U.S. patent application number 11/344661 was filed with the patent office on 2006-12-14 for game optimization system.
This patent application is currently assigned to 7 Systems, LLC. Invention is credited to Nathaniel Bogan.
Application Number | 20060281535 11/344661 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 37452601 |
Filed Date | 2006-12-14 |
United States Patent
Application |
20060281535 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Bogan; Nathaniel |
December 14, 2006 |
Game optimization system
Abstract
A game optimization system is disclosed. The game optimization
system may take the form of a game balancing engine that is able to
both monitor and identify components of games that form dominant
and/or weak strategies. If desired, the game optimization system
may further make or suggest changes to the game in order to bring
out-of-balance components into balance.
Inventors: |
Bogan; Nathaniel; (Natick,
MA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
GONZALES PATENT SERVICES
4605 CONGRESS AVE. NW
ALBUQUERQUE
NM
87114
US
|
Assignee: |
7 Systems, LLC
|
Family ID: |
37452601 |
Appl. No.: |
11/344661 |
Filed: |
February 1, 2006 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
60682954 |
May 20, 2005 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
463/23 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A63F 13/60 20140902;
A63F 2300/807 20130101; A63F 2300/6009 20130101; A63F 13/10
20130101; A63F 13/822 20140902; A63F 13/79 20140902 |
Class at
Publication: |
463/023 |
International
Class: |
A63F 9/24 20060101
A63F009/24 |
Claims
1. A computer readable storage medium for use with a
multi-component computer game, the computer readable storage medium
comprising: code for calculating actual usage of a game component
within the computer game; code for identifying an acceptable usage
range for each game component; and code for determining whether the
actual usage of the game component is within the acceptable usage
range.
2. The computer readable storage medium of claim 1 further
comprising code for identifying the game component as
out-of-balance when the calculated actual usage is outside of the
acceptable usage range.
3. The computer readable storage medium of claim 2 further
comprising code for weighting actual usage by degree of
success.
4. The computer readable storage medium of claim 3 wherein
weighting actual usage by degree of success comprises identifying
the actual usage by a given player and identifying the player's
success in the computer game.
5. The computer readable storage medium of claim 4 where
identifying the player's success in the computer game comprises
determining if the player won the game.
6. The computer readable storage medium of claim 4 where
identifying the player's success in the computer game comprises
monitoring the player's progression through the game.
7. The computer readable storage medium of claim 3 further
comprising code for calculating relative expected usage.
8. The computer readable storage medium of claim 1 further
comprising code for automatically adjusting the game parameters
when actual usage is outside of the acceptable usage range.
9. The computer readable storage medium of claim 8 wherein the game
component has a power level in the game and automatically adjusting
the game parameters comprises altering the power level of the
component.
10. The computer readable storage medium of claim 9 wherein the
game component has a cost and automatically adjusting the game
parameters comprises altering the cost of the component.
11. A method for identifying out-of-balance components in a
computer game requiring players to make selections between multiple
game components, the method comprising: determining an individual
player's actual usage of a game component; calculating the player's
relative expected usage of the game component; identifying the
player's rate of success in the game; calculating a balance rating
for a game component based on the players' actual usage, relative
expected usage, and rate of success; determining whether the
balance rating is within the acceptable usage range; and
identifying the game component as being out-of-balance if the
balance rating is outside of the acceptable usage range.
12. The method of claim 11 further comprising altering the game if
the component is identified as being out-of-balance.
13. The method of claim 11 wherein calculating actual usage
comprises identifying the component or components that are selected
when a player selects between two or more components.
14. The method of claim 13 wherein calculating actual usage further
comprises identifying the component or components that are not
selected when a player selects between two or more components.
15. The method of claim 11 wherein calculating the player's
relative expected usage of the game component comprises identifying
and counting the number of unique components played by the player
during the game.
16. The method of claim 11 wherein calculating the player's
relative expected usage of the game component comprises determining
the probability of the player owning the game component.
17. The method of claim 11 wherein calculating the player's
relative expected usage of the game component comprises calculating
the expected number of unique components owned by the player.
18. The method of claim 11 further comprising normalizing the
balance rating.
19. The method of claim 11 wherein calculating the player's
relative expected usage of the game component comprises
mathematical analysis of a hypothetical hyper-balance game.
20. A computer game optimization system comprising: a computer game
including multiple game components; a first computer running the
computer game; a game balancing engine in electronic communication
with the first computer, the game balancing engine being configured
to collect data regarding usage of the game components in the
computer game and identify out-of-balance components based on the
collected data.
21. The computer game optimization system of claim 20 wherein the
game balancing engine is further configured to automatically alter
the game when out-of-balance components are identified.
22. The computer game optimization system of claim 20 further
comprising a plurality of computers running the computer game,
wherein the game balancing engine is in electronic communication
with the plurality of computers and the game balancing engine is
configured to identify out-of-balance components based on data
collected from the plurality of computers.
23. A business method comprising: collecting data regarding player
component selections by multiple players in a networked computer
game; and maintaining a database of component selection
information.
24. The business method of claim 23 wherein maintaining a database
of component selection information comprises identifying an actual
usage of a component for a given player.
25. The business method of claim 24 wherein maintaining a database
of component selection information comprises identifying a degree
of success for the player.
26. The business method of claim 24 wherein maintaining a database
of component selection information comprises identifying a relative
expected usage of the component for the player.
27. The business method of claim 23 further comprising calculating
a balance rating for a component in the networked computer
game.
28. The business method of claim 27 further comprising comparing
the balance rating for the component with an expected usage range
for the component and identifying the component as out-of-balance
if the balance rating is outside of the expected usage range.
29. The business method of claim 23 where the data is collected in
real time, as the game is played.
30. The business method of claim 23 where the data is collected
after the game has been released to the public.
31. A computer game to be played by one or more players where the
game comprises: multiple selectable components, where players
select between at least two different components during game play;
and a usage database configured to collect usage data and
electronically communicate with a game balancing engine.
