tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76612444400363329002024-02-19T04:06:09.145+01:00MaguroMagurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-50710390471862663692023-08-18T18:49:00.008+02:002023-08-18T23:02:53.627+02:00ZeroSpace<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>ZeroSpace</title>
<style>
.lispacing>li {
margin-top: 0.3em
}
.litighter>li {
margin: 0 !important
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div p {
font-size: 40px;
margin: 0 0 0 0;
margin-top: -13px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.videoWrapper {
position: relative;
padding-bottom: 60.50%;
/* 16:10 */
padding-top: 0px;
height: 0;
margin-top: 40px;
}
.videoWrapper iframe {
position: absolute;
left: 50%;
transform: translate(-50%, 0);
width: 100%;
height: 105%;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcNZraquiIL6O9oi8iwno21O626e3wBbgg25mIf_khYogdWOsUxgcE2fy4lvpcQLm7QeXWD_2Nc4dt3k_QVsN1z98jDhYHPiJH4-xzDFqlRcN8VRO3aL7bQH0ECuQk5CwBuZM4KhvHbvPZ4ir2IO_vkfEDzTPMJNg2TfaYR6yZN6plwm3W44y-cglf-cNp/s1200/Banner_raw.png">
<div style="opacity: 0">ZeroSpace</div>
<img style="width: 100%; max-width: 100vw; position: absolute; top: 50%;
transform: translate(-50%, -50%);" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGEJ11SOhvCAwWLNpqcI1T-Ik-QxLKoqOA3Vy8Zmk6fTVlei3_8TGtm_QnQ-Gik6XJxKoxyl0CZPoDgBStcZR9rOA6tjAP9BIh8a6efK0QacvfIF_DEI454CS4ijMYjO4UOrsVDqUmbbIJYup09nDxpLm8Pdv7q9eG9Is8xph8o6ibkQ3fQwc3yYQS5Spd/s2324/ZerospaceLogo_Transparent.png">
</div>
<p>ZeroSpace is a new RTS game that I have been working on as game designer.
I've been working on it for 1.5 years now but the development started
around 3 years ago. So far it has been a great experience and I very much
enjoy working on it. I get to do and learn new things and it's awesome to
be working with people on our team. We are lucky to have people like <em>CatZ</em>,
<em>Giant Grant Games</em> or <em>Scarlett </em>but the whole team is
great to work with.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAyVN5fD4WbBFTT9_et_AEtnjYGkum4ye3Kqd8ONOizeBabnBjX1QsdWx--KvyoIMeoePaBSNgyAVhuZuQKYOzvau8eRVJveq4D3MPdwBMvhV3XAtx3FRugXbQB2ySSJJ3hw3Oz33panPEFGfmTv3PMAJQbmxrGsxbdJGn8Dtt-GtZf18XOmzWhsoL6QPM/s680/Juggernauts.gif"></div>
<p class="smallheading" id="game">The game</p>
<p>To give a quick overview, ZeroSpace is in its core a classic RTS – you
gather resources, build a base, train units, research upgrades, and
destroy the enemy. On the competitive side, we have things that makes us
unique but I won't go over them here. What I'm the most excited about is
Mass Effect-like campaign, and StarCraft II-inspired Co-op with plans for
tying Co-op missions into a persistent galaxy map. That will make each
mission be more meaningful and support additional things like guild play.
We also plan on improving on SC2 Co-op in other ways for example
having AI that feels more alive.</p>
<p>The best way learn about the game is check out our <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/starlancestudios/zerospace"
target="_blank"><u> kickstarter page</u></a> which contains the most
information.</p>
<div class="videoWrapper"> <iframe allowfullscreen="1" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/soqQNn5NYeo"
height="auto" frameborder="0" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<div class="subnote" style="margin: 45px 0 45px 0;"><em>Official Trailer<br>
</em></div>
<p class="smallheading" id="mywork">My work at starlance</p>
<p>We are relatively small team and so I get to do and learn a lot of
different things. Most of my work is on game design and implementation,
things like unit and topbar abilities, upgrades, talents and so on. I also
get to do other things like creating scripting utilities for editor, stats
tracking, working on UI concepts and implementation, UI customization,
hotkeys, balance, various other game systems, creating graphics for
KS/steam pages, and of course ever-present squashing of bugs.</p>
<p>It's nice to actually work on a game after writing so much about game
design, doing mapmaking and creating overlays. It feels rather similar,
except in a team and you are actually getting paid. The work is fully
remote, being an introvert I like this – with the exception of having to
compensate for different timezones as we have people all around the world.
So working in late hours is rather common.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsa3EJDD0lE7QnY6V7QEljSCWQbgwzgGo27GiEqPH3V3UG5GrvfyUUDdTv8bGd8_mzq5oPNOqfh9pgou5aGXJyZZ7D--0IBnSUhibt0Gq9iyzWcRz_F64LcUUw9R4eDTKYozedo6pgDCK878AHvXkleUmoHFbpHa2OI7JslEkuWz709LsWq94CTU1Hdow-/s1920/Screenshot_Battle2.jpg"></div>
<p class="smallheading" id="support">How to support</p>
<p>Wishlisting on <u><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1605850/ZeroSpace/"
target="_blank">steam</a></u> is a great and easy way to help the
game. It costs nothing and helps you keep track of games you might be
interested later. We also have a <u><a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/starlancestudios/zerospace"
target="_blank">kickstarter page</a></u> that goes in-depth about the
game.</p>
<p>We are a relatively small team. So any help is appreciated.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgqKdYjoHT7912ylbPINrp4zvsJUyuX5df5vIPWn-XY5w4KOeAUFDLH3H2XbPPEOHHn8ZxhdUqwrnFBDNCzm0DHLS39etN60ZtQC-eOdylBwmFAsky6dDzEsUBQvqT8uxsODfETI44buPybTlLC0lOv3tpxQ7v7UmOr4IPbyHeAQCYyZUt7tN584IIIqCf/s1920/Grell.jpg"></div>
<p class="smallheading" id="Links">Links</p>
<ul>
<li><u><a href="https://discord.gg/zerospace" target="_blank"><span>discord</span><span>.gg</span><span>/zerospace</span></a></u></li>
<u> </u>
<li><u><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/PlayZeroSpace/" target="_blank">reddit.com/r/playzerospace</a></u></li>
<u> </u>
<li><u><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1605850/ZeroSpace/" target="_blank">Steam</a></u></li>
<u> </u>
<li><u><a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/starlancestudios/zerospace"
target="_blank">Kickstarter</a></u></li>
<u> </u>
<li><u><a href="https://twitter.com/PlayZeroSpace" target="_blank">twitter.com/PlayZeroSpace</a></u></li>
<u> </u>
<li><u><a href="https://www.playzerospace.com/" target="_blank">playzerospace.com</a></u></li>
<li>Videos:</li>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://youtu.be/L0vPPXiQPRE?si=zaxR_atB77PvHCza" target="_blank"><u>Grant</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMvGSknCBSA" target="_blank">PiG</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePt6OB0dX_4" target="_blank">Harstem</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mytGcUezgI" target="_blank">Winter</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIH-EI1WjpU" target="_blank">CatZ</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eua6Ik_-kM" target="_blank">Beastyqt</a><br>
</u></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-51866958561165722932023-02-05T18:31:00.008+01:002023-02-05T19:11:21.661+01:00Variety and player preferences<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Variety and player preferences</title>
<style>
.lispacing>li {
margin-top: 0.3em
}
.litighter>li {
margin: 0 !important
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div p {
font-size: 40px;
margin: 0 0 0 0;
margin-top: -13px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.videoWrapper {
position: relative;
padding-bottom: 60.50%;
/* 16:10 */
padding-top: 0px;
height: 0;
margin-top: 40px;
}
.videoWrapper iframe {
position: absolute;
left: 50%;
transform: translate(-50%, 0);
width: 100%;
height: 105%;
}
.spaced>li {
margin-bottom: 5px;
margin-top: 15px;
margin-left: -10px
}
.spaced {
margin-top: 35px;
margin-bottom: 30px
}
.videosub {margin: 35px 0 45px 0}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-3_VYJ272AjHWljBcF1AEl3liKAoZ8YwqLQOLYyQ0gwNeMQHg3ILXixKORgOxXu0pz6DuB4G_3Mj7-qy5pVoltCjiw4I6Sya1KN0ZhGZmmDJDyLxXcR9Et7Oas35dFDRSw5sk4BbR0KTmC0-jfKvm21mSOFmas7Km10ps8isRbTIE42ochvyveQH6sw/s1200/banner.jpg">
<div>Variety and player preferences</div>
</div>
<p>In this post I want to examine why some players dislike atypical sections
in games – for example no-build missions in RTS, or stealth sections in
various genres – explore this fairly common issue and suggest a few
solutions that could help with reducing those negative feelings.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="Introduction">Why is it happening?</p>
<p>I see it as a conflict between player preferences for certain gameplay,
and a game trying to provide a variety of experiences. Let's go step by
step.</p>
<ol class="spaced">
<li>A game usually has a playerbase that enjoys the core gameplay. Most
players like it because otherwise they would go play something else.
