Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Discuss game development here, from a distinct game project to an accessible third-party mutator, down to the interaction and design of individual units if you like.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by KDR_11k »

Chatlog from the KP ladder autohost:
[10:08:44] <[LCC]Saktoth> You know, playing IW, KP, even CA BA etc
[10:08:55] <[LCC]Saktoth> im really struck by the slippery slope thing.
[10:09:21] <[LCC]Saktoth> Its a real problem, the first 10% of the game often decides who wins or loses.
[10:09:45] <[LCC]Saktoth> you lose one expander, or a single engagement you invested your forces in.. and thats it.
[10:09:49] <KDR_11k> It's because the econ in most Spring mods is based strongly on map control
[10:09:55] <[LCC]Saktoth> Cuz IW, like KP, has no serious static defense.
[10:09:58] <KDR_11k> with exponential growth and all that
[10:10:02] <[LCC]Saktoth> For sure.
[10:10:19] <KDR_11k> Try Gundam, you can't do much in that during the early game :P
[10:10:34] <[LCC]Saktoth> Ya but its also boring.
[10:11:04] <[LCC]Saktoth> In almost all RTS's you start with a structure that pumps out resource gatherers at a constant and fixed rate.
[10:11:20] <[LCC]Saktoth> The economic curve is completely predictable and fixed.
[10:11:42] <KDR_11k> It's usually more bounded by the difficulty of claiming new res spots
[10:11:58] <[LCC]Saktoth> Of course.
[10:12:00] <KDR_11k> You can produce gatherers like mad in e.g. Warcraft but there's not enough for them to do
[10:12:25] <[LCC]Saktoth> A town centre etc is prettymuch the equiv of a mex.
[10:13:00] <KDR_11k> and those are so expensive that making one early would cost you a large chunk of army
[10:13:11] <[LCC]Saktoth> Its usually pretty late or mid game, in most of these, that you expand a second town centre/hall.
[10:13:23] <[LCC]Saktoth> and even that, since the early econ is so predictable, is pretty fixed.
[10:13:28] <KDR_11k> Also TCs, refineries, etc are much harder to destroy
[10:14:10] <[LCC]Saktoth> Yet, in other games, territorial aggression and acquisition is something i miss.
[10:15:12] <[LCC]Saktoth> There has to be a way to set up aggressive and EARLY territorial acquisition, and raiding without it making the game so slippery slope or..
[10:15:21] <KDR_11k> Did you try CoH?
[10:15:45] <[LCC]Saktoth> No, but it got me thinking, that.
[10:16:39] <[LCC]Saktoth> Our discussion on the forums.
[10:16:47] <KDR_11k> I don't think you can grant the money to build your army through the territory you claimed without creating a slippery slope
[10:18:16] <KDR_11k> Something I was once thinking about was simulating government spending, the more enemies you spot the more money you get
[10:18:44] <KDR_11k> conversely, if the govt decides your force is sufficient to beat what you've seen then you get less money
[10:19:05] <[LCC]Saktoth> On the one hand you can ensure its quite easy for both players to expand at the same, fixed rate. on the other that means there can be no really impactful early raiding or expansion denial
[10:19:21] <[LCC]Saktoth> lol KDR..
[10:20:22] <KDR_11k> Other parts were e.g. having nukes that you can choose to launch at the enemy country instead of targetting the map, the nuke would force the enemy to spend money on rebuilding their cities and reduce the spending on the battlefield...
[10:20:53] <KDR_11k> Stuff like that would make information warfare important
[10:21:09] <KDR_11k> Don't let the other guy see your army or he gets extra money
[10:21:22] <[LCC]Saktoth> But probably throw all their resources into the engagement.
[10:21:49] <[LCC]Saktoth> so if you nuke a strong country that hasnt already overextended itself in warfare, it would probably instantly dump everything it has into winning that engagement?
[10:22:27] <KDR_11k> Yeah but it wouldn't help the player if the nuke's effects evened out :P
[10:24:01] <[LCC]Saktoth> Well the point is, early on, or if the game is just skirmishing, if you nuked the enemy would get his countries full resources. But in a full scale war where the countries are already spending near their max, you can nuke without fear of provoking the enemy counry.