32. A method for optimizing performance of a computer game
employing multiple selectable game components and rules governing
the cost and power associated with the use and acquisition of the
components, the method comprising: identifying a current game
state; hypothesizing a hypothetical game state in which all
components are hyper-balanced; incrementally altering the rules so
as to create an altered game state; and determining whether the
altered game state more closely resembles the hypothetical game
state than the current game state.
33. The method of claim 32 wherein identifying a current game state
comprises monitoring game play by multiple game players and
calculating each player's actual usage for a component.
34. The method of claim 33 wherein identifying a current game state
further comprises calculating each player's rate of success in the
game.
35. The method of claim 34 wherein identifying a current game state
further comprises calculating a balance rating for the
components.
36. The method of claim 35 further comprising determining an
acceptable balance range for the component.
37. The method of claim 36, where the acceptable balance range is
determined by identifying an acceptable deviation from a
hyper-balanced balance rating.
38. The method of claim 36, further comprising determining an
acceptable balance range for the component.
39. A computer readable storage medium for optimizing performance
of a computer game employing multiple selectable game components
and rules governing the cost and power associated with the use and
acquisition of the components, the computer readable storage medium
comprising: code for identifying a current game state; code for
hypothesizing a hypothetical game state; code for incrementally
altering the rules so as to create an altered game state; and code
for determining whether the altered game state more closely
resembles the hypothetical game state than the current game
state.
40. The computer readable storage medium of claim 39 wherein the
code for identifying a current game state comprises code for
monitoring game play by multiple game players and code for
calculating each player's actual usage for a component.
41. The computer readable storage medium of claim 40 wherein the
code for identifying a current game state further comprises code
for calculating each player's rate of success in the game.
42. The computer readable storage medium of claim 41 wherein the
code for identifying a current game state further comprises code
for calculating a balance rating for the component.
43. The computer readable storage medium of claim 42 further
comprising code for determining an acceptable balance range for the
component.
44. The computer readable storage medium of claim 43, where the
acceptable balance rating range is determined by identifying an
acceptable deviation from a hyper-balanced balance rating.
45. The method of claim 43, where the acceptable balance range is
determined by identifying an acceptable deviation from a summary
statistic of the components' balance ratings.
Description
PRIORITY CLAIM
[0001] The present application claims priority to U.S. Provisional
Patent Application Ser. No. 60/682954, filed May 20, 2006, the
entirety of which is hereby incorporated by reference for all
purposes.
BACKGROUND
[0002] Games have always been a popular pastime. Of late, computer
gaming has become an important part of the game world. Computer
networks such as the internet allow players on different computers
in different locations to play with each other in real time.
[0003] Many popular on-line games involve the selection and use of
multiple game elements, or components, that a player manipulates in
order to succeed in the game, typically by defeating an opponent
and/or accomplishing one or more tasks. Examples of games including
player-selected game components include, but are not limited to,
collectible card games (CCGs), role playing games (RPGs), and real
time strategy games (RTS).
[0004] In contrast to games like chess, checkers, or hearts, where
the playing components are static (pre-determined pieces with
pre-determined characteristics), in the CCG and RPG-style games,
players make choices regarding which playing components they will
use in order to play any given game. For example, in one style of
CCGs, players typically purchase (or trade for) large numbers of
cards from which they are able to design and build their own
customized deck(s). The player then uses the customized deck to
battle one or more opponents, typically by playing combinations of
cards and engaging in various duels. Thus, the player chooses which
playing components he or she wishes to use. In one style of RPGs,
players typically create one or more characters having various
characteristics (strength, agility, intelligence, etc.) and then
travel through the game collecting various game components, which
may include, without limitation, tangible and intangible components
such as abilities, spells, weapons, items, etc. that help the
player's character battle opponents, accomplish tasks, and/or
otherwise progress through the game. Thus, like the CCGs, RPG
players often make choices regarding some or all of the components
with which they play the game. Moreover, in many RPGs, the
character in the RPG is limited to only a certain number of items
or game components and must, therefore, select from between several
different items, thereby forcing the player to make choices during
the game regarding the items or game components with which he or
she wishes to play.
[0005] Currently, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of
players are able to access and play on-line games. As a game is
played more and more, it may become apparent that, despite all
efforts of the game designers, a particular game component
strategy, by which is meant the use of a particular game component
or a particular combination of game components in game play,
unfairly dominates the game. In the CCG context, a dominant
strategy may become apparent by the repeated, non-random appearance
of one or more specific cards in a statistically significant number
of winning decks. In the RPG context, a dominant strategy may
become apparent by the repeated, non-random appearance of one or
more characters having given characteristics, and/or selecting
similar abilities, and/or the ownership and/or use of one or more
items, by successful players. Conversely, it may become apparent
that there are (weak) strategies which are nearly always
unsuccessful.
[0006] Thus, in the context of the present disclosure, the
existence of dominant and weak strategies essentially becomes a
requirement that players who wish to "win" or be successful limit
their playing component choices to those components that are
dominant and avoid those components that are weak. Because these
types of games are designed and intended to allow players to make
choices regarding game strategy and devise their own unique
strategies, significant limitations on the choices that players
make can negatively impact enjoyment of the game. Accordingly, many
game designers spend large amounts of time during game development
attempting to balance the game. However, because such efforts are
made during game design and, typically, before the game is played
by the general public, these efforts often ultimately fail, as it
is often only after extensive game play that unfairly dominant and
weak strategies become apparent.
[0007] Thus, a game that is designed to avoid the presence of
unfairly dominant or weak strategies is greatly desirable.
Therefore, a system that is able to both monitor for and identify
game components that form or lead to the presence of unfairly
dominant or weak strategies is greatly desired. Moreover, a system
that is able to dynamically adjust the game, in order to account
for and counteract any unfairly dominant or weak strategies is
similarly greatly desired.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0008] FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of one embodiment of a
game balancing system for networked game play according to the
present disclosure.
[0009] FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of one embodiment of a
game balancing system for non-networked game play according to the
present disclosure
[0010] FIG. 3 is a flowchart depicting a first embodiment of a game
balancing engine according to the present disclosure.
