Slippery slopes and intuitive games

[tombom]

So you're the only one here allowed to have an opinion?

hang on

Sirlin is an idiot. Stop linking to his stuff.

[smoth]

That's what i mean. randy is far beyond any other spring player, there are like 2-3 people who could beat him, against everyone else has has ~90% win ratio or more. Ie he doesnt need to fight serious to win.

because he is competitive he does play serious.

How is it a bad thing then? Just because the players use units in the ways devs didnt think of?

It is not how the game was designed and not how the noobs are told to use it. The exploit is part of the game fine, make it part of the game or remove it. Having some "hidden" feature does not make a good game and a player having knowledge does not make him any better. It just means he lucked up and found something. Even your beloved sirlin says that in his game balance article which pixtl just posted.

Look, this is going in circles. I am not going to bother any further.

[Sleksa]

So you're the only one here allowed to have an opinion?

i dont question your right to post here, i question your merits and the contents of your posts.

Heh, fits your personality. You keep stating things as though they were utter fact citing your bible(sirlin) whenever you feel it is needed.

I feel like citing sirlin since i feel like he's right, he also has more merits under his belt compared to a random game-dev whose game hasnt even seen daylight, nor has it been played by anyone else than the devs, yet you praise it like its better than most published games, making statements like

Starcraft was horribly balanced, but that's another thread.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH KIND SIR

[Forboding Angel]

I feel like citing sirlin since i feel like he's right, he also has more merits under his belt compared to a random game-dev whose game hasnt even seen daylight, nor has it been played by anyone else than the devs...

Do you live under a rock?

I agree with smoth here, this is jsut going round and round. Congrats sleksa, you win 1 free internet.

[Sleksa]

Do you live under a rock?

No, i live in a ice cave.

[Peet]

Sirlin is an idiot. Stop linking to his stuff.

The above is about as far from a valid argument as it is possible to get.

[smoth]

I left the thread because I felt it was getting nowhere and it still is. gentlemen, please continue the discussion. It isn't about X mod or X game it is a general design discussion. I was reading it with strong interest and trying to seriously take into account the sentiments and views here-in. However, fighting is not necessary and specific games to not need to be bashed.

IT was not my intent to bash starcraft, I was trying to point out that any of the spring games are in active development and unlike starcraft or other games we have the source to these games. We can change, fix or correct things rather then developing contrived methods of play. So this thread has served to show me what you guys are looking for. This thread does not need to be a matter of pride. Any individual pride should be dropped as this is not about any one person.

[Forboding Angel]

Just an opinion. Sleksa, loves him, I think he's a idiot.

That wasn't really part of the argument though. It was a stated opinion, nothing more.

[KDR_11k]

I've played a game called Arena Wars, it's pretty much a RTT game designed for competitive play. One unit, the Destroyer tank, can teleport twice in a row. In Capture The Flag there was a bug that let the Destroyer teleport while grabbing the flag (flag carriers can't use special abilities, the bug was that the flag starts moving towards a unit when you get close but the unit is not the carrier until the flag reaches it). It allowed getting near the enemy base (behind a barrier where noone could follow you easily), teleport in, teleport out. That was way OP. However, the devs didn't fix the bug, they made it a part of the gameplay but nerfed it so the total range of the Destroyer's teleport in multiple jumps is limited so you can either get close and 'port in or move in and 'port out but not 'port in, 'port out.

Deciding whether an exploit should become a feature depends on what it does for the game: Does it add an interesting new strategy without breaking the game or does it obsolete multiple old strategies by ovwerwhelming them in ways not intended? I.e. is it more fun? A bug shouldn't be made a feature just because it's there, it should be evaluated for its impact and if the impact is negative it should be removed.