[10:24:24] <[LCC]Saktoth> Because they're already stretched to their limit.
[10:24:38] <[LCC]Saktoth> Oh well, just an idea as to the implications of that kind of structure.
[10:25:12] <KDR_11k> Yeah, the nuke would just be a side thing, the scouting and comparative army sizes would be the main part
[10:25:35] <[LCC]Saktoth> Ive thought about a system where unit production etc is mostly fixed, but energy (which powers all weapons, shields, special abilities etc) is acquired from territory.
[10:26:41] <KDR_11k> Kinda like CoH, manpower (unit res) is pretty much fixed and ammo (special abilities) and fuel (teching, vehs) are gained from territory
[10:26:46] <[LCC]Saktoth> So it just allows you to engage more aggressively and recklessly with your units, without fear of running out energy.
[10:27:24] <KDR_11k> So a player with more ammo can get more artillery, more weapon upgrades, etc but still not more units
[10:27:50] <KDR_11k> I think a way to avoid slippery slopes is to have a mechanism that counteracts the slope so a player isn't weaker as he is nearing a loss
[10:28:07] <KDR_11k> though too much of that would of course make winning too hard
[10:28:46] <[LCC]Saktoth> In IW, you have an incredibly powerful commander unit that is really hard to kill
[10:28:55] <KDR_11k> Same for Gundam :P
[10:29:12] <KDR_11k> Makes attacks early on pretty futile
[10:29:22] <[LCC]Saktoth> But the game is still over in the first 10% of the game, the rest is just trying to kill the com
[10:29:37] <[LCC]Saktoth> so im convinced thats not a great solution, there is almost 0 chance of comebacks.
[10:29:57] * Sertse has joined battle
[10:29:57] * Neddiehost Hi Sertse (rights:1), welcome to Neddiehost, automated host. For help say !help
[10:29:57] * Neddiehost maplink: http://spring.jobjol.nl/search_result.p ... ss_Map.sd7
[10:30:10] <[LCC]Saktoth> They also have the ability to upgrade territory to get more metal out of it.
[10:30:16] <[LCC]Saktoth> IE mohomex deal
[10:30:25] <[LCC]Saktoth> or mm deal rather, it takes a lot of energy to run.
[10:30:37] <Sertse> how did you find the AI testings btw? Its a bit weird...
[10:30:40] <KDR_11k> I think you also have to cap units for that, otherwise the slope is not territory but unit losses
[10:31:04] <[LCC]Saktoth> hrrm?
[10:31:15] <KDR_11k> Sertse: I think I should add a priority for nuking groups of bytes and pointers...
[10:31:29] <[LCC]Saktoth> I know in Age of Empires, in the larger, esp the FFA games, you'd have enough unit production to fill your 200 unit cap in seconds
[10:32:03] * Universel has joined battle
[10:32:03] * Neddiehost Hi Universel (rights:1), welcome to Neddiehost, automated host. For help say !help
[10:32:03] * Neddiehost maplink: http://spring.jobjol.nl/search_result.p ... ss_Map.sd7
[10:32:07] <KDR_11k> Well, if you have a fixed income and one player loses half his army that means he's half an army behind and will probably get crushed soon, he can't reuild faster than the enemy grows
[10:32:10] <[LCC]Saktoth> and you'd be pouring your units straight from your crowds of barracks located as close to the battlefield as possible into his line
[10:32:19] <[LCC]Saktoth> where they die and are just as quickly replaced.
[10:32:38] <[LCC]Saktoth> Upkeep perhaps..
[10:32:54] <KDR_11k> yeah, CoH uses some amount of upkeep
[10:33:08] <Sertse> I was just suprised, RAI fought as it did,given there t wasn't expected to do anything in the first place.
[10:33:12] <[LCC]Saktoth> But then you get something similiar to larger games of AoE2, where you have your production just pouring units blindly into a meatgrinder
[10:33:33] <[LCC]Saktoth> the game becomes very macro at that point, it becomes about leapfrogging barracks etc as the units just pour into a crush
[10:33:33] <KDR_11k> Depends on the price of the units
[10:33:41] <[LCC]Saktoth> about ensuring your older barracks stop producing..
[10:33:55] <KDR_11k> In CoH the fixed income is about one basic infantry troop per minute