[0011] FIG. 4 is a flowchart depicting a second embodiment of a
game balancing engine according to the present disclosure.
[0012] FIG. 5 is a flowchart depicting a third embodiment of a game
balancing engine according to the present disclosure.
[0013] FIG. 6 depicts an exemplary playing piece according to one
embodiment of a game according to the present disclosure.
[0014] FIG. 7 depicts an exemplary playing field according to one
embodiment of a game according to the present disclosure.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0015] The present disclosure describes a game balancing engine
(GBE) that is able to both monitor and identify components of games
that form dominant or weak strategies. In its most basic
embodiment, the GBE comprises a computer program that monitors game
play and measures the usage of the individual game components in
order to identify those game components that create an unfair
advantage or unfair disadvantage to a player using those components
in game play.
[0016] For the purposes of the present disclosure it will be
understood that the following terms are defined as follows:
[0017] "Game system" includes any hardware system by which the game
is communicated to the player. The game system may be a dedicated
single game system (Plug it in and Play TV Games, Jakks Pacific,
Malibu, Calif.), a dedicated multi-game system (e.g. the Play
Station & Play Station 2 game systems from Sony Co.; the X box
game system from Microsoft Corp.; or the Game Boy, Nintendo, and
Nintendo 64 game systems from Nintendo Corp.), or a general or
multi-purpose device capable of playing games such as a personal
computer, cellular phone, personal data assistant (PDA), handheld
computer, or the like. It should be noted that the software and/or
code for playing the game need not reside locally on the game
system. Thus a computer that links to the internet and allows a
player to play a game that resides entirely on a separate server
would still be considered a game system for the purposes of the
present disclosure.
[0018] "Networked game play" includes all ways and methods by which
two or more game systems can communicate or link with one another,
for example, in order to allow two or more players to interact with
one another or the same environment. Networked game play may take
place whether or not the players play "against" one another. Thus,
networked game play includes games in which player vs. player
combat is strictly banned, as well as cooperative play games and
traditional player vs. player combat games. Networked game play
includes, but is not limited to, both private and public internet
and intranet game play.
[0019] "Non-networked game play" includes any game play that is not
networked game play. Accordingly, non-networked game play may
include, without limitation, stand alone games played on a single
computer, or on-line single player games that do not involve
communication, linkage, or interaction with other players or shared
game environments.
[0020] "Game component" includes any tangible or intangible element
existing in the game that a player may choose to acquire and/or
use. Examples of game components include, without limitation,
skills, items, cards, spells, characteristics, personality traits,
the right to go first or make a move, and the like. In other words,
game components are a manifestation of the strategic choices a
player makes between two or more game elements. Thus, a game
component may further include paths, routes, rooms, actions, etc.
where a player is presented with the choice between whether to take
path A or path B, whether to engage in action A or action B, or
whether to take path A or engage in action A, etc.
[0021] As stated above, according to one embodiment, the GBE of the
present disclosure is intended to reduce or eliminate the existence
of unfairly advantageous or disadvantageous strategies in games,
thereby encouraging strategic diversity and more interesting game
play.
[0022] Exemplary game balancing systems according to the present
disclosure are shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. In FIG. 1, game balancing
system 100 is used to balance networked game play. In this
particular example, a server 102 is in electronic communication
with personal computers 104 and 106. Server 102 and computers 104
and 106 are capable of cooperatively running a game 108. The code
for game 108 may reside on server 102, computer 104, computer 106,
or a combination of any of the above. Moreover, it will be
appreciated that either computer 104 or 106 may act as a server. In
the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, GBE 110, resides on server 102.
However, as shown with dashed lines, it will be appreciated that
GBE 110 may reside in an alternate location and simply collect game
play data from server 102, computer 106 and/or computer 108.
Moreover, it will further be appreciated that while not shown in
the Figure, some or all of GBE 110 may reside on either computer
104 or computer 106. In this system, game play data may be
collected by the GBE during or after game play.
[0023] In FIG. 2, game balancing system 200 is used to balance
non-networked game play. In this particular example, personal
computers 202 and 204 each independently run a computer game 206a
and 206b, respectively. Personal computers 202 and 204 are each
capable of communicating with a GBE 208 located at a distant
location, such as a personal computer or server. Computers 202 and
204 are not necessarily in communication with one another.
Furthermore, as shown by broken line 210, games 206a and 206b are
not necessarily in communication with each other. Game play data on
each of computer 202 and 204 is received by the GBE during or after
game play.
[0024] As shown in FIG. 3, in one particular method, the GBE
collects data regarding actual game play in order to monitor usage
of the various game components in the game. The GBE then determines
the acceptable usage range for each monitored game component and
identifies those components for which usage falls outside of a set
of predetermined acceptable parameters. The game is then adjusted
to encourage the usage of out of balance game components back to
within the acceptable range. The adjustment may be performed
automatically by the GBE, in which case the game designer may or
may not be alerted as to which game components were out of balance.
Alternatively, the GBE may identify out of balance game components
to the game designer, who then adjusts the game accordingly.
[0025] As briefly discussed above, data collection may take place
at any time. As non-limiting examples, data may be collected in
real time, (i.e. as the game is being played), actively sent to the
GBE by players upon completion of a game, or periodically uploaded
by the GBE at random or predetermined intervals.
[0026] The GBE described in the present disclosure is suitable for
use with a wide variety of game types including, but not limited
to, collectible card games (CCGs), role playing games (RPGs) and
Real Time Strategy Games (RTSs).
[0027] As a simple example of a GBE suitable for use with a CCG,
the GBE may monitor how often players incorporate particular cards
in their personalized decks. If the GBE identifies a particular
card that is being used in a higher proportion of player decks than
defined by the game designers as being acceptable, the GBE can
label the card as being out of balance and alert the game designer
to the fact. The game designer can then alter the out of balance
card in any number of ways, for example by making the card more
expensive or harder to use, reducing the effects of using the card,
or making a new card available that is more effective in
counteracting the effects of the out of balance card.
