Girlfriend bought the book and it's arrived. She wants to run a game, but wants me to review the mechanics to help run the game smoothly. While I was disgusted with the atrocity that was L5r 3rd edition, I've been promised numerous times that 4th will be great. I am skeptical, but there have been numerous items that the design team has done to give me hope. Between trading forum posts with Shawn Carman himself, to reading the design diaries, they are learning how to build an RPG. However, without a good understanding of their design process, I was unwilling to give full confidence. Now that I have the book and have reviewed it, here's the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
The Good:
Rule of 10 - it has been changed such that every die is important now. Having odd numbers no longer means a 'dead level'. This also makes skill gradients better.
Cooperative Roll - much simpler, and there is a benefit for all. The two different types of cooperative rolls make sense and encourage the use of this feature.
Combat Time - I'm glad that they clarified the amorphous nature of time in combat. It is a clear step towards a more cinematic and less tactical style of game play.
Duration Termination - the final reaction stage of the Combat round is an excellent idea to clarify when durational abilities terminate. It will reduce a ton of confusion that was previously present.
Action Terminology - 1 Complex = 2 Simple? Yeah, that's easy to remember and easy to classify.
Terrain Types - Good descriptions and clear definitions of what does what. If only the Skill TN chart were as informative.
Combat Maneuvers - Great job in descriptions in general. Things are easier to deal with.
Extra Attack Maneuver - Excellent clarification. It's been what every L5r rules lawyer has been looking for since 3.0 was released. While I am disappointed it took a full edition for a formal change to be made, I'm glad it's here.
Conditional Effects Glossary - awesome. I love it.
CP is gone, just XP now - About damned time.
Stance Dance Revolution! - I like the new stances in general. Especially the new Center stance. I can see the Crane hopping between Center and Attack/Full Attack to maximize offense.
Iaijutsu - It's been simplified, but I actually liked the old focus wars. I thought it was good for building tension. It also burned a ton of void points. The removal of Agility as a dueling skill is a good thing though. Fire is already an over used ring. I also love the widened window for kharmic strikes. Overall, good changes.
The Bad:
TNtbH - still the same old method of calculation. This will lend towards the "unhittable" and the "punching bag" scenario. There needs to be a better way to deal with this.
Earth * X - The Lethality and Wounds section gives multiple "settings" for difficulty. This would have fallen into "The Ugly" category if not for the note that Earth*2 is the default. Really, it's just wasted real estate on the page. Why even have a lethality setting? I can't see anyone using it. Also, it changes the game dynamics drastically. Increased health pools make initiative based classes weaker by way of prolonging the combat.
Glory/Honor points - To a new reader, it's more difficult to find how this functions. It was much easier reading decimal places in the old book. Although moving to a 10 point system is good.
The Ugly:
Feint - While I appreciate the new terminology, I fail to see the point of having a second "Increased Damage" option. With the express exception of creating a different scale for Bayushi Bushi, Feint and Increased Damage fill the same role: increased TN difficult for increased damage. Something needs to be done to differentiate Feint.
TN Table - it's the same crap we got before. Sure I see that TN 20 is the difficulty for jumping a 10 ft ditch, but how does that relate to rock climbing? Or swimming? There really is not enough description on the TNs. An customized TN chart should be made for each skill. This chart is near useless.
Armor TN - they need a better phrase. TN to be Hit was much better. Seriously, I just read a phrase that said "This attack roll ignores the benefits of armor to the Armor TN." Ugh. I know what it means, but it hurts to read.
Grappling with Weapons - Good clarification on what can be done in grapple...however, this section is fuzzy. It seems to imply that both characters in a chain weapon grapple would have to use the requisite grappling skill.
The Neutral:
Surprised penalty - being reduced is an interesting choice. It makes initiative based schools better on the defense, while making it more difficult for stealth based schools.
This concludes the Book of Earth review.
Book of Fire is next.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Define RPG
What is an RPG?
Simply put, I no longer consider the traditional JRPG (Japanese RPG) formula (a-la Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy) an RPG game. I am rather hesitant to make such a clear assertion though as I feel it would offend many of the fandom. The JRPG has always been "a long walk down a straight hallway" regardless of any illusions any of us might have. Does that prevent the game from being an RPG? Lets cross reference with the definition we picked up.
Is the JRPG a 'game'? Yes. There is player effort involved, and all of those qualities that Juuls talks about.
Is the player assuming the role of one or more characters? Yes, you have your main character or a party of characters.
Is it in a fictional setting? It's a video game right? Then, yes, it's fictional.
Formal System of rule/guidelines? Yes, more complex than I would like to think about, but certainly yes.
Actions taken by players succeed or fail according to said system? Yes it does.
So by strict stringent definitions, the JRPG is indeed an RPG. But that gets me thinking: What game is NOT an RPG?
To answer this concisely, we can strip a few of these qualifiers out.
Fictional Setting, Formal System of Rules, Player Effort.
These three qualities are necessary for all video games worth mentioning.
So the only real question lies in weather or not the player is assuming the role of character or characters.
In this sense, is not Counter-Strike an RPG? How about Team Fortress 2? The player is assuming the role of a soldier with weapons and they go about controlling their avatar to play the game. This goes for any FPS. Yes, there are RPG-FPS hybrids such as Duex Ex, the entire Theif series, Half-Life single player modes, but what prevents the multiplayer from being considered an RPG as well? Certainly not the definition of Role Playing Games. I could go into the exact same argument with RTS games where the player is assuming the role of a military commander and managing tens if not hundreds of individual unit avatars.
