Hey Habr! We continue the conversation about the mechanics of gamification. talked about the rating, and in this one we'll talk about the skill tree (technological tree, skill tree). Let's look at how the tree is used in games and how this mechanic can be applied in gamification.
The skill tree is a special case of the tech tree, which first appeared in the board game Civilization back in 1980. Its author, suddenly, is not Sid Meier, but Francis Tresham. However, in computer games, the primacy of applying this mechanic (as well as the final formation in the usual form) belongs to the old Sid in the classic 1991 Sid Meier's Civilization. Since then, the technology tree has been used in game development not only in strategies and RPGs, but even in action games and shooters. In this article, I don't pay attention to the difference between a skill tree and a tech tree, and by skill tree I mean both. I think both spellings (skill tree and skill tree) are correct, but I will use the latter in the article, as it is more common in game development.
This is where it all started. Sid Meier's civilization technology tree.
If you want to learn more about the history of the tree mechanics or the principles of its construction, then the starting point is . In my article, we will look at varieties of trees from modern (and not so) games, pay attention to the problems of mechanics, try to give solutions to these problems, and think about specific ways to apply skill tree mechanics in gamification. Why do we just think? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any working examples of using the skill tree in a non-game context. If you have come across such examples, I will be grateful for mentioning them in the comments to this article.
Before using game mechanics in gamification, you need to study the experience of game development. Analyze how the mechanics are used in games, what is attractive to the players, what kind of fan people get by interacting with this mechanics. I recommend looking at the skill tree or highlights of this video on dtf.ru. Mark's theses are relevant not only in game development, but also for the gamification of non-game systems and projects.
The varieties of the skill tree (by the principle of construction, by type of game, etc.) are described in detail in the Wikipedia article mentioned above. I don’t see the point in 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 players. But for gamification, such a tree size is too large, the level of involvement of users of a gamified system is not enough to deal with it.
Another large and complex tree from Final Fantasy X
Again, the Final Fantasy series excelled, this time - the twelfth part. The tree is smaller than a tenth, but looks too unusual and difficult to understand. Where is the start? Where is the finish line? Is it a tree at all?
Old school skill tree from Diablo 2 (two screenshots glued together). Note the principle of splitting the tree into three tabs, essentially three separate skill trees on a smaller scale.
A good, useful skill tree from modern game development. Assassin's Creed Origins. Pay attention to the successful design solution: bright, contrasting highlighting of the learned skills and the paths they open.
The most chthonic example I could find. Technological tree of Warzone 2100. I recommend to go to see it in 100% scale.
How can skill tree mechanics be applied to gamification? The two obvious options are a) training and talent pool systems, and b) loyalty programs. The skill tree in loyalty programs is a system of discounts and other bonuses, customized for each client by the client.
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 way he must go to obtain a certain competence. Let's say you got a job at a new company as a junior analyst. On the corporate portal, you can access a tree of personal competencies, by which you can easily understand what theoretical skills you lack to the level of a 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, gets 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 the company, increases the overall level of employee competencies.
A simple layout of part of a 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.
Let's take a closer look at the layout. Learned skills (rectangles) and specialties (ellipses) are marked with green fill, skills available for learning are marked with white fill. Unavailable skills and specialties are highlighted in gray. 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 possibility of enrolling in a course on 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, salary range, etc.). Pay attention to work experience: strictly speaking, it is not a skill, but it demonstrates the possibility of embedding not only theoretical competencies, but also other necessary requirements for a specialty into the skill tree. A progress bar is built into the work experience rectangle, which visually shows the progress of the user.
The second option for using the mechanics of the skill tree is the development of loyalty cards. Let's imagine a classic version of a loyalty card for a large store, for example, sporting goods, clothes and shoes. As a rule, such a card gives a discount percentage when the buyer reaches a predetermined amount of purchases, or bonuses for purchases can be accrued on the card, which are used to partially pay for future purchases. It's better than nothing, it works, but such a card does not imply any flexible customization for a particular 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 reached, 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 he needs. A company that implements such a system will stand out in the monotonous loyalty program market (which has no interesting new products for a long time), receive more data on customer preferences, increase their level of attachment to the store, and even be able to ultimately reduce the cost of a loyalty system compared to a classic one. version.