[10:34:14] <[LCC]Saktoth> Well im talking about solutions to a game with territorial income
[10:35:59] <[LCC]Saktoth> Though i suppose you can have it so it never gets to the point where your constant pushing out your unit cap in units every 20 seconds.
[10:36:48] <[LCC]Saktoth> That is kinda an excessive and extreme example.
[10:37:18] <KDR_11k> Upkeep would mean that the closer you get to the cap the less res you get, no?
[10:37:42] <[LCC]Saktoth> This is why i think the territorial resource being power for weapons, shields, etc. So the rate at which you can use this resource is capped by the number of units you have..
[10:37:54] <[LCC]Saktoth> yes.
[10:38:13] <[LCC]Saktoth> Or rather, the more units you get the more resources they take.
[10:39:05] <[LCC]Saktoth> Say, each unit taking a small amount of resources just to run.
[10:39:20] <[LCC]Saktoth> Though the way war3 did it was pretty good
[10:39:26] <KDR_11k> Well, in CoH you could always use more of the territorial resources, there's never a point where you can't spend it anymore (well, ammo at least, fuel is used for bigger units only)
[10:40:04] <KDR_11k> CoH also has upkeep for the fixed income
[10:40:16] <KDR_11k> Though it also has a unit cap based on the number of territories you control
[10:41:22] <[LCC]Saktoth> it would be nice to have sweeping, roaming, back and forth combat...
[10:41:56] <[LCC]Saktoth> Like some games of *A comet catcher. Huge armies performing feints, interceptions, massing on borders, doing lightning raids and what have you.
[10:42:27] <[LCC]Saktoth> But 90% of the time you never get to that stage, even in *A CC you dont, it ends with one early push where one player gets the upper hand and steamrollers
[10:43:56] <[LCC]Saktoth> I dont think ive played more than maybe a couple of games of IW where i really felt it was back-and-forth.
[10:44:22] <[LCC]Saktoth> and when it is, i feel its because one player is just playing particularly better and makes 1 early mistake, but recovers due to the fact he is a superior player otherwise.
[10:45:06] <[LCC]Saktoth> i mean obviously you're always going to have that disparity and a good player wont lose unless he makes a mistake..
[10:45:51] <[LCC]Saktoth> its so hard to strike that balance between an exciting back and forth exchange and a game that is being needlessly prolonged by game mechanics meant to slow down the progress of the winner..
[10:46:31] <[LCC]Saktoth> Whats really needed is something to slow down the progress of the winner at 50% exactly. So the game stays as even as possible for as long as possible, and then its relatively easy to finish the enemy off once you're in a strong position...
[10:47:11] <[LCC]Saktoth> If you have a good 'rally' back and forth at the 50% mark, the slippery slope that comes afterwards is probably a good thing really as it ensure the game ends descisively.
[10:47:48] <KDR_11k> I suppose none of that has to do with CA though?
[10:48:49] <[LCC]Saktoth> IW mostly.
[10:49:43] <[LCC]Saktoth> One of the things that helps in CA, i think, is reclaim. If you sucessfully defend against a 'game ending' attack you get enough reources in reclaim to make a comeback.
[10:50:02] <[LCC]Saktoth> IW doesnt have much reclaim
[10:51:00] <KDR_11k> I've always seen reclaim as a major disincentive to attacks when you're not sure you're going to win
[10:51:24] <[LCC]Saktoth> There is winning and there is winning.
[10:51:35] <KDR_11k> Especialyl a problem for new players, attacking won't just waste their res, it'll feed the enemy
[10:51:43] <[LCC]Saktoth> If you are capable of crippling the enemy energy and buildpower economies enough, the extra metal wont help him much.
[10:52:19] <[LCC]Saktoth> and all you really need to do is make sure he cant get a constructor into the area of the engagement.
[10:52:47] <[LCC]Saktoth> If you can isolate the area you are attacking, for example.
[10:52:49] <KDR_11k> Yeah but a new player probably won't get that done
[10:53:09] <[LCC]Saktoth> I think OTA mods, spring mods in general, are just incredibly difficult.