To stretch this line of thought further, I was playing Poker Blitz on Facebook. Normally such a game is not an RPG by virtue of the fact that it is the player who is playing the game directly. The player is not assuming any sort of "role". However, one of the first things that happens in the game is that the player creates an avatar to represent himself in the virtual environment. So now, the player controls an avatar. Does this minor cosmetic change make an RPG? Pretty silly huh?
Now lets drop out of the video game world and hop into pen/paper and boardgames. The traditional RPG revolves around pencil/paper, rulebooks, and dice. How about a boardgames? Players usually control characters around the board, so does that mean all boardgames are thus RPGs as well? I can see an argument made for Clue, but as we descend down to games like Scrabble it becomes more of a stretch.
If we look at all of these examples, the moment there is a "character" or "avatar" involved in the game, we're dealing with elements of an RPG. In this sense, the term RPG is far too broad. How do we determine whether a game is an RPG? Clearly, no one views most of the generic FPS games to be RPGs, nor do they think that of RTSs or boardgames.
Back to the top then, the JRPG. Why do we consider such games to be RPGs. Because they contain iconic references to RPG terminology such as Hit Points and Experience Points? Seems rather silly again. Hit point is another work for Health or Stamina or "something that will cause you to lose the game if you don't have some". Experience points are merely a measure of progression. The typical Zelda game never had EXP, instead money, and gaining better items was the form of progression.
I suppose the better question is: what do I expect out of an RPG? Why do I play them? I play them because they give me freedom to create the character I wish, and make the decisions I want.
JRPGs do not give me these liberties. Most CRPGs (computer RPGs) don't either. That is the nature of dealing with videogames though. They lack the imagination of the human mind. However, it is the human mind that pre-programs these games. Variety is possible and enough variety grants the illusion of freedom. So if JRPGs do not have these qualities, what CRPGs do?
Most of the classics actually. The Baldur's Gate trilogy certainly does. As with any videogames, I do not have total freedom, but there are distinct choices I have in character creation which alters playstyle and decision making when it comes to party member selection. In character interaction as well, I have a dialog menu rife with choices. Not always the exact response I would give, but often there is one close enough to satisfy me. Lastly, the storyline is flexible. There's actually a randomized manner in which side quests appear, and it is also dependent on party members present, which generates a unique sequence of events every play through. The manner in which one replies to specific NPCs will change the flow of the story as well.
In stark contrast, the JRPG formula locks the player into a pre-conceived character with personality and statistics already laid out. Sure, there might be some options when it comes to advancing statistics or choice of equipment, however, the progression of the game leaves little to ones imagination. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed FF 5 and FF:Tactics more than the rest of the games. The class system allowed the player to customize the characters to their hearts content. Moreover, the storyline for the game is locked. There is one ending, possibly with minor variations (hello FF6, did you wait for Shadow? Recruit Umaro and Gogo?), but the story doesn't change. Perhaps this is why Chrono Trigger and Ogre Battle stood out in my mind as superior specimens in the atrocity that is your standard JRPG. Actions have consequences. These are two examples that rose above the standard JRPG.
In conclusion, we can see that not all JRPGs are bad. It's not even that they have bells and whistles that mask the bad. In fact, some have the 'good' qualities of RPG gameplay that we look for. However, the basic JRPG model is a shame to the term Role Playing Game. The basic model is devoid of any player effort beyond power-leveling and thus would probably be more enjoyable as a movie.
RPGs should strive to grant freedom and choice. This is perhaps why Bioware RPGs sell so well. All of the Neverwinter Nights games, Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, ect. They all contain freedom of character choice. The player is not stuck with an annoying main character that they cannot get rid of. Nor are players stuck with characters that do not fit their playstyle. Varied storyline that combines a bit of randomness and player control over how the story develops. It's times like this when I compare the new Bioware games to their contemporary RPGs and wonder if I'm just being nostalgic in thinking how awesome Baldur's Gate was. Maybe Bioware should release a Baldur's Gate remake with an updated game/graphics engine. Then we could see how well it compares to today's RPGs.
Our good friends at Wikipedia say:
a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictionalsetting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
Well, lets first get into what spurs this question about a term that most of us have already defined in some way shape or form. This comic from VGCats.com is what raises the question.
Simply put, I no longer consider the traditional JRPG (Japanese RPG) formula (a-la Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy) an RPG game. I am rather hesitant to make such a clear assertion though as I feel it would offend many of the fandom. The JRPG has always been "a long walk down a straight hallway" regardless of any illusions any of us might have. Does that prevent the game from being an RPG? Lets cross reference with the definition we picked up.
Is the JRPG a 'game'? Yes. There is player effort involved, and all of those qualities that Juuls talks about.
Is the player assuming the role of one or more characters? Yes, you have your main character or a party of characters.
Is it in a fictional setting? It's a video game right? Then, yes, it's fictional.
Formal System of rule/guidelines? Yes, more complex than I would like to think about, but certainly yes.
Actions taken by players succeed or fail according to said system? Yes it does.
So by strict stringent definitions, the JRPG is indeed an RPG. But that gets me thinking: What game is NOT an RPG?
To answer this concisely, we can strip a few of these qualifiers out.
Fictional Setting, Formal System of Rules, Player Effort.
These three qualities are necessary for all video games worth mentioning.
So the only real question lies in weather or not the player is assuming the role of character or characters.
In this sense, is not Counter-Strike an RPG? How about Team Fortress 2? The player is assuming the role of a soldier with weapons and they go about controlling their avatar to play the game. This goes for any FPS. Yes, there are RPG-FPS hybrids such as Duex Ex, the entire Theif series, Half-Life single player modes, but what prevents the multiplayer from being considered an RPG as well? Certainly not the definition of Role Playing Games. I could go into the exact same argument with RTS games where the player is assuming the role of a military commander and managing tens if not hundreds of individual unit avatars.
