Post

(hell yeah dude)

New problem space: Discussions between release managers and external partners. This involved many emails. Issues were: Huge risk of human error, inefficient repetitive work, and so much time. So how about instead of manual emails, there is a new service?

Again lots of great stuff here to catch on the recording, essentially the gist is: They created a clear step by step system, with clear status on each step, for everyone to look into at any time internally. This removed manual emails, missed information, and status became clear.

Another issue: Internal Ubisoft folks get free games to play. Nice! But getting them was problematic. There were a huge amount of support requests all the time! It was causing way too much time to resolve, and users kept having issues. It seemed straightforward. But it wasn't. A design problem.

Classic design process: Go over it with colleagues. Figma up some different workflows. Find out what works and doesn't work. Remove clutter and options which are not critical for user flow. And then, with the new design, ran through it live with actual employees over a call. And it worked!

This cut down the support ticket load by 50%, and improved the process overall. So, for takeaways, start with empathy, identity complexity, streamline flows, guide user actions, and so much more.

Next, Mike Ambinder is talking about the science of Game Design. It is about using scientific approaches to confirm or disprove the decisions you have made. He sees science not at odds with design and art, but to help assist it.

What Mike wants to put forward is certainty in a place that he often sees as uncertain.

Could you make game design as certain as physics, chemistry, and biology? Could you as effectively describe what rewards you can give players, with certainty?

That would mean creating theories for many things that we currently do, such as: Fun, Matchmaking, UIs, difficulty, retention, rewards, and accessibility. We are good at post-launch rationalizing, but can we predict what happens before that?

This would require frameworks that allow us to gather this data, compare, contrast, and share knowledge. Of course, the usual barriers would stop us: Time, and money. But wouldn't it be worthwhile to do this work, and create more certainty?

Valve tried some of this. The reason DOTA 2 has items to trade is Valve wanted to see if the item economy from TF2 would also work in DOTA 2. It was a research project, comparing and contrasting. Creating theories.

Another example: ELO distributions: Luck vs Skill vs Combination. There is data, so gather it, compare it, create theories, put them to the test.

Other data you can gather, through surveys: Quality of match, quality of teammates, Quality of yourself. By adding that last question, 12.5% of millions of complaint reports went down, because it made players realize that sometimes, they were a problem themselves. So they would try to improve.

So basically: Try and apply theory. See what you can learn to create your own theories. Save the data and things you learned, and share them.

Next: EEG or Not EEG, for World of Warships testing.

They found out that experienced players would customize the UI (hell yeah) to expand the radar minimap. And with tracking they found that new players navigate by looking at the world, but experienced players navigated by looking at the minimap.

With EEG they compared how active players were depending on what ship they use. Battleships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers. So they can see the actual boring vs active parts the players experience, with real brain data.

Torpedoes trigger brain responses. Especially mood goes up if they hit something during battle.

The methodology is limited I some ways. EEGs are sensitive to noise, it's subjective between subjects, and it cannot measure emotions, only Valence or mood. And eye trackers have calibration and accuracy issues. It's also sensitive to eye colour. It calibrates more quickly with light eye colors

EEG can help with the discovery stage of the double diamond. Eye tracking and EEG are advanced tools. Classic tools like interviews and observations are still good and baseline. You have to have those. But if you can get more, then EEG adds new insights that can be helpful

Essentially it becomes particularly helpful if you need to justify a certain cost, venture, or push. (So if the choice is a very expensive choice, or a one way door choice, then it can be nice to really know for certain how players think and feel. But be very clear about what you measure!)

Can you change the first time user experience of a game 7 years after launch? Let's find out in our next talk, featuring June's Journey. A hidden object game, free to play, on mobile, it's a flagship title for Wooga