A farming game that teaches expected outcomes and dealing with sunk costs.
Phase 1 is “Make a Plan.” You choose what to plant, what upgrades you want to achieve, etc. If you want to reinforce the value of planning, other elements (expanding your house, what kind of farm you want to have) should also have you make a plan. Give opportunities for people to prepare for risks (storm-proofing, crop diversity), and if the risk happens, remind them that they should have prepared.
Phase 2 is where the mindless clicking would normally go in a farming game—but now the idea is to replace some of it with sunk cost type decisions. You planted corn, but someone offers you a deal on grape vines that would require losing a field of corn. You planned to hire a plant scientist, but now they’re more expensive than they were. Will you go against the plan?
Has something in common with Agricola. Although I think Agricola and Seven Wonders are best at making you think about opportunity costs—there are lots of good things you want to do, and you can’t do them all.
You planted corn, but someone offers you a deal on grape vines that would require losing a field of corn. You planned to hire a plant scientist, but now they’re more expensive than they were. Will you go against the plan?
If the rules of the game changed once, what is the chance of them changing again? If I decide to remove the field of corn, is there a chance I could later get even better deal on corn? If the scientists are more expensive that I thought, so I replace them with workers, is there a chance I could later find that workers are less efficient than advertized, so I would had a better deal with the scientists?
We should make certain that what the game percieves as a sunk cost fallacy is really a sunk cost fallacy and not something else, for example a rational update on the fact that the game sometimes changes the rules while playing.
One solution is that the game would announce that the change happens exactly once per level. It could be emphasised by having a “SECRET” card, that in the middle of the game turns and reveals a hidden rule. (The fact that there are no more “SECRET” cards on the screen should make us feel safe about no more hidden rules.) The game should not judge player for what they did before the card was shown—perhaps they had some estimate about the hidden rule, and already optimized on this estimate. But after the rule is shown, the game should reward player in how well they played the rest of the game.
For example: You need 5000 credits to win the game. After 2000 credits a “SECRET” card is played and the existing situation is saved. At the end the game shows you the alternative ending from the saved point.
To condense what I see as your point: We don’t want to change something and then quickly change it back, or it punishes people for changing.
But then again, the goal isn’t to teach people to change—it’s to teach people to make correct decisions. If something feels like punishment, that’s a game design flaw—you want to make peoples’ choices feel interesting, informed and impactful. The real culprit seems to be either withholding information about changes form the player (could be counteracted by giving notice ahead of time and being clearer about what sorts of things can happen), and making a system with lots of cost changes too complicated (counteracted by limiting the choices presented, breaking possible cost changes into sensible categories, introducing the player carefully).
Perhaps certain variables (like value of corn vs grapes, cost of hiring researcher) are either strictly increasing or strictly decreasing during the level, so you can see what is coming.
First thing that popped into my head:
A farming game that teaches expected outcomes and dealing with sunk costs.
Phase 1 is “Make a Plan.” You choose what to plant, what upgrades you want to achieve, etc. If you want to reinforce the value of planning, other elements (expanding your house, what kind of farm you want to have) should also have you make a plan. Give opportunities for people to prepare for risks (storm-proofing, crop diversity), and if the risk happens, remind them that they should have prepared.
Phase 2 is where the mindless clicking would normally go in a farming game—but now the idea is to replace some of it with sunk cost type decisions. You planted corn, but someone offers you a deal on grape vines that would require losing a field of corn. You planned to hire a plant scientist, but now they’re more expensive than they were. Will you go against the plan?
Has something in common with Agricola. Although I think Agricola and Seven Wonders are best at making you think about opportunity costs—there are lots of good things you want to do, and you can’t do them all.
If the rules of the game changed once, what is the chance of them changing again? If I decide to remove the field of corn, is there a chance I could later get even better deal on corn? If the scientists are more expensive that I thought, so I replace them with workers, is there a chance I could later find that workers are less efficient than advertized, so I would had a better deal with the scientists?
We should make certain that what the game percieves as a sunk cost fallacy is really a sunk cost fallacy and not something else, for example a rational update on the fact that the game sometimes changes the rules while playing.
One solution is that the game would announce that the change happens exactly once per level. It could be emphasised by having a “SECRET” card, that in the middle of the game turns and reveals a hidden rule. (The fact that there are no more “SECRET” cards on the screen should make us feel safe about no more hidden rules.) The game should not judge player for what they did before the card was shown—perhaps they had some estimate about the hidden rule, and already optimized on this estimate. But after the rule is shown, the game should reward player in how well they played the rest of the game.
For example: You need 5000 credits to win the game. After 2000 credits a “SECRET” card is played and the existing situation is saved. At the end the game shows you the alternative ending from the saved point.
To condense what I see as your point: We don’t want to change something and then quickly change it back, or it punishes people for changing.
But then again, the goal isn’t to teach people to change—it’s to teach people to make correct decisions. If something feels like punishment, that’s a game design flaw—you want to make peoples’ choices feel interesting, informed and impactful. The real culprit seems to be either withholding information about changes form the player (could be counteracted by giving notice ahead of time and being clearer about what sorts of things can happen), and making a system with lots of cost changes too complicated (counteracted by limiting the choices presented, breaking possible cost changes into sensible categories, introducing the player carefully).
Perhaps certain variables (like value of corn vs grapes, cost of hiring researcher) are either strictly increasing or strictly decreasing during the level, so you can see what is coming.