To stretch this line of thought further, I was playing Poker Blitz on Facebook. Normally such a game is not an RPG by virtue of the fact that it is the player who is playing the game directly. The player is not assuming any sort of "role". However, one of the first things that happens in the game is that the player creates an avatar to represent himself in the virtual environment. So now, the player controls an avatar. Does this minor cosmetic change make an RPG? Pretty silly huh?
Now lets drop out of the video game world and hop into pen/paper and boardgames. The traditional RPG revolves around pencil/paper, rulebooks, and dice. How about a boardgames? Players usually control characters around the board, so does that mean all boardgames are thus RPGs as well? I can see an argument made for Clue, but as we descend down to games like Scrabble it becomes more of a stretch.
If we look at all of these examples, the moment there is a "character" or "avatar" involved in the game, we're dealing with elements of an RPG. In this sense, the term RPG is far too broad. How do we determine whether a game is an RPG? Clearly, no one views most of the generic FPS games to be RPGs, nor do they think that of RTSs or boardgames.
Back to the top then, the JRPG. Why do we consider such games to be RPGs. Because they contain iconic references to RPG terminology such as Hit Points and Experience Points? Seems rather silly again. Hit point is another work for Health or Stamina or "something that will cause you to lose the game if you don't have some". Experience points are merely a measure of progression. The typical Zelda game never had EXP, instead money, and gaining better items was the form of progression.
I suppose the better question is: what do I expect out of an RPG? Why do I play them? I play them because they give me freedom to create the character I wish, and make the decisions I want.
JRPGs do not give me these liberties. Most CRPGs (computer RPGs) don't either. That is the nature of dealing with videogames though. They lack the imagination of the human mind. However, it is the human mind that pre-programs these games. Variety is possible and enough variety grants the illusion of freedom. So if JRPGs do not have these qualities, what CRPGs do?
Most of the classics actually. The Baldur's Gate trilogy certainly does. As with any videogames, I do not have total freedom, but there are distinct choices I have in character creation which alters playstyle and decision making when it comes to party member selection. In character interaction as well, I have a dialog menu rife with choices. Not always the exact response I would give, but often there is one close enough to satisfy me. Lastly, the storyline is flexible. There's actually a randomized manner in which side quests appear, and it is also dependent on party members present, which generates a unique sequence of events every play through. The manner in which one replies to specific NPCs will change the flow of the story as well.
In stark contrast, the JRPG formula locks the player into a pre-conceived character with personality and statistics already laid out. Sure, there might be some options when it comes to advancing statistics or choice of equipment, however, the progression of the game leaves little to ones imagination. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed FF 5 and FF:Tactics more than the rest of the games. The class system allowed the player to customize the characters to their hearts content. Moreover, the storyline for the game is locked. There is one ending, possibly with minor variations (hello FF6, did you wait for Shadow? Recruit Umaro and Gogo?), but the story doesn't change. Perhaps this is why Chrono Trigger and Ogre Battle stood out in my mind as superior specimens in the atrocity that is your standard JRPG. Actions have consequences. These are two examples that rose above the standard JRPG.
In conclusion, we can see that not all JRPGs are bad. It's not even that they have bells and whistles that mask the bad. In fact, some have the 'good' qualities of RPG gameplay that we look for. However, the basic JRPG model is a shame to the term Role Playing Game. The basic model is devoid of any player effort beyond power-leveling and thus would probably be more enjoyable as a movie.
RPGs should strive to grant freedom and choice. This is perhaps why Bioware RPGs sell so well. All of the Neverwinter Nights games, Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, ect. They all contain freedom of character choice. The player is not stuck with an annoying main character that they cannot get rid of. Nor are players stuck with characters that do not fit their playstyle. Varied storyline that combines a bit of randomness and player control over how the story develops. It's times like this when I compare the new Bioware games to their contemporary RPGs and wonder if I'm just being nostalgic in thinking how awesome Baldur's Gate was. Maybe Bioware should release a Baldur's Gate remake with an updated game/graphics engine. Then we could see how well it compares to today's RPGs.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
StarCraft 2 Beta...what balance means
Normally, gaming forums require that one wade through hundreds of uneducated posts before coming across useful information. I do it anyways because every once in awhile, I find little gems of wisdom and insight that are truly remarkable.
Today's little tid-bit comes from a poster called Bibdy.bobdyboo:
Did you see that. I like this definition of balance much better than my previous one (I had said Balanced Enough is when the game is decided by player skill rather than choice of faction), and this is the model I believe has lead Blizzard to success with the first StarCraft. Variety of strategy is key. Most forum posters complain about individual units being overpowered. Sure we could analyze why that unit is too strong for it's cost and tech level, but there are more dynamics to strategy than just mass producing a single unit (even zerg will fail if they attempt to mass only one thing). "See the forest not the trees" is an analogy that my mom liked to say. There's a bigger picture out there, and the multitude of dynamics involved in strategy games is what makes looking at individual unit stats less than useful.
Trends and following the Emergence of new strategies is what needs to happen. With such a large beta tester base, we can view these things and observe and tweak until things are "balanced enough". After all, the game would be awfully boring if counters were written in stone for you, or if the units were all equal.
If we can observe that all factions have a variety of strategy that involves a multitude of units being used at high levels of gameplay then we can infer that the game is balanced. If a unit is over-utilized, then we can infer that said unit could be overpowered. Certain units are meant to be more versatile than others. For example Marines, Stalkers, and Hydralisks. As units that can strike both air and ground, you can be certain that most mid and late game strategies will involve them or be prepared to deal with them. Does this make them overpowered? No probably not. It makes them useful. These units are designed to be "all around" units, so that they easily fit themselves into various strategies is not surprising. There is a limit though. If the strategy is such that these "backbone" units become the only unit used in the strategy, then there's obviously an imbalance if they're defeating units that are meant to destroy them.
