July 11, 2019 at 19:22Gamification Mechanics: Skill Tree
Hello, Habr! We continue the conversation about the mechanics of gamification. The previous article talked about the ranking, and in this talk about the skill tree (technology tree, skill tree). Consider how the tree is used in games and how this mechanics can be applied in gamification.
The skill tree is a special case of a technological tree, the prototype of which first appeared in the Civilization board game back in 1980. Its author, suddenly, is not Sid Meyer, but Francis Thresham. However, in computer games, the primacy of the use of this mechanics (as well as the final formation in the usual form) belongs to the old Sid in the classic Sid Meier's Civilization of 1991. Since then, the technological tree has been used in game development not only in strategies and RPGs, but even in action games and shooters. In the article, I do not pay attention to the difference between the skill tree and the technology tree, and by the skill tree I mean both. I think both spellings (the skill tree and the skill tree) are correct, but I will use the latter in the article, as it is more often found in game dev.
It all started with that. Sid Meyer Civilization Technology Tree.
If you want to learn more about the history of the emergence of tree mechanics or the principles of its construction, then the starting point is the Wikipedia page of the same name . In my article, we will consider tree varieties from modern (and not so) games, pay attention to problems of mechanics, try to give solutions to these problems, and reflect on specific ways of using skill tree mechanics in gamification. Why only ponder? Unfortunately, I could not find valid examples of using the skill tree in a non-game context. If you come across such examples, then I will be grateful for the mention of them in the comments to this article.
Before using game mechanics in gamification, you need to study the game development experience. To analyze how mechanics are used in games, what is attractive to players, what kind of fan people get when interacting with this mechanics. On the skill tree, I recommend watching Mark Brown’s video or an article translating the highlights of this video on dtf.ru. Mark's theses are relevant not only in game dev, but also for the gamification of non-game systems and projects.
The varieties of the skill tree (by the principle of construction, by the type of game, etc.) are described in detail in the Wikipedia article mentioned above. I don’t see the point of quoting, so I suggest looking at some interesting trees that are found in games.
A reference example of a skill tree from Path of Exile. It is found in most mentions, memes, and demotivators about the skill tree. Despite the apparent complexity, the tree is logical and quickly mastered by the players. But for gamification, this tree size is too large; the level of involvement of users of the gamified system is not enough to deal with it. Another large and complex tree from the game Final Fantasy X The Final Fantasy series excelled again, this time the twelfth part. The tree is smaller than in the tenth, but it looks too unusual and difficult to understand. Where is the start here? Where is the finish line? Is this tree at all?
Old school skill tree from Diablo 2 (gluing from two screenshots). Pay attention to the principle of dividing the tree into three tabs, which in essence are three separate skill trees of a smaller scale. A good, suitable skill tree from modern gaming. Assassin's Creed: Origins. Pay attention to a successful design decision: a bright, contrasting emphasis on the learned skills and the ways that they open. The most chthonic example I could find. Technological tree of Warzone 2100. I recommend that you click on the link to see it at 100% scale.
How can the mechanics tree of skills be applied in gamification? Two obvious options are: a) training systems and personnel reserve, and b) loyalty programs. The skill tree in loyalty programs is a system of discounts and other bonuses that are customizable for each client by the client himself.
The first option: distance learning portals and internal corporate portals. In both cases, the task is the same - to structure possible theoretical skills, to show the user of the system which path he must go in order to obtain a certain competency. Let's say you got a job as a junior analyst in a new company. On the corporate portal, you can access the tree of personal competencies, according to which it is easy to understand what theoretical skills you lack to the level of senior analyst, you can see what you need to learn if you want to move to the field of project management, etc. The management of the company, in turn, receives a complete picture of the competencies of employees. Such a system, in theory, facilitates the formation of a personnel reserve and the vertical growth of employees in a company, and increases the overall level of competencies of employees.
A simple mock-up of a part of the skill tree for an internal company portal. In a real company, the tree will be larger, but for an example that reflects the main meaning, this is also suitable.
