Foreword In the last two months I have seen a few threads on the nature of the speed of gameplay. I do not think that any of the replies to those threads accurately described the factors that create good games and if they did, they did so without proper support. I am providing this analysis in order to pique a communal interest in getting to the bottom of why we play this game and what about it must be protected or augmented and what should be done away with according to what is found to make empires enjoyable. I hope that after reading this you will find yourself in agreement with my findings and profit from my labor in some way if at all. Introduction What makes a good game? This question has been asked and answered in various ways but none of the answers give a comprehensive explanation. I believe that I can adequately analyze what makes each typically enjoyable match to be so enjoyed. There stands much to be gained from this knowledge and I hope that it will be used to guide further development of this game in the right direction. From almost two years of experience I have refined this theory over the concurrent course of versions 2.0 to 2.28 playing and mastering each class including that of the commander. From my wealth of experience and research I have noticed and observed these trends in empires. Gameplay in a classic match of empires follows a timing model and can be separated into phases such as the start, mid-game and endgame. The majority of the fun in empires is in the reward of employing creative and successful team tactics and strategy against a challenging enemy in the bringing about of the close of each phase. Timing Model The general timing model applies to most classic matches and often serves to tell players what the current objective of the game is at any given moment. An understanding of the objectives of the game is necessary for discussing the skill and creativity necessary for success in their completion. The timing model comprises the start, the mid-game and the endgame. Each of these phases has to itself unique traits that allow players and spectators to identify them. For example: The start is characterized by the absence of a radar or vf on each side and by the beginning infantry battle which is the first contact of the game. This sets the initial boundaries and determines which teams may capture which regions to begin the mid-game with. The mid-game begins when all of the refineries and regions are contested or captured and battles are fought for control over them. This phase is almost always the longest lasting of each game and differs from the endgame in the space that it gives for failure. The game is largely undecided in the mid-game and the teams are given tickets in order to recover from the casualties of costly battles. The endgame begins when tickets become scarce and teams lose their ability to recover from prolonged combat or when a losing team has been isolated into a single region and is in danger of losing its last spawn. Each of these phases have their respective objectives. The objective of the start is to gain as much ground as possible and fortify each captured region. The objective of the mid-game is to outmaneuver and overcome and isolate the enemy whereas the objective of the endgame is to destroy or finish off the isolated enemy. In order to move on to the next phase, players must complete the objective of the current phase. When the objective of the start is completed, the gameplay moves into the mid-game. When the enemy is isolated or weakened beyond repair the gameplay shifts into the end-game and once the enemy is defeated the game is over. The beauty of empires is in the potential for creative tactics and strategies to be successful in accomplishing the objectives of each phase. Creative and Successful Tactics and Strategies A team must work together in order to win and may work together in many different ways in order to do so. These many different ways are the various methods which teamwork may be applied to execute. The absolute minimum definition of teamwork in gameplay is when two players work together to wield the effectiveness of more than two players working separately. Empires facilitates this dynamic to the next logical step; that two squads working together wield the effectiveness of more than two squads working separately. Whereas players in a squad work together to accomplish an immediate goal such as get from point A to point B without getting mowed down by rifle or mortar fire, squads in a team may work together to build a bridge and swiftly use it to effectively flank the enemy's offensive front. Maneuvers such as these can be game winning if timed and executed properly. Teamwork between squads on a team level may even win the game before the endgame phase. Upon discovering that working together can help a team win the game much faster players will tend to cooperate much more and the space necessary for leaders to emerge and guide teams is created. In order to be good leaders, players must be creative and able to use what is available to them to create solutions to the problems the enemy throws at them. The joy for the leaders is in the creation of the strategy and coordination of the execution of it and for the operatives in the success from the results of the executed strategy. Leadership, Challenge and Reward The structure of empires facilitates the use of leadership. During the grace period before each map players must choose who they wish to be their commander for that match. Commanders are the players on each team with the responsibility to drop buildings, create