But if we see a specialized unit...say the Dark Templar being utilized with great frequency, then we start worrying. A clear harassment and tricky unit, a DT should not be something that a player relies exclusively on. A few to harass workers or pick off buildings, or mix a few in with your ground army to make your army more offensive than it seems at first glance. Either strategy still requires other things to compose the bulk of your army with specialized units as "assistance".
Units have roles, if they exceed their roles, then perhaps they're imbalanced, but noting if something exceeded is dependent on strategies as a whole...not specific unit stats. Ultimately the change in balance will be derived at the unit level, but it will be made in response to strategic situations and variety.
Today's little tid-bit comes from a poster called Bibdy.bobdyboo:
| Pretty much all of the balance changes have been made to encourage unit diversity. People always look at patch note changes and assume that changes were made to find that perfect balance point. They're really not. Roaches were nerfed because they were too prominent in ZvZ. Hydras were nerfed again because people simply used them too much (and still do) to counter almost everything. Marauders had Conc Shell put on an upgrade, because it screwed up the early-game PvT dynamic, where super-fast Marauders were hammering on Protoss bases at the start of matches and Protoss couldn't counter them for like 2 minutes. Marines and Reactors had their build times increased in response to very commonly used quick Marine/SCV charges in PvT strats (in Korea mostly). SCVs had their health reduced to combat the same problem. The Dark Shrine had its cost and build time increased in reaction to that, since DTs could now 1-shot SCVs and be much stronger against Terrans (this was one of those rare, pre-emptive nerfs). Blizzard are only going to be happy when they land balance at the exact point you're talking about. When there's massive unit diversity, tons of crazy strats, tons of crazy counter-strats AND a 50% win rate for everybody. That is never going to happen so long as people keep sitting on the boards screaming that X or Y is overpowered. It'll happen when you play a *%@*load of games, give them lots of data to work with and they make gradual tweaks here and there to encourage different unit usage and just see what people come up with. For instance, now that Immortals come out later, are Roach-rushes going to be overpowered against Protoss? The only one's who know for sure, are Blizzard. If its a problem, they'll fix it in some manner. Another Roach nerf isn't going to be because they thing Roaches are "10% too powerful!". It'll be because there's some strat that's very common, strong and barely counterable. |
Did you see that. I like this definition of balance much better than my previous one (I had said Balanced Enough is when the game is decided by player skill rather than choice of faction), and this is the model I believe has lead Blizzard to success with the first StarCraft. Variety of strategy is key. Most forum posters complain about individual units being overpowered. Sure we could analyze why that unit is too strong for it's cost and tech level, but there are more dynamics to strategy than just mass producing a single unit (even zerg will fail if they attempt to mass only one thing). "See the forest not the trees" is an analogy that my mom liked to say. There's a bigger picture out there, and the multitude of dynamics involved in strategy games is what makes looking at individual unit stats less than useful.
Trends and following the Emergence of new strategies is what needs to happen. With such a large beta tester base, we can view these things and observe and tweak until things are "balanced enough". After all, the game would be awfully boring if counters were written in stone for you, or if the units were all equal.
If we can observe that all factions have a variety of strategy that involves a multitude of units being used at high levels of gameplay then we can infer that the game is balanced. If a unit is over-utilized, then we can infer that said unit could be overpowered. Certain units are meant to be more versatile than others. For example Marines, Stalkers, and Hydralisks. As units that can strike both air and ground, you can be certain that most mid and late game strategies will involve them or be prepared to deal with them. Does this make them overpowered? No probably not. It makes them useful. These units are designed to be "all around" units, so that they easily fit themselves into various strategies is not surprising. There is a limit though. If the strategy is such that these "backbone" units become the only unit used in the strategy, then there's obviously an imbalance if they're defeating units that are meant to destroy them.
But if we see a specialized unit...say the Dark Templar being utilized with great frequency, then we start worrying. A clear harassment and tricky unit, a DT should not be something that a player relies exclusively on. A few to harass workers or pick off buildings, or mix a few in with your ground army to make your army more offensive than it seems at first glance. Either strategy still requires other things to compose the bulk of your army with specialized units as "assistance".
Units have roles, if they exceed their roles, then perhaps they're imbalanced, but noting if something exceeded is dependent on strategies as a whole...not specific unit stats. Ultimately the change in balance will be derived at the unit level, but it will be made in response to strategic situations and variety.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Three Kingdoms Online
So back in high school, I got pulled into the world of Browser Based Strategy games.
The first of which I played was Utopia which is now hosted by Jolt. What got me interested in these games initially was the idea of "Wait...so it's like Warcraft, but with tens of thousands of players simultaneously? Awesome." Also the games were free to play. They usually made money off of donations, advertisements, or providing benefits to paying players.
The reality is slightly different, but the analogy is as fitting as you can get. Needless to say that with a browser interface and the sheer volume of player limits the game play significantly. Despite that, I was addicted. I went on to play Dominion, Astronest, Archmage (now known as The-Reincarnation), and a host of other RT-BBS games. And my high school friends all played with me...which is what made it great. During lunch hours, we would check our accounts at the library and coordinate attacks and intelligence gathering on our latest victims. But enough nostalgia.
The topic at hand is Thee Kingdoms Online, a BBS based on Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It functions like many of the older BBS games except that they bothered to place down a full scale grid map of China and they labeled the 30+ states which impressed me greatly. TKO also contains a ton of bells and whistles that makes the game much more complex than anything else I've ever played previously.
