process to produce useful insights into user experience outcomes. DM me on Discord if you want to jump into the Miro board where this data lives and we can collaborate together.
Assumption: modeling the trait trinity may reveal not-easily-obvious insights that might help us validate the design of a future aavegtochi trait matrix.
Part 1: What is the trait trinity and why is it good?
A study by Lookinghandsome
Contents
1.1 Bunch of traits
1.2 Trait thematic analysis
1.3 Trait trinity model
1.4 Balancing a trinity
1.5 Primary Attributes
1.6 Class creation
1.7 Breaking the model
1.8 Conclusion
1.9 Design principles
1.1 Bunch of traits
Hey I know these
Let us not assume that any one person understands what the holy trinity is and how it works, let’s verify!
Start with a blank canvas. A triangle shaped canvas for obvious reasons. We can brain dump a bunch of traits down (I have pulled some but not all traits* mentioned in the DAO forum as a data source.)
Let’s define our terms as we go
Traits = attributed values that can be chosen by the player, usually at a trade off against other attribute values
*there are surely more traits and classes in gaming that are not included in this study but the point here is not to be complete but to have enough data to continue experimenting. Pareto rule.
1.2 Trait thematic analysis
Next we can group these traits into clusters of similar traits and identify any themes in the below synthesis diagram.
Black trait themes
When we collect like-traits together with other like-traits and arrange them into these trait towers the following six themes emerged from the below synthesis:
- Inflict damage
- Attack speed
- Attack range
- Disrupt attack
- Replace damage
- Mitigate damage.
Red higher themes
At a higher order we can identify affinities within these trait themes and three higher themes also emerge from the synthesis:
This step is subjective to the data and you might have your own view on how to arrange label these themes based on the traits you have experienced from your own gameplay. I would say that the themes are pretty subjective then, but the higher themes are pretty solid.
For example,
Q: ‘Support’ seems to be a dubious cluster of Damage mitigation and Attack disruption, couldn’t either of these also live under Attack or Damage?
A: Sure, and we could iterate upon the sense-making all the way to the Gotchiverse launch. Let’s move on for now with what we have here and we can always come back and amend things as the general discussion continues.
Synthesis diagram
1.3 A trinity model
Let’s try and reconstruct the trinity model using the outputs of the above thematic analysis. The point is not to say ‘this model is the holy trinity’ but to try at catch a trinity in the wild and make it hold still while we examine it.
How to read the below model
- The six small trait themes can be arranged along either end of a side of the triangle.
Notice how each of the six small trait themes are pair to reflect one side of a polarity of the higher order trait?
- The three higher order themes can be placed in the vertices of the triangle.
Notice how each higher order theme represents a continuity of the shared ability value?
A trinity model
Principle #1
Trait trinities are actually trait six-shooters or trait half-dozens: Each of the three higher traits in the trinity are composed of a pair of bipolar abilities for a total of six traits.
Binary traits = trait pairs that describe two polarities of the same higher ability.
- Disrupt attack and Mitigate damage are two sides of the Support dynamic: one defers enemy attack away from the player and/or team while the other absorbs extra damage to the player and/or on behalf of the team.
- Attack speed and Attack range are two sides of the Attack dynamic that defines the ability pace the frequency of attack or lengthen the range of attack.
- Inflict damage and Replace damage are two sides of the damage dynamic that defines the attrition of incurred damage against regenerated damage.
1.4 Balancing a trinity
Now we have somewhat of a model representation of a trait trinity. We know that ‘the map is not the territory’ but let’s see what we can learn about the relationships between traits in trinities such as this one.
How to read the below model
The way to read the below model is to follow each trait theme around the triangle to its opposite side trait and ask: does a trade off between these opposing trait themes make sense to maintain gameplay balance?
As experienced gamers we all intuitively understand that the trait trinity is a triangle of offsets. Now we can visualise how balance is achieved through the unidirectional continuity of opportunity costs between six opposing traits, not simply three.
Principle #2 - Balancing a trinity requires opposing trait opportunity costs
Each selected increase in one trait polarity must be balanced by an opportunity cost in two opposing trait polarities.
MOAR - you can skip this italicised text as it is redundant to the above model (incase the notes within the model are not easily readable)
As a player you get to choose which traits to increase, usually at a trade off against other attribute values: one point (+1) increase in one trait is an opportunity cost against another trait/s. Opportunity cost could be represented as (+0) or a relative (-1) depending on how you look at it but for now, lets call opportunity cost, (-).