[0028] Alternatively, instead of simply alerting the game designer
to the existence of the out-of-balance card, the GBE may be
instructed to automatically adjust one or more specific features of
any card identified as being out of balance (i.e. by increasing the
card's cost, reducing the card's effects, etc.). Accordingly, the
GBE may be provided with a list of parameters by which a card may
be out of balance and a set of solutions, an example of which is
shown in the following chart: TABLE-US-00001 Out of balance usage
Solutions Present in 90%-100% of decks Increase cost by 100% -or-
Decrease power by factor of 2 Present in 80-89% of decks Increase
cost by 75% -or- Decrease power by factor of 1.5 Present in 70-79%
of decks Increase cost by 50% -or- Decrease power by factor of
1
[0029] In the above chart, the GBE has been provided with two
solutions for each out of balance scenario. Thus the computer may
elect one of the solutions based at random or based on an algorithm
of the designers choosing. Of course it will be understood that the
above chart is intended solely for the purpose of description and
understanding of the disclosure and should not be considered as
limiting in any sense. It will also be understood that in many
CCGS, there are often cards that must be present in all decks.
Thus, in some cases, whether or not a card is out of balance and
the possible solution(s) for fixing the card imbalance may be
determined on a card-by-card basis.
[0030] In contrast to many CCGS, where the players' choices
regarding which cards to include in their deck are made before game
play starts, in many RPGS, players are often required to make
choices involving game components during the game. For example, a
player may be allowed to collect a certain number of items
throughout the course of the game. Often, the number of items a
particular player may have in his or her possession at any one time
is limited, either by specific rules (i.e. each player can have a
maximum of 5 items), by current circumstances (player X has $10 to
spend, there are four items available for purchase in the store,
but each item in the store costs $5), or by a combination of the
rules and circumstances. Thus, each player is forced to choose
which specific item(s) he or she wishes to use in the game.
Alternatively, a player may simply elect to trade away or sell a
particular component. These choices can be monitored by the GBE to
determine whether specific items are being chosen more frequently
than is desirable. Thus, when item X, costing $5 is consistently
chosen over item Y, which also costs $5, and the game designers
intended for the two items to be roughly equivalent in their impact
on the game, the GBE may identify items X and Y as being out of
balance.
[0031] FIG. 4 provides another method for implementing the GBE of
the present disclosure. In this method, each player's usage
statistics are weighted by a success calculation. As a simplistic
example, the success calculation may be determined by whether the
player was successful or not successful in the game when in the
possession of a particular game component. Typically, a component
will have to be part of a successful game in order to be part of
the data set used to determine whether or not the component is in
balance. The definition of "successful" usage may differ from game
to game and as desired by the game designer. For example, in a CCG,
a card may be required to be part of a winning deck in order for
that card to be labeled as having been used successfully, therefore
making the usage of that card acceptable for data collection
purposes. Alternatively, in an RPG where the goal is often to
complete one or more tasks, "successful implementation" may be
identified when a player succeeds in a task or advances to a new
level. One advantage of this method is that it reduces the
possibility that a game player might intentionally lose with a
given strategy in order to trick the GBE into altering one or more
game components.
[0032] Alternatively, the GBE may be designed to factor in a
player's degree of success during a game in calculating whether or
not a component is out of balance. In this example, rather than
using binary calculation (successful or unsuccessful) to determine
whether a particular player's game components should be included in
the GBE calculation, a player's degree of success is used as a
factor to determine the representational relevance of that player's
component usage. For example, the data generated by a player who
enters a game for 10 seconds and gains 5 experience points may be
less representationally relevant than a player who enters a game
for 100 hours and gains 1 million experience points. However, using
the degree of success calculation, the 10 second/5 experience point
player's data may still be statistically significant and thus
should be included in the GBE calculation, but would simply carry
less weight than the 100 hour/1 million experience point player's
data. Other ways of determining degree of success include
progression through the game (i.e level or other advancement),
number of wins, win/loss record, time spent playing the game,
player rankings or ratings, and the like.
[0033] Those familiar with games will be aware that in many, if not
most, games, it will be expected that some game components will be
used more frequently than others, and the game will purposefully be
designed as such. In such situations, it is desirable to ensure
that game pieces are being used "fairly," but not necessarily
desirable that game components be used equally. As described above,
in this context the term "fair use" is intended to mean that no one
particular strategy, or a small set of strategies, become so
dominant that a player must adopt one of those strategies in order
to be competitive. One method of ensuring fair use is by
calculating the relative expected usage (REU) of each component and
then factoring in the REU of the component when determining whether
the component is, in fact, out of balance.
[0034] A basic example of a GBE incorporating REU is shown in FIG.
5. According to FIG. 5, the GBE initially monitors usage of each
game component. The GBE then weights each player's usage by that
player's degree of success. In combination with the degree of
success weighting, the GBE factors in the REU to determine whether
the usage was within acceptable parameters. If the usage was
outside of acceptable parameters, the GBE identifies out of balance
components to the game designers and/or adjusts one or more
features of the game components or game rules.
[0035] In general, REU describes the likelihood of a game component
being encountered and used by a particular player during a
particular game, as desired by the game designers. For example,
game designers will often create very powerful game components,
somewhat powerful game components, and weak game components. (It
will be understood, of course, that these categories are created
for the ease of description and that commonly game components will
fall along a sliding scale of strength.) These component categories
typically differ in some way in an attempt to balance their usage.
One method for attempting to balance the usage of more and less
powerful components is to limit the public distribution of the more
powerful cards (i.e. rare cards in CCGs.) However, this balancing
technique does not necessarily guarantee fair game play, as
dedicated gamers will typically purchase any rare card(s) they
desire, no matter what the cost--often forcing other players who
would like to be competitive to purchase the same card(s) and adopt
the same strategies. Other methods for balancing these component
categories include making very powerful game components more
costly, requiring a higher skill level to play the very powerful
game components, or making the more powerful game components more
difficult to use.
[0036] According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, REU
provides a method by which one can determine specifically how to
adjust out-of-balance game components by reverse engineering actual
games and determining probabilistically what component choices a
given player would have made, had the game been balanced. More
specifically, Expected Usage is a specific game by game, player by
player, choice by choice calculation of the probability, given all
available knowledge about a particular player, that this player
would have used a specific component if all the game components had
an average marginal game value exactly proportional to their cost.