The other games followed the same basic formula:
You start with some Land
Land -> Buildings get built on Land -> Buildings enhance production -> Having production allows you to train troops and maintain upkeep -> Troops can go get you more land (attack or explore)
And thus the cycle of growth is formed.
Better players know how to balance their resources and troops for optimal growth while providing defense for their territory. In a nutshell, that is what all of these games are about. TKO is no different, excepting its bells and whistles.
Most notably is the Heroes and Factions. In TKO you play the role of a warlord in control of a city during the Three Kingdoms period of China. Heroes are noteworthy characters who serve you, you start with one and can recruit more provided you meet the requirements. Heroes can military or support. Generally, you place political heroes as the Governor of a city to boost the resource output, while you send your more militaristic heroes to lead your armies.
Heroes function much like RPG characters. They have stats, and can equip arms and armor, also they can learn techniques and carry ability scrolls to enhance your city, troops, or themselves. They also gain experience and level up, so don't slack on leveling up your hero or else they won't grant a sufficient leadership bonus to your army.
Factions are the historical factions. You can send your heroes on Faction Quests to gain bonus XP or send your hero and army to aid in historical battles and earn resources. Either way, you will gain and lose reputation with your actions and based on who you decide to help. Reputation allows you to purchase some trade goods that can be used to boost your "nobility" status, thus elevating oneself from a small time warlord to a rival for the throne.
Not only can armies be used to attack others, but there are also server events like a weekly "King of the Hill" event, in which an NPC run city is declared a strategic stronghold and leagues of players can struggle to capture and hold the city. Similar things can be done with provincial capitals to provide a benefit. Needless to say, there are rewards to participating. All of this works to break the basic cycle of Land, Buildings, Troops, Attack that the older games had. Nothing is wrong with such a game scheme, but TKO does a good job of providing alternative goals beyond personal growth.
For instance, you could decide that you want to have the most powerful hero and spend all of your time and resources building up your hero and dominating the dueling arena. Or you want to be the Provincial Governor so you go after the provincial capital. Or maybe you do want to just grow big and conquer cities.
There are several frustrations I had with the game. The game has a steep learning curve. Troop death comes really easily. Just earlier this week, I had 4000 man army come in and wipe out my army of 1500 which was sitting at home behind a high level wall and with archers entrenched. Recovering said troops would take weeks. This game model generates a "rich getting richer" scheme in of itself. To exacerbate things further, there is an "Overwhelming numbers" bonus in where a side with 3+ times the troops will suffer fewer losses. While this has a degree of gritty realism, it doesn't necessarily make for a competitive mass multiplayer game. I mean, after a month of build up, suddenly my army is wiped out with little effort by someone who decided to spend money for in game benefits (totally legal, but still categorized under the heading of "un-fun" experiences). Not to mention that this isn't conducive to getting new players in on the game once someone else has a head start.
As a result, I see little point in continuing to play the game to watch my cities be ransacked and what few troops I train to get killed by overwhelming numbers until my attacker gets bored.
All in all, the game was fun until I realized the tremendous advantage gained by people willing to spend money for in game bonuses. Other games granted meta-game bonuses for paid players. A good use of "paid account" schemes was the way Dominion did theirs. Paid accounts in Dominion removed pop-up advertisements in game, and now grant you access to some tools to make your gaming easier (such as attack/defense calculators). These benefits do not translate into direct in game bonuses, but rather can help in a metagame fashion. Though for me, I was patient enough to just ignore the advertisements, and skilled enough to create my own calculator using excel.
I don't be-grudge paying TKO players their game, but I don't think it to be good gaming when I have to throw real life money at a game in order to progress. So the people willing to spend money can continue throwing their cash at each other. I'll retire...and update my list of current games/projects.
I don't be-grudge paying TKO players their game, but I don't think it to be good gaming when I have to throw real life money at a game in order to progress. So the people willing to spend money can continue throwing their cash at each other. I'll retire...and update my list of current games/projects.
Current Games and Projects:
Computer: Team Fortress 2
Computer: StarCraft 2 (beta)
Computer: Warstorm
Tabletop: D&D 4th Edition
Tabletop: D&D 3.5 Edition
Forum Play-by-Post: L5r RPG 3rd Edition Revised
LARP: Live Effects (Wyrd, Veil, Lanaque, Messina, & others)
Book: Half-Real by Jesper Juuls
Book: Half-Real by Jesper Juuls
Book: Luck, Logic, and White Lies: The Mathematics of Games by Jorg Bewersdorff
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Level Scaling
I got into a conversation regarding "level scaling" in computer games. Poster child games that suffer from level scaling problems are The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and recent Bioware games. What's so bad about level scaling? It destroys progression.
Does it matter if I do 10 damage against a 100 HP enemy or 100 damage against a 1000 HP enemy? No not really, the ratio is the same, and if my opponents simply scale up when my character increases in power, then what's the point of increasing in power? The game's mechanical progression become moot and turns into effectively wasted effort on the programming side.
It's a different thing if the game's progression is designed such that you should reach a certain power level by the time you face more difficult challenges. That is game progression. But to artificially adjust challenges directly based off of player power level defeats the purpose of game progression.
On the illusion level, I suppose it does have the merit of allowing players to see larger numbers show up for damage (even if the effort remains the same). Similar to the differentiation between a true random number generator and a pseudo random number generator. However, the strength of the illusion with a RNG serves a purpose in providing a level of unpredictability, whereas level scaling merely makes the game static.
In short, don't level scale. It's the lazy (boring) way to design "challenging" encounters.
