Comment by Cthulhu_

I don't think we're on the same page.

> It depends on why you play though; the "combinatorial explosion of overhead" is only a problem if you're trying to min/max, if you play for fun it's more "What character do I like" or "What wings do I find pretty".

Exactly. These choices don't affect players in the same way.

> The most important thing: Don't tell others how to play. Don't tell them "you should pick X because it's the best" unless they explicitly ask for it. Let people play their own way, and don't push how you play games onto others.

I definitely agree with you here.

As a designer, you're defacto telling people how to play by designing choices like this. You're punishing casual, competitively natured players with >700,000 options because they care about performance.

If you don't derive fun from winning the trade-offs are mostly irrelevant and you can simply ignore most of the problem, choose a configuration based on fewer/simpler dimensions (I'm going to pick yoshi and the egg kart because that's awesome), and avoid most of the decision space. This type of player probably wouldn't care if all the configurations performed the same or more likely could be annoyed that their desired configuration performs strictly worse. (If the choices meaningfully affected gameplay, like having an ability to lay eggs or something, that's different).

On the other hand if the dedicated, competitive players are going to solve the optimization problem and coalesce configurations down ~10 choices. The problem space is also irrelevant to this type of player.

But posing this problem negatively affects competitive people who aren't dedicated to the game. Now they have to consider an intractable problem while their friends are waiting on them so they can actually play the game. I know this because I've sat there plenty of times while friends scroll through all the different options wheels/karts/gliders/characters for minutes until they gave up and said something like "Whatever, I just want to race".

So why not just give 10 performance profiles and the same combination of cosmetic choices as before?

In Mario Kart in particular, you might explicitly not want the fastest/highest acceleration cart (kart?) as a new player, especially if you're a younger or older player. Going fast is a handicap if you can't stay on the track at those speeds.

> It depends on why you play though; the "combinatorial explosion of overhead" is only a problem if you're trying to min/max, if you play for fun it's more "What character do I like" or "What wings do I find pretty".

Then why don't you make sure all the pretty wings are on the Pareto frontier?

Back when I was playing D&D 4th edition (fairly casually), I started by assuming that all the fighter "feats" were basically equivalent from a damage perspective, and only differed in application or aesthetics. Then I did the math, and determined that there was a 2-3x difference between the weakest and the most powerful feats; so naturally I chose the most powerful ones. But I didn't really enjoy that process -- I felt obligated to do it because... I mean, I'm trying to increase in power? That's the whole point of the game?

Why should choosing an aesthetically pleasing power mean my character is weaker?I would have had much more fun if they'd balanced the feats such that they were all about the same (or at least, all on the Pareto frontier). Then I could really have chosen based on personal taste or roleplaying reasons, rather than trying to avoid having a nerfed character.

ETA: I feel like StarCraft does this very well overall. If nobody's using a unit, they buff in the next balance update; if everyone's using a unit, they nerf it in the next balance update. The result is that there are millions of potentially successful strategies, even at the grandmaster level, as long as you play efficiently. That's a lot more fun to me than 700,000 strategies, of which only 20 are realistically going to win at high levels.

Yeah, especially for a game like Mario Kart, I'm not too obsessed with making sure I'm picking the most efficient combination of things. I'm picking what I think looks cool or has the most fun personality (in the case of characters) for me in the moment. For that, having more choices is (mostly) better.

Even something like Counter-strike, where a lot of the differences are pretty subtle, I liked having a good amount of choices just to play a couple rounds with a gun that feels slightly different and see how well I do. I had my preferences but I played with them all.

That being said I do think there's something to be said for not just dumping a bunch of options on a player and be like "you figure out how you want to play", even though I've been guilty of that in a couple past games I've designed, thinking more options is better.

Like I remember on of my sequels to a game I tried all sorts of ideas for how to change up options, and instead of pinning down that "okay the hand size is going to be 5 tiles, and if you place next to an ally tile you'll bump them up by X amount, and you can choose what set of numbers the tiles can be (like 1-5, or 1-10, or 1-20)... with my new sequel I've mostly pared it down and I'm taking away game options, because I bet almost no one did anything but use the defaults anyway. At least before I hid them in an options menu you had to choose to open.