Skill: stanestane/game-design-social-satisfaction-matrix (version 1.0.0)

--- name: game-design-social-satisfaction-matrix description: Evaluate a game's social features and multiplayer elements by their potential to create social satisfaction versus social dissatisfaction. Use when auditing chat, voice, friend systems, gifting, lobbies, social hubs, guilds, reporting tools, cooperative mechanics, profile surfaces, or other social elements; when comparing which features are basic, critical, booster, or secondary; or when deciding where to reduce social risk, increase social stickiness, and prioritize improvements to multiplayer or community-facing systems. --- # Game Design Social Satisfaction Matrix Use the Social Satisfaction Matrix to classify social elements by how much they can increase social satisfaction, how much they can create social dissatisfaction, and what that implies for design priority. This skill is especially useful when a team knows a feature is "social" but does not yet understand whether it is an expected basic, a risky high-impact critical element, a nice booster, or mostly secondary. ## Core principle Not all social features matter in the same way. Some social elements are basic expectations that rarely delight but cause frustration when missing. Some are high-risk, high-value systems that can either deepen connection or amplify harm. Some are nice boosters. Some barely move the needle. The point of the matrix is to stop treating all social features as equally important or equally dangerous. ## The matrix Classify elements into four categories: ### Basic Must-do elements. - low potential to create delight - high potential to create dissatisfaction if missing or weak - expected foundations of the social experience Typical examples: - friend list - stable party formation - baseline group management - basic reporting access ### Critical Make-or-break elements. - high potential to create satisfaction - high potential to create dissatisfaction - socially valuable but risky if handled poorly Typical examples: - voice chat - open text chat - matchmaking surfaces that strongly affect teammate quality - live team communication systems - public social reputation surfaces ### Booster Could-do elements that add satisfaction. - can make the experience nicer, warmer, or more memorable - low downside if absent - usually not necessary for functional play Typical examples: - lightweight gifting - celebratory emotes - temporary cosmetic sharing - playful social acknowledgements ### Secondary Low-impact elements. - low potential to create strong satisfaction - low potential to create strong dissatisfaction - may matter for niche segments, but not majorly for the overall social experience Typical examples depend heavily on audience and context. Something secondary for one game or segment may be critical for another. ## What to produce Generate: 1. **Audit target** - what game, mode, or set of social elements is being reviewed 2. **Element map** - where each chosen element sits in the matrix 3. **Rationale** - why each element belongs there 4. **Risk and opportunity view** - what the matrix reveals about the current social landscape 5. **Improvement priorities** - what to fix, protect, redesign, add, or deprioritize 6. **Sweet-spot judgment** - where the design should aim to increase satisfaction without creating disproportionate social risk ## Process ### 1. Define the social scope Clarify: - what game, feature set, or mode is being audited - which social elements are in scope - what audience or segment matters most - whether the team cares more about retention, safety, delight, community health, matchmaking quality, or social stickiness Write: - **Target** - **Audience context** - **Business/design concern** ### 2. Choose the elements to map Pick one or more social elements. Good candidates include: - game mechanics with social consequences - chat and voice systems - nonverbal communication systems - friend, guild, or party tools - shared activities - reporting and moderation surfaces - profile and identity surfaces - social hubs or hangout spaces - gifting, acknowledgements, and reciprocal mechanics - goal-setting systems that require or encourage social participation ### 3. Assess satisfaction potential For each element, ask: - can this create positive social moments? - does it help players bond, coordinate, celebrate, contribute, or belong? - does it increase trust, recognition, or meaningful cooperation? - does it align selfish goals with prosocial outcomes? - can it make the game feel warmer, stickier, or more socially rewarding? Possible satisfaction sources: - prosocial action - bonding and familiarity - positive recognition - meaningful contribution - active participation - shared accomplishment - belonging and group identity - balanced interdependence ### 4. Assess dissatisfaction potential For each element, ask: - can this facilitate harassment, griefing, or cheating? - does it depend on trust that may not exist? - can it create conflicting goals or blame? - does it require hidden knowledge or high skill from everyone? - can it leave weaker players exposed or unsupported? - are expectations unclear? - does it create open affordances with weak guardrails? Possible dissatisfaction sources: - disruptive behavior - trust dependency - incompatible goals - knowledge dependency - skill dependency - task interdependence under pressure - weak social support - unclear expectations - abuseable communication affordances ### 5. Place each element in the matrix Now classify each element: - **Basic** - **Critical** - **Booster** - **Secondary** Do not classify by gut feel alone. Tie the placement to its satisfaction and dissatisfaction potential. Also note if an element is: - **misclassified by the team today** - **segment-dependent** - **healthy in concept but badly implemented** ### 6. Compare the overall landscape Step back and ask: - is the game overinvested in risky critical systems with weak guardrails? - is it missing basic foundations? - is it trying to add boosters before basics work? - are supposedly secondary features actually critical for the target segment? - is the social experience too functional and dry, with no boosters? - are there obvious opportunities to move a feature toward the sweet spot? ### 7. Aim for the sweet spot The ideal is not zero risk. The sweet spot is where a social element creates significant satisfaction while keeping dissatisfaction risk manageable through good design, guardrails, and support systems. Typical improvement strategies: - **Add a feature** to increase positive social value - **Change a feature** to reduce downside or improve readability - **Bundle features** so multiple small supports increase aggregate satisfaction - **Create a feature system** so elements reinforce one another instead of standing alone ### 8. Convert the matrix into action For each priority element, specify: - **Current category** - **Why it matters** - **Main social upside** - **Main social downside** - **Design change** - **Expected effect** ## Response structure ### Target - ... ### Matrix Map | Element | Category | Satisfaction Potential | Dissatisfaction Potential | Why It Sits Here | |---|---|---|---|---| | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ### Landscape Read - ... ### Priority Risks 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... ### Best Opportunities 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... ### Sweet-Spot Recommendations 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... ## Fast mode Use this quick pass when speed matters: - which social elements are basic expectations? - which are critical and risky? - which are nice boosters? - which barely matter? - where is the game under-protected, overexposed, or missing easy social upside? ## Working principle A socially sticky game is not built by piling on social features. It is built by understanding which social elements are foundational, which are dangerous but powerful, which are delightful extras, and which are mostly noise.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)