They bought into the game and expect a certain experience that its
gameplay provides.</li>
<li>To keep the game interesting and non-monotonous, game designers
increase variety in the game through various means.</li>
<li>If these changes significantly alter the core gameplay, it will
alienate a certain part of the playerbase.</li>
<ul>
<li>Since some players enjoy the game primarily because of its core
gameplay, they will dislike if the gameplay is changed, and they have
to play something they didn't ask for.</li>
<li>This will not alienate all players. Some players might enjoy the new
gameplay well enough or even more. The increased variety is well worth
it for those players.</li>
<li>My focus here is primarily on gameplay. If a player is mostly
interested in the story, they might not mind changes to the gameplay
at all. However, a significant change in the direction of the story
can alienate players just as well. You could see the discussion
surrounding <i>The Last of Us Part II</i> through this lens. This
topic could be generalized to any type of experience players seek but
I will focus solely on gameplay here.</li>
</ul>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</div>
<p>Let's look at some examples of game sections that have altered the core
gameplay and might be disliked because of that.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="StealthPuzzles">Stealth and puzzle sections</p>
<p>Especially in action games, the difference between the core gameplay and
the gameplay of stealth and puzzle sections is stark. This change is very
noticeable as the core game might be about creating mayhem and killing
enemies, and suddenly the player could be forced into a section that plays
completely differently.</p>
<p>On the one hand, a change of pace and exploring new gameplay inside the
setting of the game is nice. The game can also use this to focus on
exploring and teaching new mechanics which could be hard during normal
gameplay. On the other hand, as pointed before, a certain portion of
players will dislike a change in the core gameplay, especially if they are
forced to play these sections.</p>
<p>The difficulty is another issue. If there is no difficulty to puzzles,
they might feel hollow and as a padding. If they are difficult, they can
very quickly become frustrating players and any benefit to pacing will be
lost. The difficulty of these sections is subjective and mostly unrelated
to the perceived difficulty of the core gameplay, which leads to more
unpredictable player experience with them. Games are starting to add
separate difficulty sliders for puzzle segments but there is still a good
chance that the first time you encounter these sections, they will either
feel too easy or too hard.</p>
<p>Few easy and shallow segments can be usually ignored, but too
difficult segments are more problematic. Challenging obstacles can be a
great for creating memorable experiences. However, challenging a player
with something they didn't want to engage with in the first place is one
of the best ways to make them quit. This looks terrible during
playtesting, and so puzzle sections are often tuned to be very simple, or
games holding your hand too much.</p>
<div class="videoWrapper"> <iframe allowfullscreen="1" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cZgjRcYGkY8"
height="auto" frameborder="0" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<div class="subnote videosub"><em>Why do God of War's Characters Keep
Spoiling Puzzles? (Game Maker's Toolkit)<br>
</em></div>
<p>I will go over things that can help later but as Mark Brown mentioned in
the video above, having options can help greatly. Developers at Gearbox
Software acknowledged this issue and added this unorthodox way to solve a
puzzle in what's a typical looter-shooter action FPS game (short clip
below).</p>
<div class="videoWrapper"> <iframe allowfullscreen="1" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xHlWC6kQ9yg?start=378&end=400"
height="auto" frameborder="0" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<div class="subnote videosub"><em>Ancient Dwarven Puzzle (Borderlands: Tiny
Tina Wonderlands) <br>
</em></div>
<p class="smallheading" id="NoBuildMissions">No-build missions</p>
<p>These missions in RTS games typically lack resource management,
base-building and unit production. These are core features of the RTS
genre, and so micro missions could be considered RTT (real-time tactics)
genre instead – but that's just semantics. The important point is these
missions change the core gameplay significantly. If you are missing
genre-defining features, some players will not be happy.</p>
<p> There are many similarities between no-build missions and stealth and
puzzle sections in action games. The main gameplay is more action-oriented
while the altered gameplay is more puzzle-like. Plus many no-build and
stealth sections are essentially puzzles except with more reloading.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgde0EOMj3SjCAqQ_M5Qlhd4CFFC6fhoW56_-N3AzU3s78q5JpjsbkVyv1vPk7e6cR29pa6tBKpI6YXC8H9JOIeVXLw8CF2J43ZQi2dLyP9W49vStVvQRSElGBr_fBKQGWE31CFkg7OT-g8aXUY0BSqm9K8bFDxS6u-iyEPlr-3myutF5KgzZp6_3_2cg/s1920/cnc.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">No-build mission in Red Alert Remastered</div>
<p>There are of course upsides to having these missions in RTS campaigns.
They add variety and change the pace. You can tell a different story and
fantasy through them. You can teach and explore different mechanics
without the time pressure and other distractions. It's just not something
that all RTS players will enjoy. </p>
<p>I'm currently playing the challenge mode in <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/24800/Command__Conquer_Red_Alert_3__Uprising/"
target="_blank"><u>Red Alert 3 Uprising</u></a>, and surprisingly I'm
enjoying it more than its more polished campaigns. It manages to show off
different mechanics and scenarios while still playing like an RTS and
giving the player a lot of freedom. That's in contrast to no-build
sections in Red Alert 3's campaigns which often feel to me tedious and
restrictive. Similarly, <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/686260/Forged_Battalion/"
target="_blank"><u>Forged Battalions</u></a> is a very flawed game but
its campaign feels like an RTS from the start, and I enjoyed it because of
this. Contrast it with a game like <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/826630/Iron_Harvest/"
target="_blank"><u>Iron Harvest</u></a> that has a much better campaign,
but it might take you several hours before you build the first unit or
structure.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="Quality">Sidenote: Quality</p>
<p>While there is a tension between player preferences and increasing
gameplay variety, in practice quality of those added sections often plays
a significant role as well. I don't want to dwell on this too much since
the solution is clear – make those sections better. However, a player
might still ask themselves: "If there are plenty of awesome puzzle games I
could be playing, why am I stuck on this badly designed puzzle when all I
want to do is to kill demons?"</p>
<p>On the one side, a puzzle or two could leverage the game's unique
mechanics and fantasy, and thus make them more interesting and unique than
what you would find in other puzzle games. On the other side, often these
sections are added because they are "supposed" to be there – without a
great idea for them, supporting mechanics, and developers specializing in
this type of gameplay.</p>
<p>More often than not, the quality is not there when compared to games
focusing on that type of gameplay exclusively. You will get complaints
like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAw7V57DXE&t=865s" target="_blank"><u>this</u></a>
or <a href="https://youtu.be/u_u0fvuSyDo" target="_blank"><u>this</u></a>
about Mary-Jane's stealth sections in Spider-Man, and they are in stark
contrast to Spider-Man's otherwise acclaimed gameplay.<br>
</p>
It's interesting that in Far Cry games I remember hating forced stealth
sections while enjoying playing stealthily when I didn't need to. It may be
that with self-imposed rules or in a game like Hitman, there is more room
for improvisation, while often in stealth segments being spotted is an
instant game over – they are more restrictive.