If a player might select to buff on trait them in our below trinity model then we would say each trait selection has one buff/cost/cost (+/-/-) effect.
Starting with the black triangle of offsets (+/-/-):
+Inflict damage
Increased ability to + Inflict (melee) damage is offset by a decreased ability to - Range attack and - Mitigate damage
+Mitigate damage
Increased ability to absorb or Mitigate damage is offset by decreased ability to -Inflict melee damage and ranged attack.
+Ranged attack
Increased ability to +Ranged attack is offset by decreased ability to -Inflict melee damage and -Mitigate or absorb damage
And the white triangle of offsets
+Replace damage
Increased ability to +Replace damage is offset by decreased -Attack speed and ability to -Disrupt attack
+Disrupt attack
Increased ability to +Disrupt attack enemy is offset by decreased -Damage replacement and -Attack speed
+Attack speed
Increased +Attack speed is offset by decreased ability to -Disrupt attack and -Replace damage
But this principle is key: This is why the trinity is obvious to understand but not easyily obvious to explain or design. Looking at the below model it is not obvious that each higher trait theme is infact a binary pair of values with bipolar effects.
1.5 Primary Attributes
Jfc, where are you going with all this??
Hold on a minute fren, we need to talk about classes now because video gaming is meant to be fun and this is the fun part.
We’ll discuss an open class system because that is relevant to Aavegotchi. Players choose which Aavegotchi to own, which trait points to increase per level and which wearables to buff traits. That’s a relatively open class system compared to closed class selection games without leveling or items. We might say then that players will somewhat create their own classes while certainly gravitating to the easiest, most effective more most fun meta archetypes of classes. For example, if possible, a Ranged attack nuking pest that steals all the kills.
The below trait trinity dynamic defines a balanced environment of attribute trade offs where a player can be creative with selecting for their own custom and personally preferred play style: open class creation. But not without constraint. There are natural synergies between complimentary traits. Complimentary trait pairs share the same side of the triangle. Maximising for any axis of the triangle gives rise to acute competitive advantages. Each side at its maximum, affords distinct play styles that are defined by the player outcomes that are natural to the trait pair combinations (big black arrows represent an equivalent selected increase in complimentary trait pairs.)
Player experience outcomes
- It makes sense to pair Inflict damage and Attack speed because either trait mutually reinforces the players ability to kill enemy players.
- It makes sense to pair Replace damage and Mitigate damage because both traits mutually reinforce the player’s ability to survive enemy attack and maintain presence.
- It makes sense to combine Ranged attack and Disrupt attack because these traits maximise a players ability to control the position and movement of enemy players in a fight.
This is why it is common to see these trait pairs combined into one Primary Attribute. Below is a common primary attribute trinity that we can examine through the lens of DoTA. Reference: DoTA Attributes @ Attributes - Dota 2 Wiki
Players can increase a one of three Primary Attributes (Strength, Agility or Intelligence) by leveling, item purchase or selecting special abilities.
In games that use this trinity:
- An increase in the Agility master trait often correlates in an increased ability to +Inflict damage and +Attack speed
- An increase in the Strength master trait often correlates in an increased ability to +Replace damage and +Mitigate damage
- An increase in the Intelligence master trait often correlates in an increased ability to +Disrupt attack and +Ranged attack
Which finally leads us to,
1.6 Class creation
Wen classes? Needs more triangles
These Primary Attributes bind complimentary traits together to constrain the player into choosing opportunity costs that balance the trait matrix. The effect of this constraint is the bottom up emergence of the familiar play style archetypes we know and love: classes. Let’s use more triangles to examine how that works.
Who’s going tank?
In the example below a new black triangle explodes out of the Strength Primary Attribute side of our trinity model. The way to read this model is that black ‘Class’ triangle points out through the side of the Primary Attribute the player is allocating towards. The distance between the bottom corners of the triangle and the opposing traits represent the opportunity cost of not selecting for those traits instead. Things outside the triangle are stronk. Things inside the triangle are weak.
The placement of the below example triangle represents a player dumping his trait point selection 100% into Strength.This effects a binded increase in the both the traits +Replace damage and +Mitigate damage. This also effects an opportunity cost against the opposing traits -Ranged attack and -Attack speed. This doesn’t mean the player cannot have a slight ability to Inflict damage and Disrupt attack but neither of these traits can be strong.