It will be appreciated that in this context, the term "cost" is
applied broadly to mean whatever it is that a player must do (pay
money, pay points, acquire skills, etc.) in order to acquire and/or
use the component. In other words, "cost" can be any change in game
state associated with using and/or acquiring the component that has
a negative effect on the player. Relative Expected Usage (REU) is
any measure that is proportional to Expected Usage.
[0037] In general, there are at least three different types of
components, each having different types of costs that must be
incorporated into the REU calculation. These are pay-to-play
components, skill-point acquired components, and effort-based
components.
[0038] Pay-to-play components are components where a player must
pay some amount of currency in order to play the component. These
types of components are most commonly seen in CCG-type games, but
may appear in other types of games. The amount paid for the
component is intended to be commensurate with the power level of
the component. Thus, the expectation in a hyper-balanced world (a
world in which each component has an average marginal game value
exactly proportional to its cost) is that these components are used
interchangeably. In such a case, the REU calculation is essentially
the availability calculation with some adjustment. The adjustment
is related to the fact that players are no more likely to use a
component they have 1000 of than one they have 2 of.
[0039] Skill-point acquired components are obtained by paying
points, where points are accumulated through the game as the player
advances in levels. These types of components are most commonly
seen in RPG-type game, but may be seen in any type of game. Similar
to pay-to-play components, the total point cost of the component is
intended to be commensurate with the power level of the-component.
However, because skill points are accumulated by level advancement,
usage should be commensurate with power level. In other words, more
powerful components are harder to obtain (as opposed to play). It
will be appreciated that in this context, the term "power" is
applied broadly to mean whatever it is that a player gains upon
using or acquiring the component. In other words, "power" can be
any change in game state associated with using and/or acquiring the
component that has a positive effect on the player. For these types
of components, the REU calculation may be based on the assumption
that all possible skill-point paths should be used equally by all
players who have the skill points required to access those
paths.
[0040] Effort-based components use up some (limited) resource each
time the component is used. These types of components are commonly
seen in both CCG and RPG-type games. Often, effort-based components
are abilities. The calculation of REU for effort-based components
is very similar to the calculation for pay-to-play components
because the cost of usage (in this case resource depletion) should
be equivalent to the power of the component. Thus, as with
pay-to-play components, a hyper-balanced game would expect players
to be indifferent between such components.
[0041] Of course it will be appreciated that it is not the goal of
every game designer to hyper-balance their games. Rather, the goal
is generally to increase strategic diversity by reducing or
eliminating unfairly dominant or weak strategies. Thus, while the
REU calculation may depend on what should or would have happened in
a hyper-balanced game, the determination of whether a given
component or set of components is, in fact, out-of-balance is
typically determined by a range of acceptable (or non-acceptable)
divergences from the hyper-balanced scenario.
[0042] Of course it will be appreciated that the range of
acceptable (or non-acceptable) divergences from the hyper-balanced
scenario may be a component-specific calculation. For example, a
game designer may desire for some components (or some choices) to
be hyper-balanced, while other components (or choices) need only
fall into an acceptable range. As a specific non-limiting example,
a game may include the provision that the player who goes first is
penalized by some amount. For example, the player going first may
be required to pay some amount of currency for the privilege of
going first and/or not allowed to engage in certain actions or make
certain choices during the first turn. However, the game designer
may desire for this choice to be hyper-balanced, such that whether
or not a player goes first provides no advantage to either
player.
[0043] In order to provide a more specific description of how REU
may be calculated for a specific game, it is helpful to describe an
exemplary game suitable for use with a GBE employing an REU. It
will be understood that the above-described game balancing system
and method is applicable to a wide range of networked and
non-networked games that utilize various game components,
including, but not limited to, CCGS, RPGs, adventure games, racing
games, etc. Thus, the example below is to be taken in a
non-limiting sense as numerous variations and manifestations are
possible. Moreover, it will be understood that the game described
below may be played and appreciated independently of the GBE and
should not be considered as requiring the implementation of a GBE
(with or without an REU calculation.)
[0044] One embodiment of the presently described game suitable for
use with the above-described GBE involves an online game that
combines certain elements of card-based strategy games (CCGs) with
other elements of level-based RPG's. In the most general sense, the
game combines the mechanic of each player custom-designing a
collection of game components (i.e. cards) into his or her own
arsenal of components (i.e. deck), but then requires each player to
progress through an experience system (i.e. different levels) in
order to access subsequent content (i.e. expansion cards). As with
most games, the present game may incorporate some centralized theme
in order to tell a story and generate increased player interest. An
exemplary theme might be espionage. For the purpose of the present
description, specific game examples will be provided with reference
to the espionage theme. However, it will be understood that the
game may incorporate any or no theme while retaining similar game
mechanics. Moreover, it will be appreciated that the game described
below may be implemented using only a subset of the game mechanics
described below and/or incorporating additional game mechanics not
included in the description below.
[0045] Typically, each player will initially create a character in
the game system. In order to create the character, the player may
select from a number of different traits, or foci. The number of
traits that are selected may be limited by the game rules. For
example, in a game incorporating a total of seven distinct traits,
each player may select two characteristics for his or her
character. In such a game, the player may designate a primary trait
and a secondary trait. Of course it will be appreciated that the
game may include a greater or lesser number of traits overall and
that each character may be allowed to select more or less than two
traits for his or her character. Moreover, the game may be designed
to allow different players to select different numbers of
traits.
[0046] According to one method of playing the game, the selected
primary and secondary traits dictates the set of game components
that will be available to each player's character when the player
is designing his or her character's arsenal. For example, in a game
incorporating the following foci: paramilitary, mastermind,
corporate, psychic, rogue, science, and hacker; a player who
selects the foci paramilitary and psychic will have an entirely
different set of game components from which to design an arsenal
than a player who selects the foci rogue and mastermind.