<p>In RTS games, I've enjoyed no-build missions in both StarCraft II and
Warcraft III, while their C&C and Age of Empire counterparts always
felt to me somewhere around meh, boring and frustrating. For Age of
Empires, this is understandable, it's primarily a macro-focused game,
which means removing the whole macro part hurts it the most. But C&C
games are action-oriented and no-build missions have often good ideas to
them. It could be a quality issue as well as their higher frequency. In
the section with solutions, I'll list a few more reasons that put
StarCraft II and Warcraft III no-build missions ahead.<br>
</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5TkIJIp61D6vMzGhNmCPV2ZvQMLZpX7dGuxhqHUGU_UYS4h2JGzcM8ACvsZlsy7_PWYaMoRphrqrppkoZU5PEP3kxLxVgW1PMQP0cTaRaWd-UXQr4TUJdLatQ81XQPFYBfrp2sjqK9Qugo5fjoh3fQEnle5-ZTXYbFEu3DW_WmpIZ83NbX4-vkYMvZw/s1280/tosh.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Fighting alongside Raynor units with Tosh is great
(StarCraft II)</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="4x">4x layer</p>
<p>The meta-layer in RTS campaigns is typically not problematic as it's
often neither challenging nor takes a lot of your time. It provides time
to slow down and think about previous and future missions – no issues
there.</p>
<p>However, it's an altered gameplay and there is a potential for it to be
problematic. The developers of <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1677280/Company_of_Heroes_3/"
target="_blank"><u>Company of Heroes 3</u></a> mentioned they needed to
tweak this layer because it was becoming too tedious after adding too many
additional units and mechanics to it.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6j2ltnfCbFPsUbokYP0ft7_4tUffFVD951sUEIJq_c1xMZr_5wC0R-uKWv2SmyO4ynLlEy2SxqxuDd0NRg99m6DjK_2G8p3AUBplTr4kDjG68QMsjKfFfU1-Q5Pt3yWcJWiU16hwNSZzQ98mMBhhK3M7GzyzNerPNM__O1d_9dNOgi-_-GGXzGEwyUw/s1920/coh3.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Main map in Company of Heroes 3 (pre-alpha)</div>
<p>Games like X-COM also combine two layers (strategic and tactical).
However, in this case both layers are essentially turned-based strategies
and so the core gameplay is similar.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="CheeseLategame">Cheese, all-ins, and
Super-lategame</p>
<p>I touched on cheese and all-ins in my <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/06/TR09-gameplay-variety.html"
target="_blank"><u>post about gameplay variety</u></a>, however, it's
interesting to look at it from this angle as well. At first glance, the
gameplay and playerbase of competitive StarCraft II 1v1 might seem
monolithic but that's not true. Different players enjoy different parts of
the game, and they coexist on ladder. Certain players prefer cheese and
all-in games, some like "standard" games, and others enjoy very long
games. Players can of course enjoy more of these styles too. Having this
kind of gameplay variety is awesome, but tension and frustration will
arise when players are too often forced into gameplay they do not enjoy
(e.g., cannon rushes, turtly Skytoss games, Swarm Host and mass Raven
games in Heart of the Swarm).</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz9JepwdVidvCHUaXHui26R-gzmxZVHiWQMhGiQ4x1j14aYUp3_LDoIAL3Kgsmdz0Cj0WoueuQRlj0VH7qh8wU6Beli5KCDdcOrJaGjy9JP8p-VQ0iLohW64AE_wMdhbiMzErjNZQ7b-QoTGxTW8q957vE4jjpS6NUhuB13dsFjSBwNKMVNk94PXxQuQ/s2560/sc2.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Massing Ravens in StarCraft II</div>
<p>Issues with prolonged games arise when a faction can force these games
and also gain an advantage from doing so (by having a stronger lategame).
Early cheeses and all-ins are disliked by even more players as their
gameplay is arguably even more different from the standard play, and it's
easier to force opponents into such games.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter whether the existence of strategies is good for the
overall metagame, some players will always dislike being forced into
gameplay they do not enjoy. And it's not a skill issue either, even if a
player is good at defending cheese and all-ins, they still might think all
those games are a waste of their time.</p>
<p> I think for developers it mostly comes to this: "We want to have a
diverse set of strategies viable, the question is then how different
gameplay can be forced on players and how often? How do these players
coexist?".<br>
</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="Solutions">What can help</p>
<p>The tension between gameplay variety and player preferences is inevitable
but there are things that can reduce it. Some might be more or less
applicable depending on the genre and the game.</p>
<ol>
<li>Add variety without affecting the core gameplay.</li>
<li>Decide on the range of gameplay styles that the game will support.