Cries of IMBA may be silly for "finished" games that won't get changed anyway but for developing games (like most Spring mods) the developers are looking for feedback and willing to fix imbalances if they conflict with the intended gameplay. In KP there's currently the issue of an early Flow being too powerful, allowing the Network player to dictate the flow (pun not intended) of the early game in a way no other faction can. Should we leave it at that and give Network players a huge advantage? It's not entirely unstoppable but it has a good chance of deciding the game and gives one player the control purely because of his faction choice, not because of his ability (anyone can pull an early flow off, the better he is the harder it is to counter but even at minimum skill it's very nasty).

[Sleksa]

That's pretty much what i tried to say <_<

[Forboding Angel]

I agree 100% with KDR.

@ slek, if you were trying to say that then where did our wires get crossed? Like we were saying the same thing different ways and arguing about it.

Text -> Emotion -> Tone = failure

[imbaczek]

flow is absolutely IMBA on small maps, such as the 4x4 Marble Madness. It's not that bad on DMA, where you've got time to build something that can kill it.

I'd keep the flow, but maybe make it something that has to be researched, so it can't be build very early?

[det]

Dice-Roll style randomness is just a bad idea in almost any game imo (Even WH40k), go play snakes and ladders. >_>

Whoa, Hasbro really changed the game to appeal to the Australian audience!

[Warlord Zsinj]

IW has upgradeable comms. It's the only logical step, IMO, if you want a central commander type unit that is not overpowered in the early game, and not a liability to be hidden away in the late game. The game is shifting in scope and scale around it, and the best way to have a unit that can keep up its relevance is to allow it to change as well. Even TA's commanders, which are very well thought out in terms of gameplay and relevance do become a liability rather then an asset towards the end of the game.

[Decimator]

I think that that was purposeful, Zsinj. Near the beginning the commander acts as an anti-rush unit, but toward the end it acts almost exactly like a chess King. Even a King can take a queen, similar to how a commander can take a krogoth. This analogy only applies in comm ends, of course.

[Teutooni]

I strongly disagree in commander becoming a liability in the late game. It is the single most powerful weapon in TA, especially when in late game players have enough power to actually use the cloack. With appropriate jamming/distraction, he can assassinate anything from krogoths to bulldog swarms. I'd say he is potentially far more valuable than a nuke - so I'm very reluctant to throw him away, even if I could take another commander with him.

[Warlord Zsinj]

I understand; and I do think the commander's disintegrator gun works excellently in this way, and I'm not taking it away from TA at all. But I think designing a unit that is useful but not overpowered at all stages of the game, that has static statistics, while the rest of game is dynamically changing around it is an extremely difficult task.

Even in TA it is very difficult to argue that you are using your commander aggressively towards the end of the game. Typically when a commander pops a kroggie (a very rare event, atleast in OTA) things are in dire straights already (seeing as not only has your enemy got a kroggie, but you are being forced to rely on your commander to stop it).

Upgrading gives you the chance to make your commander something to be feared even in the late-game (not that the TA commander isn't, but it's health in the late game is quite minimal compared to the typical currency of units being thrown about), and it's 'only one you've got' nature means that you can give it abilities that would be otherwise unbalanced on a unit that can be built by the player.

[Saktoth]

Slek, your perspective is interesting, but you are speaking as a player not a designer. A designer cannot design his game around unintended consequences 'make whatever, the more bugs the better, players will find a way to play it'. He has to have at least something in there to begin with, and adapt to unintended side-effects of his system afterwards. Though im sure you understand that, you're speaking as if 'blind luck as game design' should be every designers goal.

Other than that +1 to everything KDR said.

I agree with you generally about players being rewarded for success though Slek. If a player is good enough to win that early, why shouldnt the game end there? If nothing else it encourages early interaction between the players, sparks the game off in conflict- a lot of games have protracted buildup phases with 0 interaction that dont interest me most of the time. The players should be able to be have meaningful impact on their opponents at any point, otherwise you just have null-stages of non-game. If that impact cant genuinely decide the game, then its not real impact- though im of the opinion that it should generally be harder to end the game early on and become easier later on, and that a series of mistakes should result in loss, rather than one mistake in 'perfect' play.