a research plan and guide their team to accomplish the objective of each phase. Commanders are the players that see the entire board and are entrusted to make decisions base on their superior knowledge of the situation. If opportunities arise, the commander is usually the one to discover them. After discovering an opportunity, it is his responsibility to inform the team and advise them in how to execute the action. Squad leaderson the team will then be able to coordinate their squad to the best of their ability to carry out the commander's course of action. Yet if there be no difficulty to be encountered, to what avail is all this fuss about leadership? Empires is a team game where two teams of players are set against each other. Both teams are required to use all that is available to them to defeat the opposing team. Leaders are the catalysts of teamwork and teamwork is more efficient than isolated effort. Teamwork is what utilizes the full potential of a team. Tactics is teamwork on a squad level, and strategy is teamwork on a command level. Creating tactics and strategies that work against a competent enemy is what this game is all about and to pull off sophisticated yet successful strategies are the most advanced forms of game-play in empires. Sophisticated strategies are also the most rewarding. Leadership can by directing larger amounts of lesser skill create a collective powerful enough to supplement the relative deficiencies in skill of a team and cause a weaker team to win against a stronger yet discordant team. The higher the level of sophistication, the higher the level of satisfaction and risk. Conclusion Games follow a three phase model and teams must strive to complete the objective of each. Teams may go about completing the objectives in any way they choose to, but most often a leader will stand out in the team and coordinate his teammates to execute a certain plan. Whether or not the plan is successful, the team is set in motion working together for a common goal. This is the essence of teamwork and what makes the game fun. When both teams have cooperative players, competent leaders and an awareness of the goals of the game, empires is very enjoyable. We should do whatever we can to encourage sophisticated strategy and help players to be more aware of the scope of this game. tl;dr If empires is played in such a way both teams will enjoy the game regardless of the length of the game, winning or losing.
additionally there is another factor. This is not CS:S, and other than scrims not everyone knows exactly what to do. You have to account for new players and their intuitive urges and curb those in the design of the game to be in line with good tactics.
Indeed. People often get carried away when they're having fun doing something. Naturally this game requires more discipline than most others.
The three phases you have defined, are clearly defined and distinct from one another to a satisfactory extent. Bravo. However what makes each stage fun? What makes the end game fun? Many have complained when the end game becomes prolonged: that is that the victorious team in phase two, is either unable or unwilling to swiftly complete the third phase. Often I've had this described as not fun. Why? There is an absence of the possibility (in most cases) for the cornered team to achieve victory. This is not always true, and we go into the difference between more open, or more enclosed maps. Before that though, lets look at the two exceptions to the rule. In the third phase, a team can either beat isolation by having a teammate sneak out and build a spawn elsewhere, or by breaking out, usually with an APC. Both, if accomplished, are followed closely in 95% of cases by a desperate precision attack upon the enemy commander to try and deal enough damage in a short amount of time to render their inevitable defeat meaningless in the face of their short tactical victory. Versions of empires that have allowed these prolonged engagements to go on while also providing very little in the way of ability for the isolated team to complete these maneuvers, have ultimately been rated as less fun than other versions. You should run similar analysis on the other phases as well, and provide suggestion to not just how a generalized model of an empires game would look like, but what it means for the direction of empires. So far you have not addressed that. But a very detailed model nonetheless, I like it.
The funnest part of empires is working together with other hardcore squad oriented players who work and communicate well together. Nothing is funner to me than setting out and completing a series of short/small term goals which help to advance a team towards victory in a battlefield environment. ( <- Include looking badass while doing it.) But players described above are far and few, and I can only be bothered to play at my full efficiency with a few other people. So basically we need more players. Who, over time will become good at the game and become players like those described above. But the community ingame and outside the game, doesn't really seem too new player friendly, and this is hurting the game hard. I'm one of those people who gets really mad at new people too, but there was one new guy I played with today (who had a mic) and he actually looked like he wanted to play the game. So I did my best to answer his questions and heal him, and help be an engi etc. TL;DR All experienced players need to be more helpful and rage less, and say (blah) my team was bad etc. Nicer community etc. etc. Edit: AND Which FN summarized alot better then I could.