More is not always better. There are very few games that combine very
different gameplay styles – it's not surprising that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing"
target="_blank"><u>chess boxing</u></a> is less popular than both
chess and boxing.</li>
</ol>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUOhQif7a6LYbb4l8BR-Iksnga6pSKfGBpqNvAfHHrGALkBTN_2qNASIrtdqSscz-uhRCgbb05F1RfB-vmh4cLOTml3CxpxgWUtZntPuBkiC_iJYq5lI2_Y2t4fX73SGaoU0cnzvoAo_t3816isDSxF1lkdEdcVOfi-pQo1jm1_6yF6hkwO0pMV1kr1Q/s1280/chessboxing.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Chess boxing combines two very different types of
gameplay</div>
<ol start="3">
<li>Know your audience. Even a competitive 1v1 playerbase is not
homogeneous and has different preferences. Be aware of what each type of
players wants and the tensions between these wants.</li>
<li>Manage player expectations – for example show all types of gameplay in
promotion materials or when teaching the game. Also, ideally there
wouldn't be a huge gap between the actual gameplay and what players see
on streams. If a player sees a tournament with mostly "standard" games,
decides to try ladder, and encounters only cheeses and all-ins, they
probably won't be happy.</li>
<li>Make sure there is a good ratio between different gameplay styles. You
don't want most missions to lack base-building if the game is marketed
as an RTS. Similarly, the prevalence of all-ins or <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/05/TR08-attention-and-macro.html"
target="_blank"><u>too much focus on macro mechanics</u></a> in lower
leagues is problematic.</li>
<li>In atypical segments in campaigns, add rewards that are useful in the
standard parts of the game. For example, in WC3 you gain items and XP
for your hero and those carry over to future missions. This way no-build
missions wouldn't feel like a waste of time even if you didn't enjoy
them.</li>
<li>Watch out for how challenging and long these sections are – it should
be just enough to change the pace and show something different. Too much
difficulty can quickly become frustrating.</li>
<li>Add options. Maybe you can disable hand-holding for puzzles, perhaps
you can simply smash the puzzle. You could have only short and easy
stealth segments that are required, and longer and more challenging ones
for side quests or achievements.</li>
<li>Combine different segments in one RTS campaign mission – for example
start with no-build section that leads into standard gameplay. This
ensures the no-build segment is short and is meaningful for the standard
gameplay even without rewards affecting future missions.</li>
<li>Try not to force players and encourage them instead. This also affects
the design of daily quests or battle passes – you could require players
to play a certain mode, and this would make sure players try it and have
varied experiences. However, if players already tried those modes and
know they do not enjoy them, they will get frustrated if they have to
play them. It might be better to give a bonus for engaging with a wider
variety of things the game provides.</li>
</ol>
<p class="smallheading" id="End">Sum up</p>
<p>There is tension between players preferring a certain type of gameplay
and games increasing gameplay variety. These variety segments are a
pain point for some players and can lead to frustration. Developers can
reduce the negative impact if they understand these issues and their
playerbase.</p>
<p>Difficulty and quality are two other secondary issues when it comes to
adding these non-standard segments. However, while they are common, they
are more on the technical side and less fundamental.</p>
<p>It's interesting to look at games from this angle. Thank you for reading
this. I haven't been writing a lot last year, I'm now working as a game
designer, and that for mostly satisfies my itch to write about game
design. I'm happy to at least finish this post.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="Links">Links</p>
<ul>
<li><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/06/TR09-gameplay-variety.html"><u>Transmission
09: Gameplay variety</u><br>
</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/designing-and-integrating-puzzles-in-action-adventure-games"
target="_blank"><u>Designing and Integrating Puzzles in
Action-Adventure Games | Pascal Luban</u></a></li>
<li>Mentioned videos:</li>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://youtu.be/cZgjRcYGkY8" target="_blank"><u>Why do God
of War's Characters Keep Spoiling Puzzles? | Game Maker's Toolkit</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://youtu.be/xHlWC6kQ9yg?t=378" target="_blank">Ancient
Dwarven Puzzle | Borderlands: Tiny Tina Wonderlands</a><br>
</u></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAw7V57DXE&t=865s"
target="_blank">Spider-Man Remastered (Analysis): The Best Marvel
Release in Years | Writing on Games</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_u0fvuSyDo" target="_blank">The
Problem With Spider-Man's Mary Jane Missions | Ben Plays Games</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3q5nSqGXr4" target="_blank">The
Two Types of Gamers (Honers vs. Innovators) | Core-A Gaming</a><br>
</u></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="HonersInnovators">Appendix: Honers vs Innovators</p>
<p>I have sorted players in competitive SC2 1v1 playerbase based on whether
they enjoy all-ins, standard or late-game. But we could also divide them
between honers and innovators. As before, these are not mutually
exclusive, you can enjoy both parts of the game. However, a player is
typically one of these types more than the other. And there is a tension
between preferences of these two player types. </p>
<p> An innovator is a player that primarily enjoys coming up with new
strategies. They like the chaos of a new game or big game-changing
updates. When the metagame stabilizes, these players will start to lose
interest. Honers enjoy gradual improvements and polishing their gameplay.
This player is comfortable playing on the same build for a long time and
perfecting it. </p>
<p>Innovators typically perform better in the competitive setting after the
game is released or after big updates. Later they are outperformed by
honers who have more patience with perfecting "standard" strategies.
Professional games are typically honers. But even professional players
enjoy coming up with new strategies, and they see that big game updates
make streams and tournaments more popular.</p>
<div class="videoWrapper"> <iframe allowfullscreen="1" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C3q5nSqGXr4"
height="auto" frameborder="0" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<div class="subnote videosub"><em> The Two Types of Gamers (Honers vs.
Innovators) (Core-A Gaming)<br>
</em></div>
<p>For game developers, it's good to understand this divide in playerbase,
decide for whom the game is, how they will support them, and communicate
that to players. You could aggressively change the metagame with frequent
and impactful updates. Or make periodic less frequent updates that shake
up the metagame, let innovators know they should come back for those, and
let honers do their thing between updates. Different game modes could also
have a different update strategy, for example 1v1 being more stable for
honers while 3v3 receiving more frequent meta-changing updates.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="Gwent">Appendix: Gwent</p>
<p>Gwent is a card game that was originally introduced in Witcher 3 and then
became its own separate game. It's a nice example of how variety can be
added to the game. It's not forced on players, and instead players are
encouraged to engage with it by receiving cards in loot, in-game
characters offering to play with them, and players gaining rewards from
these matches.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjteD6aC5xZzQdRKW46WhxMAsFTqodETWRSaLzYXJfNgEOW6RgP4fi8uDrg4y9H8faSuVJTEL13LKO9pbogJZu4q97PQ17-wspEHcPSxKYQ912JjU-oXlnNU1g_BZcWq2NM1ETOqSmJJVKZeYwb2t7U4EacsGNsoIlKQz6_q5QHL7ExBgRKPEtfRNmXmg/s1200/gwent.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Gwent</div>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-29838777093621395002022-06-12T11:37:00.006+02:002022-06-12T18:20:59.245+02:00Stormgate Reveal<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Stormgate Reveal</title>
<style>
.lispacing>li {
margin-top: 0.3em
}
.litighter>li {
margin: 0 !important
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div p {
font-size: 40px;
margin: 0 0 0 0;
margin-top: -13px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.videoWrapper {
position: relative;
padding-bottom: 60.50%;
/* 16:10 */
padding-top: 0px;
height: 0;
margin-top: 40px;
}
.videoWrapper iframe {
position: absolute;
left: 50%;
transform: translate(-50%, 0);
width: 100%;
height: 105%;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdv_haERQ4GMXtP57zrDanEo8sYI6S_exk-d8PfyAchfARvOD86qE8SadwwjtOUj8DgThFNLzHdPAkWM_nmpghy7--Ic9wAxqdfNLUy4bC5Ht2_gtAEbgM1S2UcX1sEKzppE_VBDZiZL42-cwNtMwT72tGqEksSul8xhwAU8kbSxS1x4vei-_B6Xt_7g/s1200/banner.jpg">
<div>Stormgate Reveal</div>
</div>
<p>On June 9th, Frost Giant revealed its upcoming RTS <i>game Stormgate</i>.