[10:53:30] <[LCC]Saktoth> There is a lot about them, with the variable, exponential nature of the economy and some of the physics that leads to precise single unit micro..
[10:53:38] <KDR_11k> I think some mods more than others but yeah, most use obscure conventions you aren't going to guess
[10:53:40] <[LCC]Saktoth> that just makes the game really difficult for new players.
[10:53:43] * Universel has left battle
[10:54:06] <[LCC]Saktoth> One thing ive found players are just -incapable- of understanding unless told is that they should use constructors to assist their labs.
[10:54:18] <KDR_11k> Well, no other game allows that
[10:55:01] <[LCC]Saktoth> They either A. Make more labs to spend faster B. use their constructors to make static defense or economy C. Just excess. D. Dont expand because they 'dont need it'.
[10:55:05] <KDR_11k> and it's not intuitive either, if you don't know what nanolathing is supposed to be you're going to think unit production and building takes different tools
[10:55:31] <[LCC]Saktoth> Which in turn, as you can tell, encourages a whole huge range of bad behaviours (porcing, mm whoring, poor economic managment, non-expansionistic mindsets etc)
[10:56:05] <[LCC]Saktoth> I think there are visual queues- the build animations are identical and the units themselves are just robots and tanks, prettymuch the same as a building.
[10:56:12] <KDR_11k> I guess it's mostly because other RTSes don't allow assisting factories and usually factories produce fast enough that you don'T need to help them
[10:56:15] <[LCC]Saktoth> But you are right, people coming from other RTS's will have problems
[10:56:54] <[LCC]Saktoth> The different is, the major difference, is that in most other RTS's constructors are also resource gatherers.
[10:57:21] <[LCC]Saktoth> In spring mods with fac-based construction, your constructors usually just sit around looking stupid not doing anything.
[10:57:27] <[LCC]Saktoth> I mean fac-based unit production.
[10:58:32] * Sertse has left battle
[10:59:00] <KDR_11k> I don't think universal workers are that common in RTSes overall
[10:59:11] <[LCC]Saktoth> in OTA mods though, a fac represents a 'tech', it represents research/upgrades in other mods that allow you to build that unit.
[10:59:27] <[LCC]Saktoth> Constructors represent buildpower.
[10:59:36] <KDR_11k> Warcraft, AOE and their clones use them, C&C always had harvesters
[11:00:00] <KDR_11k> Yeah and I don't think the fac as tech thing is easy to understand
[11:00:35] <[LCC]Saktoth> In *craft/AoE, you build structures -just- to get a tech, there are structures that exist purely to allow you to upgrade your units or allow you to build specific units.
[11:00:47] <KDR_11k> I think E&E's system is probably more intuitive
[11:00:50] <[LCC]Saktoth> which tend to go into a generic 'barracks' structure once 'researched'
[11:01:41] <[LCC]Saktoth> A fac is like, say, a lumber mill in Warcraft, and the constructors are actually the barracks...
[11:02:00] <[LCC]Saktoth> I dont know that this system, in the context of self-replicating robots, is really that hard to understand though.
[11:02:14] <[LCC]Saktoth> Its a perfect bit of fiction for the gameplay
[11:02:25] <KDR_11k> The context isn't really self-replicating robots in the mind of the player though
[11:02:57] <KDR_11k> The player sees it as another RTS
[11:03:09] <KDR_11k> The player sees the word "factory" and thinks "this makes units"
[11:03:31] <KDR_11k> The player sees the word "constructor" and thinks "this makes buildings"
[11:03:39] <[LCC]Saktoth> This is only a problem for people with biases from other games, and if we cant innovate then we might as well not make games.
[11:03:54] <KDR_11k> But if you innovate you need a tutorial
[11:04:12] <KDR_11k> Also you won't find a player without a bias from another game
[11:04:17] <[LCC]Saktoth> A non-rts player might think a factory makes the 'tinned goods' resource and a constructor makes office buildings.
[11:04:37] <[LCC]Saktoth> True, though mostly because our game is kind of on the difficult end of things.
[11:04:44] <KDR_11k> Yes but a non-rts player would look at the interface, wonder WTF he should do and it's all downhill fromt here