There are other solutions. One of which I am helping with right now. The tutorials should help pave through the basics. Things need to be covered to lessen the disparity between the effective mechanical knowledge of a newbie and a veteran. What is a mortar? How do you use it (duck fire)? What is a squad? How do you join it? What does it mean to be the leader of a squad? How do you assign squad targets and orders? How do you use squad points? How do you accumulate squad points? How do you research? What are the mechanics of research? etc... all these are in the damned tutorial. How many gamers pick up a mod just so they can read a rulebook? Not many. There needs to be an engaging, interactive, and instructive method for gamers to spend a little time, still entertained, to learn all the basic game mechanics that will at least allow them to identify what they know how to do, what they don't know how to do, and an idea of how everything they can't do might be accomplished. In essence, answer the questions before they are posed to the veterans excessively, and before the veterans are annoyed by a common lack of basic knowledge. The "experienced players need to be more helpful and rage less", will follow. Fix the mechanics, not the player base. You have control of one, not the other.
The funnest part of empires is when you're crushing the enemy mercilessly through greatly superior numbers, skill or research. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but anyone who says that's not fun is a liar.
I said that teamwork in an effort to bring about the end of each phase and the beginning of the next is what makes each phase fun. In short, the reward of playing is in the efficient progression of the game. This is true for during all stages of the game yet is too simple to analyze further. I gave vague descriptions on the goals during each stage in my original post which I will refine here. I think that the fun in empires is in beating your enemy at completing each goal. The goal in the start is to gain control of greater region than your enemy with more refineries or a superior strategic position and fortifying it. The goal in the mid-game is to execute a strategy that isolates and or kills the enemy commander or majority of the enemy team. Failure to do either results in the stalemate endgame which I would like to talk more about tomorrow. The goal of the endgame is to consolidate all available resources to destroy the isolated enemy or prevail under sudden death circumstances. ]I believe that empires should focus more on supporting leadership by providing more tools for guidance in-game. Many people don't believe that multi squad teamwork is as powerful as it is until they execute it for themselves. I think that the more we think of strategic empires as the way the game is meant to be played, that people will see its scope more easily.
My point is that when you're crushing the enemy mercilessly through greatly superior numbers [your team some how or other outmaneuvered the enemy into those favorable odds] skill [skill is teamwork on the most primitive level. with the max amount of skill one player is still only one player] research [the commander's risk in creating a certain plan for research was well thought out. A reward of creativity for its creation and in leadership for the team's support in its execution] I hope we're on similar pages.
Yes, forgot about the tutorials being made. But tutorials will go a long way in improving the game for new players, and thus old players too.
I tried reading your first post but got hit by too much tl;dr. Consider condensing it, or at least sacrificing the attempt of trying to write eloquently when most people don't have time for that. But from your first post, I don't really see what you're getting at.
I gave a few theses for you to agree with or disagree with but expanded my ideas for why I have them. It is very well written in order to save the reader time and confusion over what is meant. I believe I've properly articulated what my intent is to others in this thread. If you can't have the patience to read my original post try reading the replies to it in order to gain an understanding of the topic.
I read it, I just feel what you mean can be accomplished with far fewer words far quicker, which is necessary if you want more than 5% of the forum user base to actually understand and read it.