The problem i was discussing with IW was more that the game is -always- decided by the first engagement, killing off a lot of the potential and making the game revolve around that single first fight, 90% of the time between the same sets of units, done in the same way. Having a half hour game with dozens of units hinge entirely around 1 minute of play and a handful of those units about 7 minutes in just isnt very interesting. There is a lot of game to be had there, and none of its being explored- thats the slippery slope problem i was discussing. Also the undead phase- a real problem when a half hour game is over in the first third.

As to the 'just ragequit argument', the game shouldnt force the player to do that to end. A lot of the enjoyment of a game is the conclusion- stomping through his base and blowing it up. Once the game is genuinely concluded it should end promptly- the undead phase (one of the big problems with slippery slope, really) should be minimized.

This is something KP does right. Its very slippery slope, but it ends promptly, and the entirety of the game is put into that deciding moment when it tips (thats what the game is about).

[zwzsg]

The disappointment at not being able to use all these shiny units is the real kicker, where you need to step back and remember the point of it all: making a fun game.

What if my point is not to make a fun 5min casual game, but to make an awesome game, one that leave fond memories ten years for now? Then I surely want it to have more depth than "play once and you'll see all there is to see". As long as you don't use your super unit as the main selling point, people won't get disappointed not to see them, but will still get thrilled when they eventually see one at the 50th game. In fact the scarcity and difficulty to get them will make them appears more awesome. For instance, I stopped playing Natural Selection because at 3.0 getting T2 (I mean, heavy armor heavy machine gun, and Onos) was so easy it felt wrong and silly and dumbified, while at 2.1 getting to T2 was rare and felt special and so made the game more loveable.

I like agree with Warlord Zsinj view on superweapon. That they shouldn't bring instawin once built, but instead should be a way to force one last big final battle. Also, his point about Bertha still being subject to the game mechanics, and therefore after many ingame counter, is a good one.

Superweapons need to be thought out as means for returning a staling game to fluid dynamism - not as a means to ending the game outright.

Good point.

Zwszg seems to be proposing an idea where the player who got outplayed would be rewarded for being outplayed, which is pretty disturbing.

You fail are a failure at reading, but make a very good troll.

As for comm napping, I'd just remove the commander. Starting the game with such a powerful mobile unit is prone to open alot of abuse, and indeed it does, and then creat lots of drama about whether or not comm rushing is fair or not, and where does the blurry line end. For comm napping, making commander untransportable is so simple (a single FBI tag!) it could be fixed that way, but there's still the problem of being given the unit with the most powerful weapon (DGUN) and the most powerful death explosion right at the start. There's a reason other RTS start with harmless construction unit and not the most powerful unit.

Actually, it was my main point since I started posting in that thread. Starting with a lone commander, or even starting with a few cons, and ending with advanced structure sprawling the whole maps, is what create the slippery slope problem. Start the game at the middle, with each player having a pre-placed base (and don't give them any commander!) would reduce the slippery slope problem.

There are telltale signs of commbomb(no jeffies, no expos), and counters to it ( rushing out defenders, cloacking comm)

It rapes n00bs simply by turning the game into a high-speed game of trivial pursuit - not their skill or their strategy, but by not knowing about some weird properties of some units.

Read above.

Learning that seeing no jeffies and no expo means you must rush out defender and cloack comm is exactly what Pxtl said: A high-speed game of trivial pursuit.

For example it would be easier for the porching player to send out raiders(think ba banshees/ota bombers/fighters/jeffies etc) to kill the expanded player's economy. This way, the player who is expanding would be hurt from doing so by wasting his time to cover ground instead of building a superweapon(bertha, krog).

Currently, it is also easy to raid expansion with jeffie. So? What's your point?

As tro said, the porcing player always lose anyway. Your point that the player who is expanding is at a disadvantage because he could be lose his advantage is stupid. Having the advantage of producing +10 m/s, even if you lose it after a few minutes, remains an advantage.

Also, typically, to cover a vast expanse of terrain, the expanding player will use mobile unit (that he can later reuse for assault), while the porcing player will get more power/cost with immobile turrets (that will remain lost capital if he's not attacked). Again, advantages to the expander.