We got to see a cinematic trailer with more information on the game's
website, steam page, and in many following interviews.</p>
<p>In this post I will focus on the cinematic, setting and art style since
they have received a mixed reception. But to touch on other things first,
developers have been rolling it with many interviews. I'm very happy with
what they have been saying. I've been writing about RTS game design for
the past few years, and it looks like we are on the same page on many
things. It's great to hear them talking about the same topics
and ideas. I'm hopeful about the game and looking forward to more updates.</p>
<p>Going back to the topic, I'm not an artist, so take this with a grain of
salt and as a subjective opinion. It's also an early art and a subject to
change, but that also means it's the best time to provide feedback. I do
want the game to succeed, and I think they can do it.<br>
</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="cinematic">Cinematic</p>
<p>The cinematic trailer is the first thing we saw. Giant Grant in his <a href="https://youtu.be/RTukaMin730"
target="_blank"><u>video</u></a> suggested that the cinematic might have
been rushed because they were offered a spot at Summer Game Fest. To me,
it's impressive what they have managed to do with Unreal Engine and
without the Blizzard's cinematic team. But at the same time, the cinematic
felt rushed – some parts felt cheaper than they needed to be, the pacing,
choreography and script could have used more work.</p>
<div class="videoWrapper"> <iframe allowfullscreen="1" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lLMEIMCmS44"
height="auto" frameborder="0" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<div class="subnote" style="margin: 45px 0 45px 0;"><em>Stormgate
Announcement Cinematic<br>
</em></div>
<p>Let's go over some individual parts:</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRSaRxheg2TYexbbswrk0gPbknQN6jWMcYCMfnsYF3-N_wEAa-VHdplf1j35se3MnJOaegIxSe57W2OGJskMf-AMurH-3kyBvcSq-yQLyP8aCFKv1yfNTSezftcpSSpN3zhqB1iOzwYO-qqlC4Ze1CKqn42ZmoMFJJlFLZJzxiAMGsHqNlt2mfdKENjw/s1920/nice.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">A demon. It does look a bit generic, and its silhouette
is very reminiscent of Diablo, but I think they will find their own style
with time. This is just one unit, and other demons can be more unique. It
fits the demonic fantasy quite well.<br>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTiI83mUnbMGNdNILomuZZwQT3KXPDpQ48qaeLmYZrCvprCxVScehAR3kw3PsZkk7oqHUUYo81xFZ6p_OAVzhsITvPZBFJlQxL1P303nm5hRTPlmTCziy4o35Kdkk2LhLquQf6X0X4eXJ8hwZb_csTGeJfFtQX8w3lZN1ezpKIfFu-ux0WKTXUWhbD1w/s1920/back.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Mech arrives and then it for some reason turns its back
to the enemy.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwnkx0eq7gSGL9v4glRx_RwNFPiQgdPqsqMLrUBqI17YVn5TuxDD1-_mqu056JaoYtz4Nc7CYLsTk-_m0SnMXVL5pC5grJg3tClxZr5bbu6TKzmjnFEtOMZh389hDdZ_73M96lSyW5kwjIGBDLEaoxjPwnKjMAY_ZJIBPwPyUBzRn8D5bdm26SfDeKYQ/s1920/peashooter.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">A lot of attacks are lacking good visual and audio
feedback. This is mainly the case for the minigun or when the demon
punches the shield. The feeling of a physical weight behind attacks is
just as important and lacking here.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp1FE_vhOkHvZ8tH16xdRatfqjSyOVWZhcK82rIYk3Z5Z7Ne_STLqN2GFq_7TdmgSLTAHUwmsPyseR_L8nj2so_86OEv1itccKINkIYh7Hx3y4nz8WvCBE4VhuMkp8C9L9lF2iqTHWe5vpRWES4M-L96hSb4kZ26eMrUcN-93ZIuwp7o2OMUJJ9b72Tw/s1920/shoot.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">If a minigun does nothing then shooting a handgun at
the demon wasn't very smart. But I also remember <a href="https://youtu.be/MVbeoSPqRs4?t=64"
target="_blank"><u>a certain Viking</u></a> that landed in front of an
Ultralisk just to be immediately destroyed. So for the sake of coolness
this might be fine.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDeiSWzU_PYaOe0c3jLZ5Fl_HgdSgz3AD3k3mw8I5Qollh5SGGaeOPZRGFwvaB-Xr6rTertNHoXFnrw3e7Z0lYbsAFDTg5hBJyGNZqHS1tzwYcV9m47WOeeL9WkLxzqbXpDvYZLCv3VI3IPutN0OdUAuT9Mp5IWwSFetVncJRMoj6CybTV1qp_H0xW3Q/s1920/jump.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Pretty cool angle</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmQWA_TkLyV0yG_HbklLy0mSds3HJvVoit_icVhS3noDK6or3bHzv6JwZ-UrAdGMqyOdNY28MJBtYn-D1uQK_9OW4EbQ0mmAFQGfidOTwFVL-hXPFahQ8sPz33hsVh2bparhBHxl0Rcie0X_jyKrrdPVvY69Tv6GuZMRkZUiOEeuwu8cD8NCQnnASrlQ/s1920/explosion.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">The pose is a bit cheesy, but the scene shows the power
of Unreal Engine when used for cinematics.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnkTZZwJDSrF3fSUGyJ_pMXvAm8Vr_9k1aI5jOf742cIjDtjdHF8VsxyRojkiU_UJG_dV5UKMmx2H3RAXFE2O6ZYa3uRXuzmrPj79L7bO4_nvPw0zAUWoZk4qNGCWW0jTGgGtVOHKq1QgY4L7QOJEC4AC7oryVxyBMDxuztzwe_7rDF-r5WJFTrX5bag/s1920/logo.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">The logo is very clean here and the animation is good</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzuoh17JGRESABjgC6j0lxJQxax5SFm0OHwPm0wUYQOYeqQoj4w-Gnt1kVVlPIty37RmVvCvqYxURmst_B5JRsT493Y7tTrMqFdAZY6VF08-Qc__V5oYeMYuLbzwS2Huu2HHW7nrV9LHu41cd_R2B40egDg6CT02QZ4NC3Kdgs89YLKq5RYu40W4SNYg/s1920/register.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">The link to the website and the text asking you to
register for beta look a bit cheap to me. In my opinion, a simple white
text would look better and feel more professional.<br>
The transitions between texts look choppy since it's a quickly moving
scene and the video is rendered at 24fps. This is why movies have to be
very careful with how they display fast objects.</div>
I want to compare this to <a href="https://sunspeargames.com/" target="_blank"><u>Immortal
Gates of Pyre</u></a>'s cinematic. It's not because I think better, it's
not. But they have done the best thing possible with a limited budget.
Stormgate's cinematic could have been better if they have focused on what
they can do well, and avoided what they can't or don't have to do.<br>
<div class="videoWrapper"> <iframe allowfullscreen="1" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7DrSBiVKfi4"
height="auto" frameborder="0" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<div class="subnote" style="margin: 45px 0 45px 0;"><em>Immortal Gates of
Pyre cinematic<br>
</em></div>
<p class="smallheading" id="setting">Setting</p>
<p>I like the setting, I might have argued for a similar one myself on <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/"
target="_blank">r/FrostGiant</a>. Mixing sci-fi and fantasy has been
done many times before, but it's not as common and distinguishes the game
from StarCraft and WarCraft universes.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitqE9YFRtRuyDC4F2_nBpqDdbtXZXXYNuboH2g6lFcj3voIOrSpDdByqcgMYn9lMdypLRQzwU2srP6iKkgtWCa1VBqYeiU8qzL0njvYrL7Emv0YllQR6X8i_iKVvNaaZ3bHxIFs1UERyxGjMvBOrbHhdoxsGtnmVY1bssexc3pL6V1ssetn2Gv9t0xJg/s1920/DOOM-Eternal_KeyArt_3_1920x1080.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">They are not the only ones fighting demons, and that's
ok.<br>
Rip and tear!</div>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLgFIAanXnDj94eins_BnJdbBN2rnhIc2AejN9g5ZPwYXJRWDug3IWNbnUuaJ7m523ifcYupVrbIT-SdCf_gjZFeXUOeZl-Gafj6z4aLvI_rKTV9iObcQwj4k94A7CF3dZYbDluQthC0L5TqyNN0l0LiRGMvuETpMATbFpogaw2FHgKEhs-uI4wu3u_Q/s954/g96a8z3z3r491.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">I still have memories of playing Hellgate. It was a
jank but different.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9mHbE48J6g5XYXAW0Q6xkw3Qr3MkKhmhuv-69vlyBqMx9FLhu3WEQZxL4cfezc3Q0MpCcFsPzi4T8c8EQphRfTASPYRC5yqSHoCDSsslaa6nS5FTgXDR0WsZzYAnezz5x3qB7IOs7X8evH5n4BgjJ1agzv9k9ZHbIUgrkmo6vU1swzOJJ7Zu7oM3dKg/s774/212419-spellcross-dos-screenshot-the-major-tactic-is-luring-the-enemy.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">Spellcross - fighting hordes of fantasy beings with
modern equipment.<br>
Portals open on Earth, human armies are demolished, resistance forms and
leads a successful war – business as usual.</div>
<p>The idea of a modern army fighting medieval and fantastic enemies has a
very strong fantasy. Who doesn't wonder how a modern military would fare
against orcs, zombies, dragons, or other mythical creatures?</p>
<p>However, for Stormgate this wouldn't work. The modern equipment brings
expectations about its capabilities, and those are restrictive to
responsive unit control and how wide the design space is for human units.