Consider the layout in more detail. The green fill marks the learned skills (rectangles) and specialties (ellipses), the white fill marks the skills available for learning. Gray shading indicates inaccessible skills and specialties. Orange and gray lines show the paths between skills and specialties, orange - the path already traveled, gray - not yet traveled. By clicking on the rectangle, in my opinion, it is logical to open a window with the ability to record on the course for the selected skill, or with information on where and how this course can be taken and confirmed (for example, if the portal does not integrate with the distance education system). By clicking on the ellipse we show a window with a description of the specialty (duties, payroll, etc.). Pay attention to work experience: strictly speaking, it’s not a skill, but it demonstrates the possibility of embedding in the tree of skills not only theoretical competencies, but also other necessary requirements for the specialty. A progress bar is built into the work experience rectangle, which visually shows the user's progress.
The second option of using the mechanics of the tree of skills is the development of loyalty cards. Imagine the classic version of a loyalty card for a large store, for example, sports goods, clothes and shoes. As a rule, such a card gives a percentage of the discount when the buyer reaches the specified amount of purchases, or bonuses for the purchase can be added to the card, which are used to partially pay for future purchases. This is better than nothing, it works, but such a card does not imply any flexible configuration for a specific client. But what if you give the client the opportunity to choose, for example, a 5% discount on all goods or 10%, but only on men's shoes? And at the next level achieved, for example, an increase in the guarantee to 365 days or a 2% discount on snowboards? In theory, such a loyalty system will work better than usual, because no one knows better than the person himself what does he need. A company that has implemented such a system will stand out on the monotonous market of loyalty programs (in which there are no interesting new products for a long time), receive more data about customers' preferences, increase their level of affection for the store, and can even ultimately reduce the cost of the loyalty system compared to the classic version.
Cost reduction is possible by correctly setting the balance in the skill tree. When developing, you need to calculate how many conditional points (in ruble terms) each of the skills will cost (it is not necessary that the skills cost the same), compare the results with the classic loyalty program and “calibrate” the resulting system. For example, take a shoe store that sells men's, women's and children's shoes. The classic loyalty program gives a 5% discount on all products after reaching a purchase amount of 20,000 rubles. In the new system, we will make the cost of one skill equal to 10,000 rubles, and we will offer the client three options - 5% for men's shoes, 5% for women's and 5% for children's. Suppose we do not make a hard choice, and the client will be able to open all three skills.
We immediately object: but the buyer will receive a discount on the most important category of goods for him faster. True, but I believe that most buyers do not make purchases only in the selected category. Today a person buys shoes for himself, tomorrow - shoes for his wife, and after six months they have a child who also needs shoes. The larger the store, the more customers and the more diverse assortment, the better this model will work, and the more interesting it will be for the store to give customers the opportunity to choose discounts for certain categories of goods (even for narrow categories).
Another reason for using the skill tree in loyalty programs is the dislike of the human brain for incomplete actions. Another game mechanics is based on this: a progress bar. I believe that in our situation, the brains of buyers will be encouraged to discover new and new skills in the tree, engage in a kind of munchkinism, and strive to get all the skills of the tree. And spend more on this than with the classic loyalty program. Therefore, although Mark Brown recommends making trees in games that cannot be opened completely, in loyalty programs, on the contrary, I advise you not to limit customers and not to make them think about choosing the correct distribution of points. In the end, the level of customer involvement in the loyalty program is less than the level of player involvement in a new game,
In the final part of the article, we will talk about problems and issues of applying the mechanics of the tree of skills in practice.
Show or not the entire skill tree at once? In some games, the player does not see the whole tree and learns about possible skills only as they are achieved. I believe that such a cover-up is not useful in gamification. Show the tree right away, motivate the user to build their own tree development strategy.