[11:04:55] <[LCC]Saktoth> Because of what we are- an open source game made by long time gamers for long time gamers.
[11:05:16] <[LCC]Saktoth> I dont know, its all pretty similiar to a paint program actually.
[11:05:25] <KDR_11k> A non-rts player wouldn't know about selecting, about right-clicking to give orders, etc
[11:06:04] <KDR_11k> A person who has played games but not RTSes might assume the commander is his character instead of his starting unit
[11:06:11] <[LCC]Saktoth> If you think of the buttons up the side as colours or tools, its pretty similiar to a paint program.
[11:06:21] <KDR_11k> He might try to click a position to move there without selecting the com because he's used to Diablo
[11:07:09] <KDR_11k> I don't think a non-RTS player would be able to grasp the interface easily
[11:07:12] <[LCC]Saktoth> granted but this isnt much harder than learning paint or the windows gui
[11:07:42] <[LCC]Saktoth> so we use right click instead of click and drag to move something... i mean its not all that unintuitive.
[11:07:48] <KDR_11k> Either way, Spring is hard to use even for experienced players of other games
[11:08:08] <KDR_11k> Rightclick is unintuitive since it's usualyl for context menus and stuff
[11:08:32] <KDR_11k> Leftclick controls are more intuitive though also more cumbersome
[11:08:38] <[LCC]Saktoth> Actually
[11:08:52] <[LCC]Saktoth> right click is a context-sensitive command
[11:08:56] <[LCC]Saktoth> fire/guard/reclaim/etc
[11:09:02] <[LCC]Saktoth> it just doesnt give a menu
[11:09:20] <KDR_11k> Yes but people are used to rightclick being "I don't want to do the default thing, what else is there?"
[11:09:28] <KDR_11k> or aren't used to rightclick at all
[11:09:58] <[LCC]Saktoth> I just dont think right click is so different from click and drag that it takes a paradigm shift.
[11:10:24] <[LCC]Saktoth> id agree our games are mostly made to be very difficult to play because its what we want from games, this aint no Bejewelled.
[11:10:27] <KDR_11k> Paradigm shift, no. Unintuitive is something else
[11:11:04] <[LCC]Saktoth> But i dont think its spring itself is so bad.
[11:11:50] <[LCC]Saktoth> Im just thinking about fibre, it prettymuch has that buildmenu on the left side constantly doesnt it?
[11:11:51] <KDR_11k> Well, it's user-unfriendly UI-wise but yeah, it's not the main reason most mods are hard to understand
[11:11:55] <[LCC]Saktoth> or do you have to select the com?
[11:12:06] <KDR_11k> It has the menu on the right
[11:12:15] <[LCC]Saktoth> does it O_O
[11:12:23] <[LCC]Saktoth> been too long.
[11:12:38] <KDR_11k> If you select the com you see the com's command menu but the bar on the right is alwways on
[11:12:53] <[LCC]Saktoth> still that becomes prettymuch like a paint program. select this, paint it here.
[11:13:15] <[LCC]Saktoth> use the 'big gun' brush, put some here here and here. use the 'factory' brush, etc.
[11:13:29] <KDR_11k> Yeah, Fibre has some things to make it purpose-driven instead of actor-driven
[11:13:41] <KDR_11k> Take the tank marker, move it there and the tanks follow
[11:14:40] <[LCC]Saktoth> You have so many damn games.
[11:14:55] <KDR_11k> The beacons aren't out of necessity, I could have used custom commands on the units or factories instead but the beacon allows changing the command without caring where the factory or units are
[11:15:28] <KDR_11k> Could still use some improvements like showing which type of unit is commanded by the beacon...
[11:17:16] <KDR_11k> Hm, maybe I could make selected buildings with a location-driven command draw a line to the cursor...
[11:17:57] <[LCC]Saktoth> The nodes displaying more actively what they are powering would be nice too
[11:18:09] <[LCC]Saktoth> if you havent already done that.
[11:18:26] <KDR_11k> Haven't done it
[11:19:48] <KDR_11k> I guess optimally units with targets would show a line you can click and drag to other targets...
Sorry for the wall of text but I fear that if I were to summarize this I'd miss some things.
User avatar
Zpock
Posts: 1218
Joined: 16 Sep 2004, 23:20