Maybe what you are trying to say is that if player are given a fortified base, they could be tempted to build fusion farm and metal maker inside the protected area instead of fighting for mexx outside. If so, ok, maybe the fusion and mmm must be rebalanced for games that start with fortified base. Or simply having the base so parked you can't "farm" in them would be enough. Nonetheless, in true TA costs, the metal extractors are practically free, while for the same +2.0 m/s, the required 2 metal maker and 6 solars takes way more time and ressource to build, so going outside to cap mexx is still very advantageous, even if you lose them after a few minute.

Sirlin is an idiot. Stop linking to his stuff.

Quoted For Truth. I can't trust a guy who advocate beating up nine years old girl.

Even TA's commanders, which are very well thought out in terms of gameplay and relevance do become a liability rather then an asset towards the end of the game.

I don't mind commander turning from an all-powerful mighty unit in early game to a fragile hostage your goal is to protect at all means in late game. Protect the VIP can be a valid game mode too, and having the game naturally shift objective during its course is an interesting element.

But I think designing a unit that is useful but not overpowered at all stages of the game, that has static statistics, while the rest of game is dynamically changing around it is an extremely difficult task.

Simple, make it immobile. And also spread it over several units.


As for whether exploit should be exploited or fixed, the answer is of course in the middle. I'm pretty sure even the most hard core player will agree that some extremely effective things just aren't right and should not be done. For instance, playing with a hacked exe that makes all my units invicible, or see-through-walls hacks in FPS. Now that more and more game use helping external application (like better GUI thingies for MMO), the line is getting a bit blurry though. For instance I was once suprised to see that bright skin mods are considered ok by some pro tournamenter. BTW, what's would be your view on a hack exe that removed fog of war for Spring sleska? And what do you think about LUA widgets? Also, drugs in sports, ok or not?

In an ideal world, dev would only release perfectly playtested games with no exploits left. But reality isn't ideal. I do not believe having a rigid dev vision of how the game should be played, and have it enforced by "fixing" any "sploits" is the right way. Many dev, not even in Spring but even actual industry-paid dev, do not have as much time to play as teenage hard core pro, so their vision how game should be played can be a bit shallow. I quite like the way TA was balanced upon: Give loads of units, a rich environnement with countless means of interaction and differentiation, so that even if the game is poorly balanced, it can find an own balance that isn't too dull. Well, TA still too often starts with the same flash rush then samson swarm, but at least in can ends in many ways. Despite highly skilled players trying their best for 11 years, there isn't one single way of playing TA. Sometimes bomber first ensure a decise quick win, sometimes a well placed guardian in mid-game makes the difference, sometimes a better micro in massive samson swarm clash, sometimes a squad of rocko in the back, then the usual hundred of dancing hawk & bertha game enders, or just stronger eco and endless line goliath. Well, basically, what I mean, is that my prefered way is to have dev build a game complex enough, with both many units and many "physic", so that even if some units are imba, the game still remains varied and interesting. Though, this approach is built on the premise that no single imbalance will dominate, either because every imbalance stays small enough that even when exploited they do not single handly win you the game, either because highly unfair imbalance are countered by others extreme imbalance, and there's enough "broken" units / tactics that a whole gameplay can be (re)build around them.

The other way, which would be the Stracraft way, would be to have very few unit, very little room in getting them used in unintended ways (so no "physic"), and to issue a balancing patch every month even 10 year after the game has sent to store. But no other companies than Blizzard can go that way. Other companies are expected to rush game, to cut on testing time, and to die if a release isn't a success in the first week.

[smoth]

I'd like to suggest that rather then call the match undead the term "moribund" might be better suited to that oh so slow death that some games have.

It seems that many of you want a game much like a play which would start at the first turning point however, the exposition is important as it sets the stage for the conflict. What it seems like you guys are requesting is at game that starts at turning point 1 and ends right at the climax with no falling action.

Do keep going, I just wanted to nudge the conversation along.