[0047] According to one method of playing the game, the objective
of the game is to sequentially complete a predetermined number of
tasks. During game play, the players have the option of playing
game components from their individually designed arsenals that
prevent the opponent from completing his or her task, playing game
components from their individually designed arsenals in an attempt
to complete their own task, or both. For example, in an
espionage-themed game, the game may be won by sequentially
capturing three secrets from the opposing player. During game play,
the players have the option of playing game components from their
arsenals that protect their secrets, attempt to uncover their
opponent's secrets, or both.
[0048] Various game components are available to the players in
forming their arsenals. The game components may be divided into
various categories such as: secondary, or controlled, character
pieces, effect pieces and object pieces. Secondary or controlled
character pieces typically represent characters that are playing in
the game (i.e. warriors, athletes, magicians, etc.) Effect pieces
typically perform one or more actions that affect other pieces in
the game. Object pieces typically represent some object that may be
used in the game. Of course it will be appreciated that additional
or alternative categories of components may be utilized.
[0049] According to the above-described espionage-themed game, the
game components may include agents (secondary pieces), plans
(effect pieces) and devices (object pieces). Each agent piece
represents an operative. Once deployed, the operative stays in play
until captured by the opponent. Agents may be deployed during a
player's turn. Agents are capable of infiltrating or securing
secrets.
[0050] Each plan piece has an effect on other pieces in play. The
plan piece may be moved to an "inactive area" (described below)
after it is executed.
[0051] Each device piece represents a piece of technology or other
artifact that may be used against an opponent. Devices may be
deployed during a player's turn, but may be activated at any
time.
[0052] Each game component will typically include a variety of
indicia indicating information about the game component. This
information may include, for example, the component's category
(i.e. secondary, effect, or object), conditions under which the
component may be brought into play, effects and/or abilities. The
information may be indicated in any meaningful way, including by
pictures, words, colors, etc.
[0053] An exemplary game component useful for the espionage-themed
game is shown in FIG. 6. As shown in FIG. 6, the depicted game
component includes indicia corresponding to: Piece Name; Deployment
Cost; Piece Type; Manifest Rating; Piece Abilities;
Infiltrate/Elude, Observe/Secure; and Activity Points.
[0054] As might be expected, the Piece Name indicates the name of
the individual piece.
[0055] The Deployment Cost represents the amount of money which
must be budgeted to deploy the piece. Deployment Cost is expressed
in International Currency (IC).
[0056] The Piece Type specifies whether the piece is an agent,
device, or plan.
[0057] The Manifest Rating is a number indicating the relative
availability of the piece. A higher number indicates that the piece
is more available. Generally, the manifest rating will equal the
percentage chance that a piece will manifest (i.e. be made
available for play) during a given turn. (This is described in
greater detail below.)
[0058] Piece Abilities lists the actions the particular piece can
take. For pieces that are capable of moving between zones (see
below) the movement costs may either be identified on the card, or
assumed for each piece type, i.e. all agents may have a
predetermined movement cost while all devices may have a different
predetermined movement cost, both of which are assumed and not
identified on the particular playing piece.
[0059] Infiltrate/Elude, Observe/Secure represents agent ratings.
Each agent receives four ratings. The first two ratings, Infiltrate
and Elude, reflect the agent's capability to enter behind enemy
lines and discover enemy secrets. The second two ratings, Observe
and Secure, reflect an agent's ability to protect secrets.
[0060] Activity points are illustrated by a bar on the right side
of the playing piece. The bar represents the number of activity
points the piece currently has at its disposal. An agent, device,
or plan may trigger abilities once they have accrued a certain
number of activity points. A piece may not accrue more than 8
activity points.
[0061] As mentioned above, each player may design his or her own
unique arsenal of playing components. The set of cards from which
the player's arsenal may be designed is determined by the primary
and secondary traits or foci selected by the player. The number of
game components that may be included in the arsenal may be limited
according to the game rules. For example, one embodiment of the
presently described game may limit the number of game components to
50. Of course it will be appreciated that the game rules may impose
any type of upper or lower limit on the number of game components
in an arsenal, or impose no limit at al.
[0062] The playing field may incorporate a number of different
zones. The zones may have different characteristics, for example,
placement in different zones may indicate whether a game component
is in use, available for use, or not available for use. In
addition, game components located in some zones may not be visible
to one or more players.
[0063] In the espionage-themed game described above, each player
controls a playing field having seven different zones: an Arsenal
Zone, an Activated Zone, a Deployed Zone, three Secret Zones, and
an Inactive Zone. An exemplary game set up is shown in FIG. 7.
[0064] The Arsenal Zone is the starting point for all pieces in the
game. The Arsenal represents the group of actively cultivated
contacts, research programs, and other tools. Pieces in the arsenal
may not be seen by either player.
[0065] The Activated Zone includes pieces that are ready for play
(i.e. available for use). Pieces move from the Arsenal Zone to the
Activated Zone based on their Manifest score (as described in
greater detail below). Pieces in the Activated Zone may be
deployed, when appropriate, by paying their Deployment Cost. Pieces
in the Activated Zone may not execute abilities, and do not accrue
Activity Points. Pieces in the Activated Zone may be seen by their
owner, but not by the opponent. However, an opponent is allowed to
see how many pieces are in the Activated Zone.
[0066] The Deployed Zone includes pieces that have been put into
play. Accordingly, these pieces can execute abilities and may be
moved to either the player's or the opponent's Secret Zones. Pieces
in the Deployed zone may become visible to an opponent under
certain conditions, but are typically hidden when they come into
play. An opponent may see that a piece has been deployed, but will
not typically be able to see the details of the piece, including
its type, cost, abilities, etc.
[0067] There are three Secret Zones for each player. Each Secret
Zone represents one player objective. Pieces in the Secret zones
can use their abilities and accrue Activity Points.
[0068] The Inactive Zone includes pieces that have been neutralized
(typically agents or devices). Pieces in the inactive zone are
visible to both players, but have no Activity Points.
[0069] According to one method of playing the espionage-themed
game, players take turns activating components, moving components
to different zones, and engaging in battles. Each player's turn
proceeds through a series of stages: Manifest phase, Accrual phase,
Main phase, and Attack phase.