Reducing costs is possible with the help of competent balancing in the skill tree. When developing, you need to calculate how many conditional points (in ruble equivalent) each of the skills will cost (it is not at all necessary that the skills cost the same), compare the results with the classic loyalty program and “calibrate” the resulting system. For example, let's 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 the purchase amount of 20 rubles. In the new system, we will make the cost of one skill equal to 000 rubles, and we will offer the client three options - 10% for men's shoes, 000% for women's and 5% for children's. Let's say we don't set a hard choice, and the client will be able to open all three skills. To do this, he will need to spend not 5 rubles in the store, as in the case of the classic version, but 5. But most customers will be satisfied with such a “crackdown” (and will not even consider it as such), because a discount on the most important for themselves they will receive a category by spending half the money than in the classic version.
We will 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 shop only in the selected category. Today a person buys shoes for himself, tomorrow shoes for his wife, and six months later they have a child who also needs shoes. The larger the store, the more customers and the more diverse the assortment, the better this model will work, and the more interesting it is 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 human brain's dislike for unfinished actions. Another game mechanic is based on this: the progress bar. I believe that in our situation, the brains of buyers will also be spurred on to discover more and more new skills in the tree, to engage in a kind of Munchkinism, to strive to get all the skills of the tree. And spend more money on it than with a classic loyalty program. Therefore, although Mark Brown recommends making trees in games that cannot be fully opened, in loyalty programs, on the contrary, I advise you not to limit customers and not make them think about choosing the right distribution of points. After all, the level of customer engagement in the loyalty program is less than the player's level of engagement in a new game, so don't give such tasks unnecessarily.
In the final part of the article, we will talk about the problems and issues of applying the mechanics of the skill tree in practice.
Show or not the entire skill tree at once? In some games, the player does not see the entire tree and only learns about possible skills as they are achieved. I think that in gamification such concealment is not useful. Show the tree right away, motivate the user to build their own strategy for mastering the tree.
When designing a tree for gamification, put in it the ability to reset skills while maintaining the experience gained and the ability to redistribute skills. Such a function will save users from excessive responsibility in the distribution of skills, and will make it possible to adapt the loyalty program to changes in the user's life. The birth of a child, moving to another city, promotion or reduction at work, fluctuations in the dollar - many factors affect a strong change in consumption habits. The skill reset feature will allow the system to stay up to date in such situations. But do not make this feature too accessible, otherwise users will simply reset the skills at the checkout before paying, choosing the ones they need at the moment and depriving the system of its original meaning. It is normal to give such an opportunity once a year, after the New Year holidays or on the birthday of the company.
Think over the mechanics of scoring points in the system. One point will be equal to one ruble? Or a thousand rubles? Is it worth putting in the system the possibility of an increased coefficient of accrual of points in certain periods or for certain products? Can these points be used to pay for goods instead of unlocking skills? Or will bonus points and points required to unlock skills be different entities in the system?
An important point - what will the skill tree consist of? What bonuses will you include? Will skills have levels? For example, a first-level skill gives a 1% discount, while the same level-5 skill gives a XNUMX% discount. But do not get carried away only with such bonuses: both in games and in gamification, such a tree will be boring. Add new features and functionality, not just improve existing ones. For example, in the tree, you can unlock skip-the-line access to the checkout, or an invitation to private 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, encourage them to make additional purchases in different product categories.
Who can use this mechanic to gamify loyalty programs? In my opinion, small, medium and large businesses 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. Beard, mustache and head trimming, children's haircuts and hair coloring are different types of services. Red or green shoes, Margherita pizza and barbecue pizza are the same types of goods. A 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 a 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. A skill tree is difficult to make commercially viable by a marketing department without experience in gamification, and most importantly, without a game designer experienced in balancing such a system. However, it is not necessary to hire new employees for this, 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 somehow useful to you. I will be glad if you share your experience, problems and interesting thoughts in the field of gamification of loyalty programs and training systems in the comments.
Source: habr.com