Does it matter if I do 10 damage against a 100 HP enemy or 100 damage against a 1000 HP enemy? No not really, the ratio is the same, and if my opponents simply scale up when my character increases in power, then what's the point of increasing in power? The game's mechanical progression become moot and turns into effectively wasted effort on the programming side.
It's a different thing if the game's progression is designed such that you should reach a certain power level by the time you face more difficult challenges. That is game progression. But to artificially adjust challenges directly based off of player power level defeats the purpose of game progression.
On the illusion level, I suppose it does have the merit of allowing players to see larger numbers show up for damage (even if the effort remains the same). Similar to the differentiation between a true random number generator and a pseudo random number generator. However, the strength of the illusion with a RNG serves a purpose in providing a level of unpredictability, whereas level scaling merely makes the game static.
In short, don't level scale. It's the lazy (boring) way to design "challenging" encounters.
StarCraft 2 Beta
So, I received a beta key for StarCraft 2 from a friend about a week ago and the game instantly brought me back to high school years playing the first version of the game. Mutabomb is still highly functional, 6-pool rush also is great. Carriers are still the best all around air support, but Battlecruisers are now a functional substitute on the Terran side as well.
While I love the RTS genre, I would hesitate to call myself 'good' by any stretch of the imagination. 'Good' and 'Bad' are relative, but I do watch how it functions. My RTS gaming got started way back with WarCraft 2, so I have a long history with Blizzard's style of RTS (though I skipped WC 3 due to various factors).
In WC 2, Horde and Alliance had the same units. The only difference was in the late game where Paladins and Ogre Mages had different spells. (I think the dedicated spellcasting units had different effects as well, but I forget). Bloodlust or Healing? Take your pick.
StarCraft was a leap forward with 3 factions and different basic units. That must have been a horrible pain to balance. Between Zerglings and Zealots, it was probably an easy thing, but toss Marines into the mix and you'll have some serious headache as you consider the power of ranged attacks. Is 1 Zealot equal to 4 zerglings equal to 2 marines? In the end, the balance cannot be perfect, but it can be "close enough". What is "close enough"? The point at which the player skill, tactical situation, and luck determines the outcome between equally resourced armies rather than some unfair advantage. That is what we call "balanced enough", and StarCraft 1 certainly achieved that for me.
In StarCraft 2 (yes it's still a beta, but nothing is outright broken from what I can tell), new concepts have been added. So before, you had your 'basic' units. Marines, Zerglings, and Zealots. Don't worry, they're still there. From there you had your 2nd teir, Firebats, Hydralisks and Dragoons (alternating the melee with the ranged). While the second tier is similar (Stalkers are effectively Dragoons, and Hydras are still around. Terran get Mauraders instead of Firebats), they added "skirmisher" tier between. Skirmishers are units that excel at getting behind enemy lines. The concept of a "semi-flyer" was introduced with Reapers and Stalkers w/ Blink upgrades. Lurkers are gone and instead Zerg get Roaches (can move while burrowed). Rather than performing air drops, now you infiltrate by way of these "skirmisher" units.
Skirmishers add an entirely new dynamic into the game. Perimeter defense strategies fall victim to skirmishers very easily as the Skirmishes excel at getting around to the back of the base and harassing the workers until it's too late. Before, just adding a healthy amount of anti-air to your perimeter defense would suffice to defend against drops, but now you must add defense internally to your workers, or merely station some anti-skirmisher units near-by or else suffer a humiliating defeat as your workers die and your economy grinds to a halt.
That's all I have for now about SC2.
While I love the RTS genre, I would hesitate to call myself 'good' by any stretch of the imagination. 'Good' and 'Bad' are relative, but I do watch how it functions. My RTS gaming got started way back with WarCraft 2, so I have a long history with Blizzard's style of RTS (though I skipped WC 3 due to various factors).
In WC 2, Horde and Alliance had the same units. The only difference was in the late game where Paladins and Ogre Mages had different spells. (I think the dedicated spellcasting units had different effects as well, but I forget). Bloodlust or Healing? Take your pick.
StarCraft was a leap forward with 3 factions and different basic units. That must have been a horrible pain to balance. Between Zerglings and Zealots, it was probably an easy thing, but toss Marines into the mix and you'll have some serious headache as you consider the power of ranged attacks. Is 1 Zealot equal to 4 zerglings equal to 2 marines? In the end, the balance cannot be perfect, but it can be "close enough". What is "close enough"? The point at which the player skill, tactical situation, and luck determines the outcome between equally resourced armies rather than some unfair advantage. That is what we call "balanced enough", and StarCraft 1 certainly achieved that for me.
In StarCraft 2 (yes it's still a beta, but nothing is outright broken from what I can tell), new concepts have been added. So before, you had your 'basic' units. Marines, Zerglings, and Zealots. Don't worry, they're still there. From there you had your 2nd teir, Firebats, Hydralisks and Dragoons (alternating the melee with the ranged). While the second tier is similar (Stalkers are effectively Dragoons, and Hydras are still around. Terran get Mauraders instead of Firebats), they added "skirmisher" tier between. Skirmishers are units that excel at getting behind enemy lines. The concept of a "semi-flyer" was introduced with Reapers and Stalkers w/ Blink upgrades. Lurkers are gone and instead Zerg get Roaches (can move while burrowed). Rather than performing air drops, now you infiltrate by way of these "skirmisher" units.
Skirmishers add an entirely new dynamic into the game. Perimeter defense strategies fall victim to skirmishers very easily as the Skirmishes excel at getting around to the back of the base and harassing the workers until it's too late. Before, just adding a healthy amount of anti-air to your perimeter defense would suffice to defend against drops, but now you must add defense internally to your workers, or merely station some anti-skirmisher units near-by or else suffer a humiliating defeat as your workers die and your economy grinds to a halt.