[0070] During the Manifest phase pieces in the arsenal are checked
to determine whether or not they will manifest into the Activated
Zone. As an example, a piece in the Arsenal Zone that has a
Manifest rating of 10 will have a 10% chance of manifesting into
the Activated Zone during any given Manifest Phase. A calculation
is performed to determine whether the card successfully Manifests
(i.e. whether on this particular turn the card has beaten the odds
and can be introduced into play). This calculation may be
performed, for example, by a computer program capable of simulating
a probabilistic event. Those of skill in the art will be familiar
with the concept of pseudo-random number generation as a means of
simulating probabilistic events and any suitable means for doing so
may be employed. Alternatively, the calculation could be performed
by the simple mechanism of rolling a die (i.e. for a card having a
Manifest rating of 17, a roll of 1 on a six-sided die results in
the card Manifesting while a role of 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 results in
the card remaining in the Arsenal). Thus, it will be understood
that on any given turn, any number (or no) cards may be moved from
a particular player's Arsenal Zone into the player's Activated
Zone.
[0071] During the Accrual phase, the activity point total of each
card is incremented by 1. Also, players receive additional cash
(20,000IC, or International Currency) and interest (25%) on their
unspent cash.
[0072] During the Main phase, activated pieces may be deployed by
paying their deployment cost in cash. Agent pieces in the Deployed
zone may be moved into a Secret Zone and vice versa. A player can
move his or her Agent pieces into any player-owned uncaptured
Secret Zones at no cost. Agent pieces may be moved into opponent's
`outermost` Secret Zone at the cost of two Activity Points. Pieces
may use abilities.
[0073] During the Attack phase, any pieces that are in an
opponent's zone place that zone into contention. Battles take place
in the following sequence: [0074] 1. The defending player, if they
have pieces in the zone, may voluntarily reveal any of those pieces
that remain hidden. Pieces that remain hidden may not participate
in the defense of the zone. [0075] 2. Players may use piece's
abilities. [0076] 3. The attacking player reveals all pieces he or
she has in that zone. [0077] 4. Players may use piece's abilities.
[0078] 5. The Infiltrate ratings of all attacking pieces are
totaled. The Observe ratings of all revealed defending pieces are
totaled. The attacking player assigns Infiltrate points from his or
her total to revealed defending pieces as desired and the defending
player assigns Observe points from his or her total to any
attacking pieces, as desired. Attacking pieces that are assigned
observe points equal to their Elude ratings are captured, and
defending pieces that are assigned Infiltrate points equal to their
Secure rating are captured. After pieces are captured, if there are
attacking pieces still present in the zone, and no remaining
revealed defending pieces in the zone, the attacker captures the
zone, and all pieces in that zone return to their owner's
arsenals.
[0079] As stated above, the presently-described game provides level
advancement game play. An example of level advancement game play in
the context of the espionage-theme game allows players to advance
in two ways:
[0080] First, players may advance by earning renown points whenever
they win a game. When a player reaches a certain renown point
total, the player will achieve a new renown level. At each
successive renown level, access to certain pieces will be unlocked.
Players earn more renown for defeating a player above their level.
Players may also lose renown points if they lose a match to a
player who is below their level.
[0081] Second, players receive additional "contacts" by playing
games. During each game, depending on a player's performance, he or
she will receive a varying number of new contacts, represented by
game pieces. At level 1, for example, a winning player may receive
2 new contacts. A losing player may receive 1 new contact. These
contact pieces are randomly selected from the pieces unlocked for
that player based on his or her selection of primary and secondary
foci.
[0082] According to one method of play, player matches are assigned
at random and a player must play randomly assigned opponents at a
renown level equal to or below their own. Additionally, players may
elect to raise the ceiling on the highest level opponent they may
be randomly assigned.
[0083] As stated above, a GBE employing an REU calculation may be
employed to balance and maintain balance of the above-described
game. According to one method, REU is first calculated for a given
player, for a given game win, for a given component in order to
determine the expected value of usage for a given component. This
can be calculated in the following manner: REU=O*A/N Where: [0084]
A (player p, game g)=the number of unique components in that
player's arsenal; [0085] O (player p, game g, component c)=the
probability that a player at this exact experience level AND with
access to the component (ignoring any class distinctions), owns at
least one of component c; and [0086] N (player p, game g)=the
expected number of unique components owned by that player. [0087]
"A" is determined by tracking and counting the actual number of
unique components played by this particular game winning arsenal.
"A" takes into account the fact that some players will tend to use
50 unique components, while other players will tend to use only 10
unique components. [0088] "O" is the probability of owning a
particular component, assuming the player is in the class and is
therefore equal to 1 minus the probability that the player owns
none of those particular components:
O=Prob(own>=1)=1-Prob(own=0)
[0089] Prob(own=0) can be calculated by multiplying together every
chance the player had to not get the particular component:
Prob(own=O)=((1-C)/C).sup.T where: [0090] C=the count of components
available to each class from the set this component is part of; and
[0091] T=the total number of components this player has acquired
from that set. Thus, O=1-((1-C)/C).sup.T For a given set, the
expected total number of components owned is: T*O N is the sum of
expected owned components over all the sets, so:
N=.SIGMA.(T.sub.i*O.sub.i) i over all sets So:
REU=A*(1-((1-C)/C).sup.T)/.SIGMA.(T.sub.i*O.sub.i)
[0092] Once REU is calculated, the GBE can monitor the actual usage
(U), degree of success (S) and REU for each component and determine
a Balance Rating (BR) for each component.
[0093] Balance Rating can be calculated in several different ways.