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by Zpock »

I always thought that a continuous exponential growth economy is crap, and much prefer the "town hall + goldmine" system where expanding your economy is much more discreete. That is there's only a few and clearly defined steps of expansion in a game, tied to the map. The way it should work is that "taking an expansion" should put the expander back temporarily but heavily in short term fighting power and give the opponent a chance to see this and take advantage of it, this is your chance to beat the slippery slope, although you only get once chance. In TA and TA economy based mods both players just compound their resources all the time and you can never really tell what economy the other guy really has since he builds it in the back of his base, and counting 5million solars, mexes and etc isn't practical. So economies are bound to diverge and then one player ends up with 10x the metal income and steamrollers the other guy.

Another thing peon based games do is that building a new town hall is a major investment, but hard to destroy, while a few peons can be cheap and quick to replace. So raids are more balanced and less slippery slopish.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by Pxtl »

Well, you could always extrapolate this to it's logical conclusion - fixed resource income, no gatherers.
[Krogoth86]
Posts: 1176
Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by [Krogoth86] »

[10:54:06] <[LCC]Saktoth> One thing ive found players are just -incapable- of understanding unless told is that they should use constructors to assist their labs.
[10:54:18] <KDR_11k> Well, no other game allows that
[10:55:01] <[LCC]Saktoth> They either A. Make more labs to spend faster B. use their constructors to make static defense or economy C. Just excess. D. Dont expand because they 'dont need it'.
[10:55:05] <KDR_11k> and it's not intuitive either, if you don't know what nanolathing is supposed to be you're going to think unit production and building takes different tools
[11:03:09] <KDR_11k> The player sees the word "factory" and thinks "this makes units"
[11:03:31] <KDR_11k> The player sees the word "constructor" and thinks "this makes buildings"
Yay for Maximum Annihilation! :mrgreen:

But back to topic:
I disagree on that whole controls discussion about it being not user-friendly and complicated. I think there has been a C&C and a Warcraft control set where left and right clicking somehow was switched. Spring has gone Warcraft style and uses the right click method which is better imo than doing everything with the left button and use just deselect for the right one...

Concerning that "Spring or i.e. the mods" are too hard to understand for new players I think this is something every RTS has. Heck I even had problems when playing C&C 3 after years of Spring. Whenever you play a new game you have to re-learn the controls and the gameplay - this isn't a Spring-only issue. A RTS is a rather complex game and you cannot want to have newbies playing like a pro after like 10 minutes of tutorial...
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by KDR_11k »

Of course controls take some time to get used to but unintuitive controls or game designs take much longer. I don't expect any game to be so easy to learn that you can play at pro level the moment you start it up.
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by imbaczek »

I agree that:
1) *A mods without reclaim wouldn't be as interesting (a lot less opportunities for comebacks)
2) every mod needs a tutorial (even a youtube ingame video with subtitles would help a lot, preferably with CA/XTA-loading-screen-style commentary.)

I disagree with right-click being counter-intuitive (everybody I know played warcraft and/or starcraft, and you get used to it really quickly). Also, IMHO newbies play porcy because they don't have the required ability to attend several places at once, so they prefer to build up their base instead of destroying other people's constructions (see also Lego :P)
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by KDR_11k »

That rightclick stuff was about people who've never seen an RTS before.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22306
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by smoth »

I am confused as to how the current gundam econ is slippery, you have a pretty fixed metal income and mms have to be built in large number, as long as a player builds he gets resources, no expansion needed. I am interested in why saktoth still feels like gundam is slippery slope.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by KDR_11k »

I don't think he said that, he said Gundam is boring.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22306
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by smoth »

:( that is a useless critique.

"he this is an alternate system that might address the issue"

"meh, I don't care about the system, the game is boring"

Not usefull :\
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by Gota »

Xta is much less slippery slope than other Ota mods by the way.
KP would beless slippery slope if it had oped defensive structures,since it never will,there might beways to make it less s lippery slope by introducing caps on unit production as you have more units.
The more you exapnd the less it helps your unit production.
Buildings that can morph and produce faster is another option to make it easier to play.
If that is too complicated for KP since its suppose to be simplistic you can change some stuff like when your HQ gets destroyed you can morph some extension to create another one,and get some kind of bonus along the way.
You just need to find ways to make the player losing become a bit oped.
Its not hard for the mod to see which player is losing since it is very tied down to who has more geos under control.
The problem is helping the losing side without makingthings too complicated.

