3 Moves Ahead on Slippery Slope

Discussion in 'Game Play' started by spellman23, Nov 3, 2009.

  1. spellman23

    spellman23 Member

    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, they call it "runaway games", but it's essentially a nice podcast where some serious strategy vets talk about how to try and mitigate this effect (and if we even want to).

    http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2009/07/07/three-moves-ahead-episode-20/

    EDIT: By "vets" I mean respected columnists of strategy games, not "lolIplayedproleague". i.e. these guys get paid to review and do commentary and/or run serious discussion forums on strategy games.

     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2009
  2. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Empires is not a strategy game and anything at all suggested by 'vets' is almost invariably stupid.
     
  3. Varbles

    Varbles Simply Maptastic. Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    as opposed to something suggested by a 'noob' which is naturally genius
     
  4. Scylla

    Scylla Member

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pwned?
     
  5. spellman23

    spellman23 Member

    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lol?

    I was referring to these guys being some of the most respected strategy game commentators in the world today. They discuss everything from what strategy games do right to what makes a strategy game. Plus, they get paid to write about it.


    So, while this may be peppered with personal opinions, their commentary on how to make a strategy game work and makes it fun should be taken with decent weight. And since we continually have discussions about the Slippery Slope in the Real-Time-STRATEGY component of Empires, I thought people might enjoy this.
     
  6. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, they're also almost always stupid. Although noobs do have the benefit of being able to tell you what the average person who picks up your game will think, you just have to be able to figure it out because they usually don't tell you it straight. Vets are neither representative of the general playerbase nor are they any more likely to be capable of careful thought about their ideas, so they are arguably entirely lacking in critical value.

    Suggestions by game designers are less likely to be stupid, but even then they often are.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2009
  7. pickled_heretic

    pickled_heretic Member

    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once we define what we mean by 'vets' we can have this conversation.

    Until then...
     
  8. spellman23

    spellman23 Member

    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    updated OP. These are not your average internet self-proclaimed 'vets' but rather quite educated well-paid columnists and forum lords and players of every manner of strategy games.

     
  9. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None of them appear to have any design expertise whatsoever.

    Being a columnist is hardly about thinking intelligently about what would work and what would not, it's about writing whatever you think, however asinine it may be.
     
  10. LordDz

    LordDz Capitan Rainbow Flowers

    Messages:
    5,221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So... Who should suggest things, you?
     
  11. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd rather someone else did it as I don't actually like having to make suggestions.

    As a rule though, to fix design problems you should have a very good working knowledge of how most people play the game, which means don't play with vets, play with proles on large servers and pay attention to what they do, consider what they seem to want to do, and also what they don't want to do, and work on that. You do have to play the game to do this so that rules out half the dev team.

    If you have something a large majority of people don't want to do then you shouldn't expect them to do it and you certainly shouldn't build the entire game around the concept (commanders) because it will simply not work most of the time (it doesn't). You should try and figure out why they don't like it and try to fix it so that they do want to do it and can do it well, however failing that you should accept that it doesn't work and throw it out, because no game mechanic is better than a bad game mechanic because a bad mechanic only serves to occasionally mess the game up and adds more crap to balance.

    It is not strictly neccesary to remove mechanics that don't work very well because as long as they don't actually hinder the game, a mechanic which is only useful some of the time is not one that you need to remove, for example BF2 doesn't always have a commander, and the game does not suffer for it, commanding doesn't add much to the game but it does occasionally work out, and when it doesn't you can happily get along without it. So you can work to reduce the dependency of the game on a mechanic which rarely works (this is also a good reason why the toning down of ninjaing has improved the game considerably).

    Do not become too attached to any idea simply because you like it, think purely in terms of functionality, if an idea is not functional and particularly if it hampers the enjoyment of the game, it has to be fixed or it has to go. Do not require players to do things they cannot do reliably, so when designing games based around 'teamwork' the rule for example should be to make provision for it, but not to demand it. If players want to work together they should be able to, but the game should not fall apart if they do not.

    Make allowances for your players, don't try to force them to play in a certain way because if they don't want to they will simply turn the game off, allow them to play as they want to play and if what they want to do in your game is causing the game to break down, you either need to fix the issue (for example if they want to use the overpowered gun you put in the game and nothing else) or you need to change the game so that what they want to do is now useful (in empires case an example would be doing anything other than constantly attacking) or you need to introduce new things for the players to do because there aren't enough fun things in the game and that's why they keep doing other things than what you intended (in empires people will often prefer to throw themselves at enemy infantry than to defend the other flank which is being attacked, because the infantry fighting is fun and it is immediately apparent while defending the other flank is not and they would probably be outnumbered, conflict of interest).