When designing a tree for gamification, lay in it the ability to reset skills while maintaining the accumulated experience and the ability to redistribute skills. Such a function will save users from excessive responsibility in the distribution of skills, will make it possible to adapt the loyalty program to changes in the user's life. Having a baby, moving to another city, increasing or decreasing at work, jumps in the dollar exchange rate - many factors affect a strong change in consumption habits. The skill reset function allows the system to remain relevant in such situations. But do not make this function too accessible, otherwise users will simply reset their skills at the checkout before paying, choosing the right ones at the moment and depriving the system of its original meaning. It’s normal to give this opportunity once a year,
Consider the mechanics of scoring in the system. One point will be equal to one ruble? Or a thousand rubles? Is it worth it to lay in the system the possibility of an increased accrual of points in certain periods or for certain goods? Can I pay for goods with these points instead of discovering skills? Or will the bonus points and points needed to unlock skills be different entities in the system?
An important point - what will the skill tree consist of? What bonuses are in it? Will skills have levels? For example, a skill of the first level gives a discount of 1%, and the same skill of the fifth level - already at 5%. But do not get carried away only with such bonuses: in games and in gamification, such a tree will be boring. Add new features and capabilities, not just improve existing ones. For example, in the tree you can unlock the passage to the checkout without waiting in line, or an invitation to closed sales, or other exclusive opportunities. The skill tree in loyalty programs is not only about discounts on goods and services. The skill tree in the game should provoke players to master new content, and in the loyalty program, stimulate additional purchases in different categories of goods.
Who can use this mechanic to gamify loyalty programs? In my opinion, a small, medium and large business operating in the field of B2C and offering at least five (and preferably ten) types of goods and services. Pizza, woks, rolls and sushi are different types of goods in my understanding. Haircut beard, mustache and head, children's haircut and hair coloring - different types of services. Red or green shoes, Margarita pizza and barbecue pizza are the same types of products. The skill tree, consisting of bonuses for one or two types of goods, in my opinion, is not necessary. In such a situation, it is easier to use the classic loyalty program.
The problem in the design and implementation of such a system, in my opinion, is the lack of necessary competencies in the owner company. The skill tree is difficult to make commercially effective by the marketing department, without experience in gamification, and most importantly, without a game designer with experience in balancing such a system. However, hiring new employees for this is not necessary, most of the tasks can be closed by remote work and consultations.
Thanks to everyone who read the article to the end, I hope the information in it was something useful for you. I would be glad to share the experience, problems and interesting thoughts in the field of gamification of loyalty programs and training systems in the comments.
The skill tree is a special case of a technological tree, the prototype of which first appeared in the Civilization board game back in 1980. Its author, suddenly, is not Sid Meyer, but Francis Thresham. However, in computer games, the primacy of the use of this mechanics (as well as the final formation in the usual form) belongs to the old Sid in the classic Sid Meier's Civilization of 1991. Since then, the technological tree has been used in game development not only in strategies and RPGs, but even in action games and shooters. In the article, I do not pay attention to the difference between the skill tree and the technology tree, and by the skill tree I mean both. I think both spellings (the skill tree and the skill tree) are correct, but I will use the latter in the article, as it is more often found in game dev.
It all started with that. Sid Meyer Civilization Technology Tree.
If you want to learn more about the history of the emergence of tree mechanics or the principles of its construction, then the starting point is the Wikipedia page of the same name . In my article, we will consider tree varieties from modern (and not so) games, pay attention to problems of mechanics, try to give solutions to these problems, and reflect on specific ways of using skill tree mechanics in gamification. Why only ponder? Unfortunately, I could not find valid examples of using the skill tree in a non-game context. If you come across such examples, then I will be grateful for the mention of them in the comments to this article.
Before using game mechanics in gamification, you need to study the game development experience. To analyze how mechanics are used in games, what is attractive to players, what kind of fan people get when interacting with this mechanics. On the skill tree, I recommend watching Mark Brown’s video or an article translating the highlights of this video on dtf.ru. Mark's theses are relevant not only in game dev, but also for the gamification of non-game systems and projects.
The varieties of the skill tree (by the principle of construction, by the type of game, etc.) are described in detail in the Wikipedia article mentioned above. I don’t see the point of quoting, so I suggest looking at some interesting trees that are found in games.