That's all I have for now about SC2.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Welcome to Infinity
So this weekend was a LARP weekend. These are always exhausting, but filled with fun.
Ultimately, LARP in of itself is not a game. Juuls states that LARP is in a gray area where it could or could not be a game. However, I'm going to put my foot on this side: LARP is not a game inherently. It is a medium. LARP can be used to create a game. Similarly, Tabletop is not a game...though the medium of Tabletop or Cards, can be used to create a game.
Ironically, LARP is actually where I became heavily invested into Game Balance. Here is where it really mattered.
Sure, back in the day, balance in Diablo 2 mattered to me in the sense that I mocked those who played the powerful classes as playing on easy mode, but in the end it did not matter. While paladins were weak solo, when you get some auras stacking, they became pretty awesome.
But in LARP, the delineation between the haves and have-nots became very clear and to the point where the game was no longer fun. People who steal loot, horde information, hog the game instances, overpower the encounters leaving nothing for the others to do, and otherwise alienate the other players. Fortunately, the majority of said players no longer show up at this game. Unfortunately, I now staff this game rather than play in it.
It has been a point of argumentation between myself and others as to who's responsibility it is to curb 'unfun' behavior. There are many things to consider.
Is it the Player's responsibility to regulate themselves?
Those overpowered and loot thieving players need to stop.
Or perhaps, those lazy bums need to get up and loot for themselves rather than just complaining that they get none. People find time to loot during battle, why can't they?
Is it the plot team/GM responsibility?
Game masters need to create mods that appeal to all players. Mods that all players can participate in and have a good time.
Is it the game designer's responsibility?
It's the game designer's fault for leaving loopholes and room for abuse in their rules. Game designers need to be more careful when writing rules.
The reality, as you might expect, is that it is a combination of all three, but the most important part starts with the game designer. Even if the players play nice, there is the chance that they will accidentally hop onto an overpowered character build. Everything starts with the game design. If your rules suck, then your game master will have a tough time making good encounters, and your players will have a hard time feeling useful. So, step 1: have a good rules set. Other stuff comes later.
On that note, for those of you who LARP. I'm working on a new rules set based off of Live Effects. I've spoken to many of you about it, but here are the core principles that I am functioning off of.
Gritty realism - Death is cheap. Survival is costly.
Gradients of Consequence - Absolute defenses are rare. Partial defenses will be plentiful.
Removal of no-win scenarios - Anyone can pick up a weapon and win. Chance of success may be slim, bt it is possible.
Consistency of ability use - You no longer "run out" of usages. Energy is no longer a concern. Rather, time is your only concern.
I will have a design notes document. I feel the design notes document is very important. It tells you why changes were made. One of the most frustrating things these past years of arguing rules was that it was very difficult to understand why Ira made the changes he did, what he wanted, and what he had already tried. The only reason I was able to get so many things passed was because I asked him what he was looking for. The importance of design notes is so that you don't have to ask the designer what they intended. You can just read it. Sure, some things are lost in translation, but the general gist of what the designer wants is there. Specific questions can then be answered.
Anyone who wants to read the alpha version or get in on the beta test, please shoot me an email and I'll add you to the list.
Ultimately, LARP in of itself is not a game. Juuls states that LARP is in a gray area where it could or could not be a game. However, I'm going to put my foot on this side: LARP is not a game inherently. It is a medium. LARP can be used to create a game. Similarly, Tabletop is not a game...though the medium of Tabletop or Cards, can be used to create a game.
Ironically, LARP is actually where I became heavily invested into Game Balance. Here is where it really mattered.
Sure, back in the day, balance in Diablo 2 mattered to me in the sense that I mocked those who played the powerful classes as playing on easy mode, but in the end it did not matter. While paladins were weak solo, when you get some auras stacking, they became pretty awesome.
But in LARP, the delineation between the haves and have-nots became very clear and to the point where the game was no longer fun. People who steal loot, horde information, hog the game instances, overpower the encounters leaving nothing for the others to do, and otherwise alienate the other players. Fortunately, the majority of said players no longer show up at this game. Unfortunately, I now staff this game rather than play in it.
It has been a point of argumentation between myself and others as to who's responsibility it is to curb 'unfun' behavior. There are many things to consider.
Is it the Player's responsibility to regulate themselves?
Those overpowered and loot thieving players need to stop.
Or perhaps, those lazy bums need to get up and loot for themselves rather than just complaining that they get none. People find time to loot during battle, why can't they?
Is it the plot team/GM responsibility?
Game masters need to create mods that appeal to all players. Mods that all players can participate in and have a good time.
Is it the game designer's responsibility?
It's the game designer's fault for leaving loopholes and room for abuse in their rules. Game designers need to be more careful when writing rules.
The reality, as you might expect, is that it is a combination of all three, but the most important part starts with the game designer. Even if the players play nice, there is the chance that they will accidentally hop onto an overpowered character build. Everything starts with the game design. If your rules suck, then your game master will have a tough time making good encounters, and your players will have a hard time feeling useful. So, step 1: have a good rules set. Other stuff comes later.
On that note, for those of you who LARP. I'm working on a new rules set based off of Live Effects. I've spoken to many of you about it, but here are the core principles that I am functioning off of.
Gritty realism - Death is cheap. Survival is costly.
Gradients of Consequence - Absolute defenses are rare. Partial defenses will be plentiful.
Removal of no-win scenarios - Anyone can pick up a weapon and win. Chance of success may be slim, bt it is possible.