    You should not do what empires does and ensure that one team will always have an advantage and that the advantage will grow steadily as long as they hold just over half the map, especially as empires map control is decided by a single wave of infantry in the first five minutes. You can give a slight advantage to one side but it cannot build like it does in empires, holding one more res node will give you an ever increasing lead and losing your initial forward rax will give you a considerable disadvantage.

    You also cannot penalise or reward an entire team for anything, because teams do not exist, what you have is a collection of individual players, and a player will not really appreciate being rewarded for something he didn't do, nor will he readily tolerate being penalised for something he didn't do. In the unlikely event that players do have a team mentality, then they will be able to form their own sense of cumulative reward and penalty, but in the more probable event that they don't, the game should not force this on them as it will only annoy them. Empires is not a strategy game at all, it is a game where two teams of players shoot each other with tanks, just like a lot of other games, the player on the field sees only that his tanks have been arbitrarily taken away despite him killing enemies which is his immediately presented goal (you gave him a tank and a gun and an enemy to shoot, his job is therefore to kill enemies, not to consider the strategic implications of e-building a refinery).

    You cannot treat it like an RTS because an RTS is not a team game, it is two players facing off against each other with complex weaponry, if an RTS player runs out of resources it is because he spent too much and didn't capture territory, if an empires player runs out of resources it is probably because the other members of the team didn't capture territory with him, or because the enemy attacked when he was busy, or because he was unable to defend against a superior enemy force, it is almost certainly not mostly his fault because there are far more other people on the team to take parts of the blame, therefore any player who suffers as the result of a collective error will feel put upon. As a commander if your team cannot kill enemies when you order them to it is also not your fault, so treating empires as a team game is only going to lead to a lot of instances where one player gets annoyed at everyone else for ruining his fun.

    You also have a whole slew of things like putting players in direct competition with each other for the team's funds and also with the commander, having a tank customisation screen which will only have one armor, engine, and weapon for most of the game, and generally poor design whereby infantry and tanks are expected to fight in the same areas despite one requiring enclosed, prop heavy areas and the other requring open, empty areas.

    Basically, be cynical, don't think about what players could do if this was a hollywood movie with a script, think about how they will exploit your ideas, consider every player to be a mean spirited, unimaginative, unhelpful, uncooperative, yet highly resourceful bastard who will gladly TK everyone else on the team to make it more fun for them, your job as a designer is to prevent them from doing this, while simultaneously ensuring they enjoy themselves, and convincing them that they are actually part of a team, or that they are a soldier, or that this whole thing is pre-planned and directed by john woo when in actuality it is simply a bunch of other cretins running around being idiots. You have to channel players' self-centred desires into getting them to perform actions which other players will percieve as helpful, for example in TF2 medics heal heavies because they get points for doing so and it's the only way they stay alive, heavies protect medics because they get health boosts for doing so, it is pure self-interest but what you get is two players working together, or at least some of the time anyway.
     
  12. -=SIP=-

    -=SIP=- Member

    Messages:
    2,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read the whole text!

    Summary:
    Commander --> FAIL
    Resources --> FAIL
    Teamwork --> FAIL
    Empires --> FAIL

    My experiences are different. All players I know personally like commander, resources, teamwork and empires.
     
  13. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i agree with chris'. you put his words a bit out of context sip. its a really good analysis why empires isnt a game for the masses and why it - without serious changes in its mechanics - never will be one.

    a good example is the scout. many players would like to play scout, but actually they cant because if a certain limit is reached scouts turn against your own team. so, noobs mainly play scouts - "sniper" scouts ofc, but they clearly fail because its not very obvious that empires doesnt promote (now with the nerfed scout rifle even less) this kind of gameplay. it, the game, requires you to gain ground at the start, build up and drive tanks sooner or later. you cant just rest on your belly waiting for the one guy to run around the corner unaware and shoot him in the head - sooner or later some vehicle will come bye and you are screwed - well at least you cant do shit against it (especially not those failscouts)
    what does it lead to?
    either you think, screw it, i do what i want, and fuck your team over even more (remember you are allready down a couple of guys because they try to snipe somewhere) or you just dont play scout except for really rare situations like sticking their CV in a final rush to turn the game around.
    you might have a look at savage2 (its free to play btw), sure it has no seperate research, this is bound to buildings. better buildings - better units.
    in that game you also have a commander but if noone volunteered, the builder classes can take over his job. money is personalized. and teamwork pays off, but isnt necessary - just like in any other TDM game ...