A reference example of a skill tree from Path of Exile. It is found in most mentions, memes, and demotivators about the skill tree. Despite the apparent complexity, the tree is logical and quickly mastered by the players. But for gamification, this tree size is too large; the level of involvement of users of the gamified system is not enough to deal with it. Another large and complex tree from the game Final Fantasy X The Final Fantasy series excelled again, this time the twelfth part. The tree is smaller than in the tenth, but it looks too unusual and difficult to understand. Where is the start here? Where is the finish line? Is this tree at all?
Old school skill tree from Diablo 2 (gluing from two screenshots). Pay attention to the principle of dividing the tree into three tabs, which in essence are three separate skill trees of a smaller scale. A good, suitable skill tree from modern gaming. Assassin's Creed: Origins. Pay attention to a successful design decision: a bright, contrasting emphasis on the learned skills and the ways that they open. The most chthonic example I could find. Technological tree of Warzone 2100. I recommend that you click on the link to see it at 100% scale.
How can the mechanics tree of skills be applied in gamification? Two obvious options are: a) training systems and personnel reserve, and b) loyalty programs. The skill tree in loyalty programs is a system of discounts and other bonuses that are customizable for each client by the client himself.
The first option: distance learning portals and internal corporate portals. In both cases, the task is the same - to structure possible theoretical skills, to show the user of the system which path he must go in order to obtain a certain competency. Let's say you got a job as a junior analyst in a new company. On the corporate portal, you can access the tree of personal competencies, according to which it is easy to understand what theoretical skills you lack to the level of senior analyst, you can see what you need to learn if you want to move to the field of project management, etc. The management of the company, in turn, receives a complete picture of the competencies of employees. Such a system, in theory, facilitates the formation of a personnel reserve and the vertical growth of employees in a company, and increases the overall level of competencies of employees.
A simple mock-up of a part of the skill tree for an internal company portal. In a real company, the tree will be larger, but for an example that reflects the main meaning, this is also suitable.
Consider the layout in more detail. The green fill marks the learned skills (rectangles) and specialties (ellipses), the white fill marks the skills available for learning. Gray shading indicates inaccessible skills and specialties. Orange and gray lines show the paths between skills and specialties, orange - the path already traveled, gray - not yet traveled. By clicking on the rectangle, in my opinion, it is logical to open a window with the ability to record on the course for the selected skill, or with information on where and how this course can be taken and confirmed (for example, if the portal does not integrate with the distance education system). By clicking on the ellipse we show a window with a description of the specialty (duties, payroll, etc.). Pay attention to work experience: strictly speaking, it’s not a skill, but it demonstrates the possibility of embedding in the tree of skills not only theoretical competencies, but also other necessary requirements for the specialty. A progress bar is built into the work experience rectangle, which visually shows the user's progress.
The second option of using the mechanics of the tree of skills is the development of loyalty cards. Imagine the classic version of a loyalty card for a large store, for example, sports goods, clothes and shoes. As a rule, such a card gives a percentage of the discount when the buyer reaches the specified amount of purchases, or bonuses for the purchase can be added to the card, which are used to partially pay for future purchases. This is better than nothing, it works, but such a card does not imply any flexible configuration for a specific client. But what if you give the client the opportunity to choose, for example, a 5% discount on all goods or 10%, but only on men's shoes? And at the next level achieved, for example, an increase in the guarantee to 365 days or a 2% discount on snowboards? In theory, such a loyalty system will work better than usual, because no one knows better than the person himself what does he need. A company that has implemented such a system will stand out on the monotonous market of loyalty programs (in which there are no interesting new products for a long time), receive more data about customers' preferences, increase their level of affection for the store, and can even ultimately reduce the cost of the loyalty system compared to the classic version.
Cost reduction is possible by correctly setting the balance in the skill tree. When developing, you need to calculate how many conditional points (in ruble terms) each of the skills will cost (it is not necessary that the skills cost the same), compare the results with the classic loyalty program and “calibrate” the resulting system. For example, take a shoe store that sells men's, women's and children's shoes. The classic loyalty program gives a 5% discount on all products after reaching a purchase amount of 20,000 rubles. In the new system, we will make the cost of one skill equal to 10,000 rubles, and we will offer the client three options - 5% for men's shoes, 5% for women's and 5% for children's. Suppose we do not make a hard choice, and the client will be able to open all three skills.