See how the most reconisable classes (especially from DoTA) can be represented by maximum Primary Attribute allocations and incur opportunity costs in opposing traits.
There also exist interesting hybrid classes when a player selects for equal increases in two Primary Attributes. Notice how this dual Primary Attribute incurs an acute opportunity cost in the third and remaining Primary Attribute. The base of the triangle does not even enter that third and remaining Primary Attribute. These represent fun high risk play styles.
Seems you can go wild with the challenge of finding an axis for every class ever known. Where would a healer go? Where would a scout, ranger, warrior, sorcerer, knight, priest, warlock, barbarian, dualist, ninja, guardian, berserker or walking treasure chest go? This model is fun to play around with and see where the traingle corners land. Feel free to DM me for the Miro board and have a crack yourself, validate whether this is logically consistent with the traits and classes you enjoy playing.
For now lets stop and say,
Principle #2 Bind complimentary traits into Primary Attributes
Complimentary traits must be bound together within a Primary Attribute so that points can be attributed evenly across the matrix of trade offs.
1.7 Breaking the model
This all better have a point, Ive been reading this for about ten fuckin years now
Hold on a minute fren it’s nearly over and the point is to walk away confident in our understanding of what makes a trait matrix both balanced and enjoyable to play within. One way to understand things is to break them.
Below is a version of our trinity model that breaks from the opportunity cost ratio of trait allocation. This trait matrix allows a player to maximise two opposing traits: Inflict damage and Ranged attack (below in red font and dotted line). Maximising these opposing traits has come at an opportunity cost of low Replace damage, Mitigate damage and Disrupt attack but it hardly matters: the ability to maximise for the most aggressive traits makes the defensive traits obsolescent. This bad boy can ham out max damage at range before any defensive, supportive or even less aggressive players can get within its range.
The problem of broken, over powered play styles is not alone to ranged damage or even only aggressive traits. Consider the below example that models a break in the opportunity cost between opposing defensive traits; Replace damage and Disrupt attack. If such an opposing trait combination were permitted to be maximised - you would be able to play an immortal character who can continually disrupt attack, escape to fast heal and reinitiate the fight at will.
An annoying player impossible to kill at the least, or a constantly present threat upon you with stuns and slows at the worst.
1.8 Conclusion
Wrap it up please, ser.
Implications
The implications of this study come with two caveat assumptions.
The first assumption is a simple design decision: are you developing upon the rule of thumb ‘holy trinity’ rock-paper-scissors of damage-support-attack or are you doing something faancy.
The second assumption is about what gameplay style your player base values: to validate this would require user research with a sample of users (interviews, surveys ect.)
-
Assumption 1. The trait matrix in consideration for implementation to a video game is arranged in a three point trinity of attribute values.
-
Assumption 2. The most important factors to your player base in a trait matrix are that:
a) trait dynamics are balanced for all player’s preferred play styles and
b) trait dynamics afford players some creativity and freedom in realising their preferred play style.
Assuming we know both, then it follows that the below design principles must be adhered to when designing a trait matrix:
1.9 Design principles
Principle #1
Trait trinities are actually trait six-shooters or trait half-dozens: Each of the three higher traits in the trinity are composed of a pair of bipolar abilities for a total of six traits.
Principle #2
Every trait polarity in the trinity must have an opportunity cost trade off with two opposing trait polarities.
Principle #3
Complimentary traits must be bound together within a Primary Attribute so that points can be attributed evenly across the matrix of trade offs.
Next steps
Let’s model the proposed Aavegotchi traits and interrogate them against these design principles:
- What is the shape of the trait matrix we’re looking at in Aavegotchi?
- What are the apparent traits, ability directions and master traits and do they make sense?
- What is the dynamic between opposing trait trade offs and can they be broken?
Congratulations to anyone who made it through this.
Keen to hear your thoughts as I embark on the next steps in Part 2: How do the current state proposed Aavegotchi traits compare to the classic trinity design principles.
I am happy to discuss this all further on a call as Im sure there are many leaps of logic that are not plainly written in the sequence of this report. The collaborative tool these models live in features a video call option - free and in browser - as easy as a zoom meeting.
I think we’re getting close to one of the longest forum threads!