    i wouldnt call empires a fail - i guess neither did chris', or he probably wouldnt be still hanging around here - but noone can deny these flaws he mentioned - he might have overplayed them a bit to make a good point - but overall he is right.

    also i didnt mean to say "turn empires into savage2:modern era" ...

    and sorry but i cant resist that
    this would mean empires will get "Counter Empires:Sniper Strike (now with occasional, overpowered tanks)"
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2009
  14. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you took iy out of context

    chris made a vvvvvvvery valid point
     
  15. spellman23

    spellman23 Member

    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, we can take Chris and move to another rant page please for the discussion.


    Also, I find your analysis of RTS games quite appalling. There's an entire set of leagues in South Korea for team match-ups. True, Empires doesn't fit in the RTS mold, but it has elements takes from the RTS genre and if you want a semblance of strategy, the slippery slope system is here to stay. Heck, even most FPS games have slippery slope with regards to weapon collection.
     
  16. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can play an RTS as a team if you have multiple factions allied together but empires doesn't, it's a one on one command game, but unlike a one on one RTS the majority of players are not commanding and there are no units as such, because the commander isn't making them do most of the things they're doing and most of the players aren't doing simply what the commander tells them to.

    You can not have any semblance of strategy in the game because strategy is another word for 'restricts players to doing only what is important because the commander wants them to'.

    You can't expect players to always follow the strategy devised by the commander, you can expect them to always do what is fun for them if you let them know they can, and you can design the game so that the fun things are the ones conducive to having a good balanced game with interesting fights and varied weaponry, but that would mean people do the same general thing each time, it simply takes advantage of the benefits of having moveable bases to change up the terrain a bit, you attack from a different direction and maybe fight in a base where you wouldn't have last game, or across a section of the map you didn't before. If you tried to design the game so the fun stuff was following the commander orders you would have to ensure that the commander always gives good orders, because if people all go to the wrong place on the map because there is a super happy fun move order there and then the enemy attacks through an undefended flank and kills the CV, that's not fun. You need to ensure that players automatically know what needs doing and that it is highly desirable for them personally to see that it gets done.

    The only way you can have strategy in a game where 95% of the team is a normal FPS player doing normal FPS things is if every one of the players decides to have strategy, and if that happens then I have no issue with putting tools in place to allow them to do that, but my point is you cannot rely on them doing that, because a lot of the time they won't.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2009
  17. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    atm empires is so warped in the area of personal reward and team reliant reward that there really is a problem, while there shouldn't be!

    a silly but usable "to relay the problem for anyone who still does not get it" small fix would be to give considerable amounts of resources for every kill a player in your team does (because apparently people like killing things) and making buildings auto build themselves and all forms of infantry build (because in general far too few people can be bothered with building buildings)

    of course this is not the fix suited for empires, but things like this have to be considered to streamline the game play into funfunfun at the most possible
     
  18. LordDz

    LordDz Capitan Rainbow Flowers

    Messages:
    5,221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But wouldn't that reward vets even more, aka the thing I thought everyone wanted to avoid?
     
  19. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i said it was silly, but it gives an example, empiresmod should revolve around the fun stuff, not about the boring chores
    people should benefit if they do fun stuff, they should not benefit from stuff they will only do because it will make them win the game, while there are other way more fun stuff to do

    why do people drive tanks into battle? because:

    -its fun to drive
    -it makes you win, because tanks are better then infantry
    -tanks tend to be the quickest path into battle (drive fast, engage over longer distance is possible)
    -more

    why do people not defend those refinery's in the corner of the map that gets sabotaged all the time?

    -no one likes to "wait" for the enemy to come to you (and do nothing for long periods of time even if it makes your team win)
    -repairing refineries is boring, and very close to real life jobs
    -commander cannot "reward" players for doing nice
    -your team winning adds nothing to your personal experience of the game, if you had to constantly repair the same building for the whole game, winning or losing will not add much to your boring experience
    -more


    so basically, some parts have it just right (vehicle driving) while others have it not right at all (resource managing system on infantry levels)
     
  20. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    vehicles are anything but right, they are SERIOUSLY overpowered. its so frustrating getting pwned by a noob just because he figured out how to build a tank ... really, infantry needs to be able to keep up with tanks. they already get you a 2nd life, faster speed and lots more firepower ... thats a bit much bonus for a that few bucks ...
     

Share This Page