Exemplary methods for calculating BR are illustrated below: BR 1
.function. [ component ] = all .times. .times. players .times. ( S
* U / REU ) ##EQU1## or ##EQU1.2## BR 2 .function. [ component ] =
all .times. .times. players .times. ( S * U ) / all .times. .times.
players .times. ( REU ) ##EQU1.3##
[0094] In addition, the above calculations can be normalized by the
sum of success of all players. Exemplary methods for calculating a
normalized BR are illustrated below. BR 1 .times. Norm .function. [
component ] = all .times. .times. players .times. ( S * U / REU ) /
all .times. .times. players .times. ( S ) ##EQU2## or ##EQU2.2## BR
2 .times. Norm 1 .function. [ component ] = all .times. .times.
players .times. ( S * U ) / all .times. .times. players .times. ( S
* REU ) ##EQU2.3## or ##EQU2.4## BR 2 .times. Norm 2 .function. [
component ] = [ all .times. .times. players .times. ( S * U ) / all
.times. .times. players .times. ( REU ) ] / all .times. .times.
players .times. ( S ) ##EQU2.5##
[0095] In the case where an exact EU is used for REU, a normalized
Balance Rating can provide the degree of over (or under) use of the
component. Specifically, a normalized BR of 1 means the component
is used exactly as it would be in a hyper-balanced game, a
normalized Balanced Rating of 0.5 means that the component is used
half as much as it would be in a hyper-balanced game, and a
normalized BR of 4 means the component is being used 4 times as
much.
[0096] Alternatively, a Balanced Range can be calculated by
identifying an acceptable deviation from a summary statistic, such
as the mean, median, or a specific percentile (e.g. 30% percentile,
35% percentile, 40% percentile, 45% percentile, etc.) of the
components' balance ratings. Of course, any other suitable method
of determining an acceptable balanced range may be employed.
Components outside of the acceptable balanced range may then be
adjusted, as described above.
[0097] It will be appreciated that this specific calculation for
the above-described game can be extended to all types of games,
where, for each game one must initially determine how to accurately
calculate the success weighting (S) for each given player, the REU
for each given player for each given component, and the actual
usage (U) for each given player for each given component. The
success weighting may be the number of game wins, the number of
experience points earned, or some other calculation of success as
determined by the specific game. In the above-described game, S is
the number of game wins, REU is calculated in the manner described
above, and U is the fraction of the player's wins where the given
component was in the arsenal.
[0098] As above, Balanced Range can then be calculated and any
components outside of the acceptable limits may then be
adjusted.
[0099] It will be appreciated that one or more GBEs may be employed
to balance a particular game. For example, where the game includes
multiple independent component sets, a separate GBE may be employed
for each set. For the purposes of the present disclosure, a
"component set" includes game components between which a player may
choose during the course of a game. An example of game components
that would be included in a single component set are a weapon
available for purchase and a skill available for purchase, where
the weapon and skill can be purchased with the same type of
currency (e.g. both the weapon and skill can be purchased with
gold), or where one type of currency can be purchased/obtained by
using another (i.e. the weapon can only be purchased with gold and
the skill can only be purchased with skill points, but skill points
can be purchased with gold). Components are considered to be in
independent component sets if there is no way for a player to
choose between the two, in other words, if the components are not
tradable within the context of the game. An example of components
in independent component sets would be weapons that can only be
purchased with gold and skills that only be purchased with skill
points where gold and skill points cannot be traded for one
another.
[0100] Those familiar with gaming will be aware that many games can
be played in multiple formats (or metagames), with each format
employing some or all of the same game components, but often
employing different rules. For example, the game Magic: The
Gathering (Wizards of the Coast, Seattle, Wash.) is known to have
at least three formats: a sealed deck format, often used in
tournaments, where players are provided with a specific pool of
cards from which they must build their personalized deck; a type II
format, where players may include in their personalized decks any
cards published in the last 6 sets of cards released by the game
manufacturer; and a type I format, where players may include in
their personalized decks any card ever released by the game
manufacturer.
[0101] In the case that a game can be played in one of a number of
different formats, it will be understood that it would be desirable
to ensure that the game components are in balance regardless of the
format of game in which they are used. However, it may often be the
case that a component that is in balance in one format is out of
balance in another, resulting in a format-dependent imbalance. One
way to compensate for format-dependent imbalance is to employ
individual GBEs for each format, and then have the individual GBEs
communicate to make decisions about whether and how to adjust a
particular component when the component is identified as being out
of balance.
[0102] As a non-limiting example, each Magic format described above
may be regulated by an individual GBE. When the individual GBEs
identify out-of-balance components, they may alert one another of
the imbalance and adjust the identified out-of-balance components
as follows:
[0103] If a particular component is found to be too weak in all
formats, the component can be made stronger.
[0104] If the component is too strong in any format, the component
can be made weaker.
[0105] If the component is too weak in one or more formats, but
within acceptable parameters in any format, the component is left
as is.
[0106] Of course it will be appreciated that alternative methods of
adjusting identified format-dependent imbalance may be
employed.
[0107] Moreover, the multiple metagame balancing technique
described above may be employed not just when a game exists in
multiple formats, but also when a particular game is played
differently by different types of players. For example, different
GBEs may be employed to monitor how the game and components are
played by players of different experience levels. This may be
desirable in the context of a game where a particular component is
very valuable to beginners, less valuable to experienced players,
and then regains importance for very experienced players. Moreover,
it will be appreciated that multiple GBEs may be employed to
monitor individual metagames distinguished by the game designer's
subjective preference.
[0108] It is believed that the disclosure set forth above
encompasses multiple distinct inventions with independent utility.
While each of these inventions has been disclosed in its preferred
form, the specific embodiments thereof as disclosed and illustrated
herein are not to be considered in a limiting sense as numerous
variations are possible. The subject matter of the inventions
includes all novel and non-obvious combinations and subcombinations
of the various elements, features, functions and/or properties
disclosed herein. Similarly, where the disclosure refers to "an"
element or the equivalent thereof, such disclosure should be
understood to include incorporation of one or more such elements,
neither requiring nor excluding two or more such elements.
[0109] Inventions embodied in various combinations and
subcombinations of features, functions, elements and/or properties
may be claimed in a related application. Such claims, whether they
are directed to a different invention or directed to the same
invention, whether different, broader, narrower or equal in scope
to any original claims, are also regarded as included within the
subject matter of the inventions of the present disclosure.
* * * * *