We immediately object: but the buyer will receive a discount on the most important category of goods for him faster. True, but I believe that most buyers do not make purchases only in the selected category. Today a person buys shoes for himself, tomorrow - shoes for his wife, and after six months they have a child who also needs shoes. The larger the store, the more customers and the more diverse assortment, the better this model will work, and the more interesting it will be for the store to give customers the opportunity to choose discounts for certain categories of goods (even for narrow categories).
Another reason for using the skill tree in loyalty programs is the dislike of the human brain for incomplete actions. Another game mechanics is based on this: a progress bar. I believe that in our situation, the brains of buyers will be encouraged to discover new and new skills in the tree, engage in a kind of munchkinism, and strive to get all the skills of the tree. And spend more on this than with the classic loyalty program. Therefore, although Mark Brown recommends making trees in games that cannot be opened completely, in loyalty programs, on the contrary, I advise you not to limit customers and not to make them think about choosing the correct distribution of points. In the end, the level of customer involvement in the loyalty program is less than the level of player involvement in a new game,
In the final part of the article, we will talk about problems and issues of applying the mechanics of the tree of skills in practice.
Show or not the entire skill tree at once? In some games, the player does not see the whole tree and learns about possible skills only as they are achieved. I believe that such a cover-up is not useful in gamification. Show the tree right away, motivate the user to build their own tree development strategy.
When designing a tree for gamification, lay in it the ability to reset skills while maintaining the accumulated experience and the ability to redistribute skills. Such a function will save users from excessive responsibility in the distribution of skills, will make it possible to adapt the loyalty program to changes in the user's life. Having a baby, moving to another city, increasing or decreasing at work, jumps in the dollar exchange rate - many factors affect a strong change in consumption habits. The skill reset function allows the system to remain relevant in such situations. But do not make this function too accessible, otherwise users will simply reset their skills at the checkout before paying, choosing the right ones at the moment and depriving the system of its original meaning. It’s normal to give this opportunity once a year,
Consider the mechanics of scoring in the system. One point will be equal to one ruble? Or a thousand rubles? Is it worth it to lay in the system the possibility of an increased accrual of points in certain periods or for certain goods? Can I pay for goods with these points instead of discovering skills? Or will the bonus points and points needed to unlock skills be different entities in the system?
An important point - what will the skill tree consist of? What bonuses are in it? Will skills have levels? For example, a skill of the first level gives a discount of 1%, and the same skill of the fifth level - already at 5%. But do not get carried away only with such bonuses: in games and in gamification, such a tree will be boring. Add new features and capabilities, not just improve existing ones. For example, in the tree you can unlock the passage to the checkout without waiting in line, or an invitation to closed sales, or other exclusive opportunities. The skill tree in loyalty programs is not only about discounts on goods and services. The skill tree in the game should provoke players to master new content, and in the loyalty program, stimulate additional purchases in different categories of goods.
Who can use this mechanic to gamify loyalty programs? In my opinion, a small, medium and large business operating in the field of B2C and offering at least five (and preferably ten) types of goods and services. Pizza, woks, rolls and sushi are different types of goods in my understanding. Haircut beard, mustache and head, children's haircut and hair coloring - different types of services. Red or green shoes, Margarita pizza and barbecue pizza are the same types of products. The skill tree, consisting of bonuses for one or two types of goods, in my opinion, is not necessary. In such a situation, it is easier to use the classic loyalty program.
The problem in the design and implementation of such a system, in my opinion, is the lack of necessary competencies in the owner company. The skill tree is difficult to make commercially effective by the marketing department, without experience in gamification, and most importantly, without a game designer with experience in balancing such a system. However, hiring new employees for this is not necessary, most of the tasks can be closed by remote work and consultations.
Thanks to everyone who read the article to the end, I hope the information in it was something useful for you. I would be glad to share the experience, problems and interesting thoughts in the field of gamification of loyalty programs and training systems in the comments.