You can alos devide the gameplay into 2 parts.
the first:the stage where it is decided who is winning.
After oneplayer has % more x than the other player another stagebegins which is a bit different where the conditions change slightly and the 2 players face a bit different goals in order to win( it can also accure in a scaled way where the more oneplayer has more territory than the other the more he needs to do someother thing to ensure victory and that other thing is not territory dependant.
The gameplay changes a bit toallow the game to be restored to a balanced situation.
Im basicly saying that when one player starts winning another phase must start which will make the teams more balanced and not be so territory dependant yet still preseve the kp feel of simplicity.
Last edited by Gota on 26 Apr 2008, 19:03, edited 1 time in total.
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by imbaczek »

forgot to write - one thing that I believe helps is what warcraft/starcraft does with farms. it slows down expansion and requires spending of resources in order to mass units. it also requires management of map real estate. IMHO KP could use something like this - I guess the Fibre way could work here (limit amout of units a factory can have in play.)
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by KDR_11k »

imbaczek wrote:forgot to write - one thing that I believe helps is what warcraft/starcraft does with farms. it slows down expansion and requires spending of resources in order to mass units. it also requires management of map real estate. IMHO KP could use something like this - I guess the Fibre way could work here (limit amout of units a factory can have in play.)
That would reduce unit numbers but not the slope, the player with less factories would be capped to fewer units too.
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by imbaczek »

True. Seems farms/overlords are the way to go.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by KDR_11k »

Farms/overlords cap army growth but I don't think they do anything about slopes unless it's so easy to hit max units that your res income stops mattering.
User avatar
Guessmyname
Posts: 3301
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by Guessmyname »

smoth wrote::( that is a useless critique.

"he this is an alternate system that might address the issue"

"meh, I don't care about the system, the game is boring"

Not usefull :\
No, I think he means the system makes it a bit boring, ie you spend much of the game making lots and lots of econ and not enough watching the awesome mechs blowing each other up in cool ways

See? I can critique and compliment at the same time!
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22306
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by smoth »

it is boring if you forget that you can que all your energy and metal makers in 2 clicks.
imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by imbaczek »

farms may be a good idea if they have to take a lot of space, so you can't just porc them up in a corner.

another idea would be to limit the amout of factories that are allowed to build stuff to a constant number (with a 3-stage button declaring priority of production - low, med, high.) this way the territorial advantage is still there (in form of backup facs), but a small discrepancy in territory won't have huge advantages on total strength.
User avatar
Guessmyname
Posts: 3301
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by Guessmyname »

smoth wrote:it is boring if you forget that you can que all your energy and metal makers in 2 clicks.
Yes, but you still need fields of the things. That means you have to find spare construction units, find somewhere with enough space for the res farm, and assign them orders. You also have to do this repeatedly, so that you don't spend too much on the economy and not enough on your military. Then you have to keep doing this as you expand to fuel said military, not to mention repairing / replacing farms you've lost in the war. It all adds to up one massive distraction from the core of an RTS: seeing huge armies kill each other. Sure, a similar thing occurs in the *A games and pretty much every Spring mod, but in Gundam you have to wait as the farms go up, have to carefully consider where you put things without compromising your defenses... it's more like being a town planner than a military general - especially when you're expected to micro later high-level units.

I would like to emphasize that the main attraction of most RTS is seeing huge armies clash, not watching fields of machine shops be constructed while you wait to have enough resources to afford another factory. Building up an economy has little to do with war or outsmarting your opponents. Sure, wrecking his economy can stunt growth, but an RTS is not about outproducing your opponent, it's about stomping them into the dirt under a hail of rockets and plasma fire!

...I've been reading W40K fluff too much...
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22306
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Slippery slopes and intuitive games

Post by smoth »

I am not sure how you have such an issue plopping buildings down. Unless you are playing on a small or horribly bumpy map I do not see where you have an issue. I have never seen such an issue either. I need to see what you are talking about.
Post Reply

Return to “Game Development”

cron