Moving more into the future, as Stormgate does, loosens these restrictions
and player expectations as things can be explained by future tech.</p>
One danger of moving into the future is that you might start to lose this
exceptionally powerful fantasy of human armies fighting aliens, or demons in
this case, in a familiar setting and with familiar tools.<br>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQNKIZqOu_ikDfI5VYMQ_HQuG8j1FLJAeguPPixc5AI-SQP3Lp-fYc-AnP5txUTvdkAeE7exVTHUsVSgzvJAXEoGrZlVWDk4OIgXCkjDt-AOaP-alE8EAfjKyPF7__Mo12CYX_Ogxve03uUllugbkqq6eN1ZakZu4WND8RXro9QF9tWnNWIc3HFmWbmw/s1920/battle-01.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">UFO: Enemy Unknown – The game heavily uses familiar
settings of farms, forests and cities where you fight aliens.<br>
It also heavily leans on traditional UFO tropes such as little gray men or
a Mars base. These are very powerful tropes the game leans onto.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvNSTmjRsx_UCZS9HyDuUtLmJiYmmCeM1yoY3Q8vbEtVXtUxYsmIr1ORsA4O4nEcoYKGdODHWrPyJyDp2w5_oGHiROZKNcJ9nBzxjv3OsVGyR0g-I9hgBcBvfEnLviNfmrYqkHmTTB6O7DkigV-3jQBS5WDRLo90sA8I0cacSQjMOcyNHyuOkuOoF0aA/s1600/ufofarm.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">XCOM: Enemy Unknown – The new game reenacts the
original setting and follows this strong fantasy.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7tp7piRk7ztNzis39Nz2e5L8hPWJHH-ZMrB7P1Wg4cyFrpfFx8gIjnj14Rmg37XA2lkoC2L2zBJy5NNoKWlIiIq-VuRiHHiklpNq8piyGR-4iQaMxUgUQ_43H_oB7msnVY3CpFlzpOpbNi1_rG6baTXm-4682vgtYQ_H2tbj-V5DUiIlUZdeojmoOEg/s1280/XCOM-Gameplay.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">This is where XCOM2 stumbles a bit. You are often
placed in sterile and unfamiliar cityscapes of future Earth. And for a
good part of the game, you will be fighting very human-looking enemies.
The fantasy is significantly weakened and doesn't excite the player's
imagination in the same way.</div>
<p> Why am I going over this? Looking at the next screenshot I get no
feeling that humans are fighting demons. There are some guns, but the
mechs and ships look completely alien. Only those few soldiers would
indicate that you might be looking at humans.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhmfOMk6VwEKp4Oi5_oTB_zx0qTl0w_laMiu45k6chR75O3X6G0SaeRi9f26aSlLH1ul1wVKxhCUIsjozJpVlY0095zwXN7CiyQ6IN3Cznb30bBndEqkEiCPje9pmvlSd84CDmUaRGvuA_e_mZd6CBPH7hytQKGAsNDD1TqSpO9aOX-gsNg3u7KJd-zQ/s3000/FrostGiant_WaterMark_InGameRender03_01-1.png"></div>
<div class="subnote"><br>
</div>
<p>It might as well be <i>Novus</i> units from <i>Universe At War</i> that
came to the Earth to help humans.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTet4H19SKfWs9PIXZgsnm58_d5LJxUlcjmXhHHH3n4Q2xsOUTkGGQ_6qBEQ3cOiNpvBnIYKNM8_9F5g42X7n3BJo7-mejlrZHzT3yEWUtbmzzli-tVCUxO893F6JMzM2amH8aO30XAdYqRv2ZxbdXauQVtKRgKka1O-OtUvo8SlFoCTj9nTEqQCrJzA/s1600/4a7aaeaa4451063af32b7f29ad46b2d0.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Novus alien faction from Universe At War</div>
<p>StarCraft II managed to depict human tech in a familiar way despite being
thousands of years into the future. A tank is a tank, a Marine is a
marine, a Viking is an air-superiority fighter. I hope Stormgate will
manage to capture the fantasy of fighting fantastic hordes with what feels
like a human army. It's a very powerful fantasy.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="screenshots">Screenshots</p>
<p>The environment looks great. Units are easily recognizable, and the
clarity looks good. I like this low-fi aesthetic. With some polish and
finding its own unique style, I think the game will look great in the end.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhmfOMk6VwEKp4Oi5_oTB_zx0qTl0w_laMiu45k6chR75O3X6G0SaeRi9f26aSlLH1ul1wVKxhCUIsjozJpVlY0095zwXN7CiyQ6IN3Cznb30bBndEqkEiCPje9pmvlSd84CDmUaRGvuA_e_mZd6CBPH7hytQKGAsNDD1TqSpO9aOX-gsNg3u7KJd-zQ/s3000/FrostGiant_WaterMark_InGameRender03_01-1.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">Very nice lighting. I wonder if they would use <a href="https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.0/en-US/lumen-global-illumination-and-reflections-in-unreal-engine/"
target="_blank"><u>Lumen</u></a> in-game, it's probably an overkill
outside cutscenes.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib2sTIs0NF6mb6ju9XrWzerMud_pzWtkaU_GNzt3-m9kJLxptAdwOXMTBzH6qJlIUiMbInBFZsGQwammQNxrseBLvoNNJ-6_TesWSc_M9CSlxnr9lnaB_Pn8LtdnEpl_U-bhu59oASRMDki2vBrUAweeaMcTjfYGpAkZUzNrOil0izPEI6NRdWuvL-Lw/s3000/FrostGiant_WaterMark_InGameRender02_01.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">Great environment. My first guess is that those are
Murlock marines, and not humans, fighting some demons.</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="other">Other</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOLkZG_CZgpNtj5DkBQ5oa6WhmgtW122W_3rU4LNAC8fNTISu7jGGGGQC-JYwr45xPn0WvcqcB_-xTCX58JxdkkfGuL0IPwAdhkOzG2Lxt-schoSDteNLPxFzGT95Gn6i93x03T882ksSiUftksCRvQWfFW3IkMRQWa1YbWpRJEZlcRYXpFSYe9QnYIQ/s1819/Stormgate_KeyArt-scaled.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">It looks like a fanart. That's totally fine for concept
art but not ideal as promotional material.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8HNV3QQHRE-NLDBrGods7bzIpPF_lJQWgLSTxFrsET6XRAu63m3nBxPu79t-pOJjAiY32gwEOUXj81iXk0t-pXxQUSfz2xYwjFlRkkmmHV1Z1kD6UhsLt3UV1_g91T3G9mFx_6TovpWlabpziSYQfaR5TBvZvx0DNYzFvfrWzASdsqWZHZpfF_XbZhA/s2212/mechs.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Stormgate — D.Va from Overwatch.<br>
They are similar, but I don't mind taking unit designs from other
universes.<br>
I have different issues with the mech design as stated before.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfdvRXiVVcq1S9m7sq1pQpRub9EqXldVkLYAWymvsRL3LTsxIuHo6_PdQNePRlyyHP9F10KTV3lSoMxHqMzyUEw_hxavQFpnnrmcrxjeffjduAwzRuffcVzJN4Rh9rAzQYQvbj77_yW_bT1aq-t7y__NN0JGHN0GBP2eU6knR0PucVkd7uRIHrUf7Jqg/s1281/2022-06-10_215332.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">These concepts are pretty cool. And they actually look
like a human tech.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFEr5rIbvKZ1ERBuacfP_CXWv54MT26S8AhhqIGOFzj4j1bcYM5TbQcFwGLl_RN6ubj9bx_Tc3pbNo8rs4TgxnUexzlHEEEjUd_8ulHiDCJYf_qu2bSI7JFBCutco1wyCZ2PIAyTOF-LZWzRJZveuo5GOJD2bI6zd8xwCgXv2eWq50FlgJ5vrOVbXJJA/s763/logodouble.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">These are ok but I would have a hard time picking them
from dozens similar on steam.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv2E6BP2xVkdVgPS_0sNReWewqZumWZ7P-vWQl5HcFRAt-sGjyHM9Su15xeArqdKPCHgEveF-m_19XoWpr9HJsoa7Vsti69wGa_ZfVPbvDEp5CUAP_W_gyUBLjXnkP7-XDeVwJ0qJ2hynyuFm9f9bUMhcMfqijEjVh6Fw3cfLH6-YDmxkfjZvgxg8c6A/s1557/logos.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">To me these represent a stronger and clearer visual
design.</div>