First post needs more paragraphing - although the headings do help, reading a wall of text when the size is pretty small and on a white on navy blue background, it's quite difficult. When writing a post you should take that into account, as you want to give your reader every incentive to read your piece. Most of the games I have enjoyed fully, involved a protracted middle phase, where both teams felt that they were living and dying hard, and doing damage to the enemy. A protracted middle phase usually involves warring over a specific area of turf, but is better when it involves a fluidic changing battlefield and bases, while the main base is protected and safe. This is most often where good strategy can come into play, and large, multi-area maps (e.g. bush) are very good for this type of play - assuming you have a full, large server to play them on. Standard maps like Canyon are also good, but the fun derives more from making a push/breakthrough that may succeed or be foiled. Enjoyable games also must include an end phase where the losing team has some marginally hope for reversing the situation. In my experience, it does no good whatsoever to tediously be waiting your demise, or fighting hopelessly. Losing teams can accept they may lose, but should have hope and a chance that through teamwork and hard fighting, they may yet achieve victory. The end game may be protracted or short, but the protracted end-game should lead to more technology being available to the defenders, as the Empires tech-tree reaches it's heavy weapons pretty quickly. Wages is actually quite a boon to failing teams, as res saturation often occurs swiftly for a winning team and not at all for the losing, wages provides an outlet for advanced tech to be used. We need to turn more attention to the tech tree, methinks. But apart from that, aye, overall strategy is quite complicated for the average Empires player, so commanders often (not always) revert to simple instructions and tactical observations that can be easily understood.
It is also possible to have a mix of start- and midgame following your definition. Like plunge, where the vf or radar often happen to be built before all the refinery points even saw a player. I agree with the rest of your Phase definitions. Mostly, only regions where contact to the opposing team takes place are being fortified. That's essential to the gameplay because this fact allows single players or even squads to undergo battles thus making the endgame happen before your mentioned objective of the midgame was accomplished. This is not a one-way. Commanders do not see the entire board, they got the opportunity to do so. But when they spend all their time to gather information what's going on, they will be unable to fulfill other of their tasks. That's why players ought to report special situations and unforseen developments, like an enemy barracks at a neglected area, new chassis/weapons of the opposing team or even the opportunities where the enemy team lowered it's guards. It should be that way. But if you really think it is, I've got to get you out of your aircastle. Players are neither disciplined nor able to create discipline for their fellows. Sure the commander can restrict vehicle creation. But in which way would it make the team fulfill his orders. It's even more common that if he does so, he gets voted out. Squadleaders don't even have such an ability but kicking people out of their squad. But players disobliging with their squad will just join another squad until they are in a squad of which the leader does not care. Sure, I don't know how this would be in clanmatches and I don't even know if there are regularly as many players in a scrim as there are in public games. But public games simply are the main game experience one gathers.
The definition of the start should be revised to be strictly initial territory acquisition and instead have little to do with the presence of certain buildings, yes. This would solve the issue of mixing start and mid-game and I thank you for helping me clarify that. Regarding the fortification of regions being the start of the mid-game, I do not think that all regions have to be fortified in every map for the mid-game to start. I think that only the points where combat is immediately critical to the nature of the boundaries of each team's map control should be fortified to bring on the mid-game. These are points such as bridge and s bend in slaughtered, wherever teams meet in canyon, whenever each ref is built and raxes are placed in open maps such as mvalley, duststorm, moors and others. I think that by progressing from territory acquisition to territory contestation is enough to show that the mid-game has begun. Of course it is not one-way, empires is a very complex game. Commanders do, however, get information from the players as well as from their own perspective but they should be able to and be compelled to use all of this in their decision making. From all communicative players and from the commander's own intelligence (intelligence in a recon sense) each player is given guidance on what to do in the game. players follow the mass consensus of the team. I believe that if the mass consensus is more open to adopting strategy, rather than just base teamwork (base teamwork as in you rev, I kill.. i build, you fight) that players will be more yielding to people willing to be leaders. Many people already are in this community, and that small amount of team players is what makes this community bearable, and this game enjoyable.
The best games are the ones where vets stack one team and steamroll the other side, typing 'gg' at the end to thanks them for a fun and equal match.
The matches I enjoy most are the ones where both teams are fighting hard neglecting defense and going for full offense and both teams eventually swapping bases. Its exciting, hilarious, and rewarding.