Consistency of ability use - You no longer "run out" of usages. Energy is no longer a concern. Rather, time is your only concern.
I will have a design notes document. I feel the design notes document is very important. It tells you why changes were made. One of the most frustrating things these past years of arguing rules was that it was very difficult to understand why Ira made the changes he did, what he wanted, and what he had already tried. The only reason I was able to get so many things passed was because I asked him what he was looking for. The importance of design notes is so that you don't have to ask the designer what they intended. You can just read it. Sure, some things are lost in translation, but the general gist of what the designer wants is there. Specific questions can then be answered.
Anyone who wants to read the alpha version or get in on the beta test, please shoot me an email and I'll add you to the list.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Rules are Fundamental
So, if you read the first post, you were probably wonder what "Half-Real" is. It's not a game, it's a book. It's a book on computer games specifically, and Mr. Juuls goes into great detail about the theory behind games, much of which I agree with. I was introduced to this book as a required text of my Intro to Game Programming class.
His book directly ties into what I feel games are, and what irritates me frequently about some game designers and players I see. Juuls quotes several predecessors who tried to define games. While all of them differed as to exact definitions, one of they key things that stands out is "Rules". Every game has rules. Rules are what differentiates playing games, from playing with toys.
Never again do I want to hear a gamer or game designer say that the game rules are unimportant. That is crap. If a person feels that rules are unimportant, then that person doesn't like gaming. Players don't have to like the rules laid out. They don't have to know them inside and out like someone from the WotC Char Op boards, but they do have to realize that game rules exist to serve a fundamental purpose in facilitating the entertaining derived from a game.
Yes, deriving the qualitative entity known as "fun" from gaming is the true purpose, and yes rules should not get in the way of "fun". However, even if the rules do limit the "fun" factor, that does not diminish their importance.
Aside from establishing that all games have rules, Juuls also explains how rules can affect gameplay, but he gets distracted by the term "gameplay" and ceases to talk much about rules. So here's my stab at it:
In PvE, rules are used to limit the player such that the environment provides a challenge.
In PvP, rules are used to restrict or eliminate "unfun" behavior such that players can provide appropriate challenges for one another. And while valorization of the winner is still included, the loser is not discouraged from further attempts.
A bit of a mouthful I suppose. Definitely less concise than I would like, but it seems to fit the bill. The big problem, and the problem I want to address in context of this blog is when we have PvPvE environments such as WoW or LARPs that allow for PvP. The difficulty lies in that game designers create a diffrentiation between PvP and PvE. Namely that in PvE, the Environment does not have "feelings of valorization", thus it's ok for the player to cut through swaths of unnamed enemies without breaking a sweat. While in PvP were a single player capable of cutting through a swath of human opponents, there would be cries of foul play or at least commentary on skill level.
Well, that's enough philosophy for now. The next post will start dealing with actual games and their balance issue.
His book directly ties into what I feel games are, and what irritates me frequently about some game designers and players I see. Juuls quotes several predecessors who tried to define games. While all of them differed as to exact definitions, one of they key things that stands out is "Rules". Every game has rules. Rules are what differentiates playing games, from playing with toys.
Never again do I want to hear a gamer or game designer say that the game rules are unimportant. That is crap. If a person feels that rules are unimportant, then that person doesn't like gaming. Players don't have to like the rules laid out. They don't have to know them inside and out like someone from the WotC Char Op boards, but they do have to realize that game rules exist to serve a fundamental purpose in facilitating the entertaining derived from a game.
Yes, deriving the qualitative entity known as "fun" from gaming is the true purpose, and yes rules should not get in the way of "fun". However, even if the rules do limit the "fun" factor, that does not diminish their importance.
Aside from establishing that all games have rules, Juuls also explains how rules can affect gameplay, but he gets distracted by the term "gameplay" and ceases to talk much about rules. So here's my stab at it:
In PvE, rules are used to limit the player such that the environment provides a challenge.
In PvP, rules are used to restrict or eliminate "unfun" behavior such that players can provide appropriate challenges for one another. And while valorization of the winner is still included, the loser is not discouraged from further attempts.
A bit of a mouthful I suppose. Definitely less concise than I would like, but it seems to fit the bill. The big problem, and the problem I want to address in context of this blog is when we have PvPvE environments such as WoW or LARPs that allow for PvP. The difficulty lies in that game designers create a diffrentiation between PvP and PvE. Namely that in PvE, the Environment does not have "feelings of valorization", thus it's ok for the player to cut through swaths of unnamed enemies without breaking a sweat. While in PvP were a single player capable of cutting through a swath of human opponents, there would be cries of foul play or at least commentary on skill level.
Well, that's enough philosophy for now. The next post will start dealing with actual games and their balance issue.
Player versus Player versus Environment
Player versus Environment:
A game mode where the players struggle against an artificial environment, including creature or non-player characters within it.
Player versus Player:
A game mode where the players struggle against one another.
Player versus Player versus Environment:
A game mode where the players have the option of struggling against the environment as well as the other players.
This blog is dedicated to better games by way of better game balance. The games I play: computer, tabletop, LARP, or otherwise will be covered at some point in time. My design projects will also be covered.
Current Games and Projects:
Computer: Team Fortress 2
Computer: StarCraft 2 (beta)
Computer: Three Kingdoms Online
Computer: Warstorm
Tabletop: D&D 4th Edition
Tabletop: D&D 3.5 Edition
Forum Play-by-Post: L5r RPG 3rd Edition Revised
LARP: Live Effects (Wyrd, Veil, Lanaque, Messina, & others)
Book: Half-Real by Jesper Juuls
Book: Half-Real by Jesper Juuls
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)