<div class="subnote"><br>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 422px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigiiNL6SwknwDIChYc9Ff01xVHda34pWKE6uRUbK9zBUAoQhkeZXf4B7hioJtM47CjU3FGtWd9QPGsBj0sVkOcD2woEKEJa-1y7H0NFZmf0T0omfCjyB_MMf_skVg_9JyJIEAPy7N6rzwtm3WJD3aKEPiTsx2r3LzsY1XlTLibEssgM7fOIwFByFyjPA/s422/monocle.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">I had to do this one</div>
<p>I hope I didn't sound too unreasonable or critical in this post. It's
early art and a lot of things will change. Hopefully, some of my feedback
was useful.</p>
<p>I'm still very excited about the game and looking forward to more news
and interviews. Check out <a href="https://playstormgate.com/" target="_blank"><u>the
game website</u></a>, go to <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Stormgate/"
target="_blank"><u>r/Stormgate</u></a>, and <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/2012510/Stormgate"
target="_blank"><u>wishlist the game on steam</u></a> – it will be
free-to-play, so why not. Here are some other links to check out:</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="links">Links</p>
<ul>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSl3U8y50CU" target="_blank">Winter's
interview with Tims</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdnL6JkEKgI" target="_blank">Winter's
interview with monk</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://youtu.be/A8dc3JJjQcY" target="_blank">Winter's
interview with monk (competitive)</a><br>
</u></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVPV7lgChms" target="_blank"><u>Back2Warcarft
interview with monk</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UepxrnfEB0E" target="_blank">Feardragon's
interview with monk (competitive)<br>
</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://youtu.be/7CuYYcpS4Ss" target="_blank">Feardragon's
interview with monk (Co-op)<br>
</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://youtu.be/rurgY5iZCro" target="_blank">Feardragon's
interview with Trevor</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://youtu.be/9z64W2q9HK0" target="_blank">MrLlama's
interview with Ryan</a><br>
</u></li>
<li><a href="https://youtu.be/RTukaMin730" target="_blank"><u>Giant
Grant's first look at Stormgate</u></a></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-85064398634162866522021-12-16T15:52:00.013+01:002021-12-18T18:49:07.631+01:00AoE4 Overlay<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="0; url='https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/AoE4_Overlay'" />
<style>
p {
display: none;
opacity: 0
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>An overlay app for showing information about allies and opponents as an in-game overlay. It also provides additional statistics, and supports a highly customizable streaming overlay.</p>
<div>Redirecting to the <a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/AoE4_Overlay" target="_blank">GitHub page</a>...</div>
</body>
</html>Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-68589863259626026182021-12-07T15:06:00.007+01:002021-12-28T12:17:24.111+01:00Age of Empires IV<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Age of Empires IV</title>
<style>
.lispacing>li {
margin-top: 0.3em
}
.litighter>li {
margin: 0 !important
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div p {
font-size: 40px;
margin: 0 0 0 0;
margin-top: -13px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
#protoss_list li {
margin-bottom: 0px
}
#protoss_list>li {
margin-top: 10px;
margin-bottom: 0px
}
ul.positive {
list-style-type: "+ "!important;
margin-bottom: 30px!important
}
ul.negative {
list-style-type: "- "!important
}
.quoting {
margin-left: 10px;
padding-left: 10px;
padding-left: 10px;
border-left: 3px solid #555;
margin: 30px 0 50px 0;
}
.quoting > p {
padding-top: 5px;
padding-bottom: 5px;
margin-bottom: -10px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Q4zrZa5_QKtvf7cjQVchfAwoq7294A7qIzzkp72yCNZC-OAlQf4agTrO2_gdhzQvW355jWauUGFJUwjCrpEBvQS-8pTuzmMv23EyonQ15p7_o4NV_LOoWUnpRc-Lu_OmO9tIJqrqhyb5/s1200/banner.jpg">
<div>Age of Empires IV</div>
</div>
<p>Age of Empires IV (AoE4) was released recently and I had fun both playing
it and watching tournaments. In this post, I'll share my thoughts so far.
Though I'm sure things will change as I play more, and the developers keep
improving the game. Hopefully, we can learn something from both AoE4's
successes and problems.</p>
<p>I'll start with a few topics each with a list of points to highlight
what's great about the game and what could be improved, and then move to
higher-level topics like game's focus, game-to-game variety, or victory
conditions. The former focuses on features and pitfalls, while the latter
should be more interesting from the game-design point of view. Skimming
and skipping certain sections should work just fine as most sections are
independent.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="campaign">Campaign</p>
<p>So far I finished the English and the French campaigns. There are upsides
(+) and downsides (-). The fact there are downsides doesn't mean
developers did something wrong, it might be an inherent downside of doing
a historic campaign. The actual importance of each point varies and is
subjective. It's simply a list of various things I took note of – some are
important, others less so. This also means that the ratio of upsides to
downsides isn't important.</p>
<ul class="positive">
<li>Great production quality</li>
<li>Educational videos further support the historic focus</li>
<li>Interesting mission design in some missions</li>
</ul>
<ul class="negative">
<li>Without following a set of characters, it's hard to care about the
current characters or the outcomes of battles. In one mission you are
fighting to put a king on the throne. In the next mission, he is dead
and his children have broken the kingdom apart.</li>
<li>A different narrator for different civilizations would help to
differentiate them.</li>
<li>Sometimes videos are overdoing it on close-ups, slow-motion, and cuts.</li>
<li>No co-op</li>
<li>No progression system affecting gameplay</li>
<li>No other choices between missions</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="gameplay">Gameplay</p>
<p>I will discuss gameplay in more detail later in the post, particularly on
what the game focuses and its implications.</p>
<ul class="positive">
<li>The gameplay is similar to that of AoE2. There are differences, of
course, it's faster and civilizations are more asymmetrical – both I see
as improvements. The gameplay is less about micro, and more about macro
and strategy.</li>
<li>Progressing through ages with landmarks is a great way to provide
additional choices to players, and differentiate civilizations.
Landmarks are also very thematic.</li>
<li>Hard counters can lead to interesting tactical and strategic gameplay.
On the tactical level, a player might micro cavalry to hit archers while
the opposing player will try to use spearmen to protect them. On the
strategic level, this encourages scouting and tech switches.</li>
<li>Four resources and plenty of economic upgrades and mechanics add a lot
of depth to the economy. Together they lead to plenty of meaningful
decisions for players.</li>
<li>The naval combat isn't mechanically or tactically exciting, but it
fits into the strategic dominance over the map and questions about where
to gain and invest resources. So while this implementation wouldn't
belong to a combat-focused game like StarCraft II (SC2), it does fit
into AoE4.</li>
<li>Mongols are unique with how they can move their buildings (credit to <i>Empires
Apart</i>).</li>
</ul>
<ul class="negative">
<li>Issuing the a-move command will make units not attack for a while.
This reduces responsiveness.</li>
<li> After issuing the move command units will try to form a formation
first before moving. This leads to some awkward pathing, units taking
free hits, and the reduction of the game's responsiveness.</li>
<li>A side-effect of formations is that for example monks might not heal
your knights because one unit wants to be in the back while the other in
the front.</li>
<li>No patrol or follow command.</li>
<li>Cannot link wooden and stone walls. Cannot link walls with allies.</li>
<li>Random map generation needs additional checks.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYA1E4q_cZHG70tArKiPQnmtkrBq7XKuM7JbcvtxrNxVL1Uk4aR0tVol_LbdxIaj6NRgd2GVG04-qSIbHFdcPoiBDshhWXUlJjFqsrYlXnpIspiw6QRJYbd725uSNErsLPanxosZ-lD7WU/s1221/island.jpg">
<div class="subnote">Well, this is awkward...</div>
</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="audiovisual">Audio & Visual</p>
<p>This section is about how things look in-game, the next section will look
at UI/UX separately.</p>
<ul class="positive">
<li>The game has a strong fantasy with an idealized historic look
supported by pleasant art style.</li>
<li>Its setting is familiar and easy to understand. Every historic
building and movie works as free promotion for the game.</li>
<li>Great sound design. Units change language when you progress through
ages. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/qzkznf/the_sound_design_in_this_game_is_mind_blowing/"
target="_blank"><u>The sound of cavalry.</u></a></li>
<li>Gardens, fields, and roads are dynamically added when a structure is
built. This supports the fantasy of building a medieval city.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgjxaRSP1utEpNLcj7-6M91i0YEp2UODOE8qGqqqbtvKw4iyCofZ7J_ArHtcA-3o9hByjzjyFaJAPEFMO9XpiN-Af_L0apxTsuhxi-jBNL1YMlBchkR2m8gx5akrhhYnhy09KJ-pFTbSvZUxj4fiagiNOsmkvFJp81Zqhsm1NdSa5ZgagS1-wHHNziz6w">
<div class="subnote">Dynamically added gardens, fields and roads to
buildings</div>
</div>
<ul class="positive">
</ul>
<ul class="negative">
<li>Visual clarity issues. Some units are hard to tell apart (e.g.,
fishing ship from a demolition ship).</li>
<li>Units changing weapons to torches when targeting buildings is a nice
touch. However, when they do, it becomes very hard to tell them apart.
They should do it only when attacking buildings – not targeting one at
any distance.</li>
<li>Cannot disable unit and structure response sounds.</li>
<li>Some graphical issues with LOD pop-ins and temporal stability of
vegetation.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYIDnk5KQbN9M74tjdgnzR-Dl6CnCzFhTzfUc-7w7tgyheFBuX5eP3gKwHIxQbtmiNlYZSK-LD7CiAF7513blQoAzdYAGCqI3OvbYI7XYmAjMxYKUWDxB9EHCQZY4VfpjP3kc2ZxyB7Qqp/s1920/ships.jpg">
<div class="subnote">Can you tell which one is a fishing ship and which
one is a demolition ship?</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-JAnKfZfVJIdMVhnb0d2XWuyy40oVMb0teUS5eWgMhYk2rcQvGmw9hKDs6u_NYgYJpvzmrwzmxk3CvwJXTyS6kl9GmxId_G-DAyI6n0sck6gZDV4-XqiH_QW-C3YKtBkEKHGXgHcdQdyp/s1385/torches.jpg">
<div class="subnote">Units are hard to tell apart when they switch their
weapons for torches. <br>
Targeting a building at any distance will cause a unit to switch
weapons.</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmnfKdWLlxp4vBXiG4dmYiZqQGdpIEsM8ZfR_v-dysNWk8-ZqJ3XRYgF7AzmoQQOcRB4LQtYFwEgZ9xkzDYplumjzS7pCxHydqB05He0p6qY0MbUgI9do50LuO8f8jGkb_IVO_iu72wsaQ/s1383/rally.jpg">
<div class="subnote">Over the top visual rally effect</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4uNT1mjvegiwwz1A6Pfp07RuLD5Fu0pq4yW0xqdE0debu0QDtZFImirF5jo2k_MKAykvu_OfBrIp7ZBzBxjjn7WSCmB3o__QI7w2KyCB715LKzPKWZE7TBxL_cXpLs-pF5t_yR1e5zwEk/s1920/sightblocker.jpg">
<div class="subnote">I wouldn't expect that a warship can completely hide
here</div>
</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="uiux">UI/UX</p>
<p>Now for user interface (UI) and user experience (UX).</p>
<ul class="positive">
<li>Fairly clean UI with minimal dead space (though it's lacking some
identity).</li>
<li>Color-coded buttons for upgrades, units and structures improve
clarity.</li>
<li>The supply count becomes orange when it gets near the limit. This
helps to prevent supply blocks.</li>
<li>The number of workers assigned to gather each resource is shown next
to the resource. You can click it to cycle through workers gathering
that resource.</li>
<li>You can hotkey buildings that haven't started construction.</li>
<li>When placing a building you can click on any point and it will find
the closest valid position for the building.</li>
<li>There exist key bindings that aren't in StarCraft (e.g. select all
military production structures).</li>
<li>There are pings (though SC2 has an easier and more natural way of
pinging).</li>
<li>You can hide UI when spectating (though not player scores, and you
cannot do it when playing).</li>
<li>The in-game score is hidden by default unlike in AoE2.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 760px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRyFe9znfVGGPnqZCwTAvrSwSNSkLEXl4ACuKYhO2avXDZzls6HvJAzyZXSUWySQGMwnmWt_u3vMND03WmRbEYK98076c1dDlcmGvCxRGDUd1CZFxVaprTETUkFR6USNOUpmgVM5nwZZMk/s760/belshire.png">
<div class="subnote">Color-coded buttons – green upgrades, brown combat
units, blue other</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 584px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2n22tjFcztxybue3C-qhOKB9XuX6aWeBp6NPvZ8yVejNRqsPeGiPKDmWXecAhLWbU07BKwMTe1mldmRg12D7jG9o7jeF0MgsiQGbniF5TfYczr2GH8NTFJYDyL5JH6GLEtWJX3aQ1ni4x/s584/build.png">
<div class="subnote">A villager build menu with color-coded buttons</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 191px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBjmM4m8_3Hd1UtNmIYtcczNFa0WJPlBEaTU7CkIiZ6UIlqjpy_JyoNGoEhPCJHkbEIDm8i2LSGboxZxfHdutDcHhP83y_6RRGBdOvVWRxrOAl1gaxxJnyEUBCa0A5s7TNTbtxJI8087WI/s228/villagers.png">
<div class="subnote">Supply indicator – Idle villagers<br>
Resources – Villagers gathering the resource</div>
</div>
<ul class="negative">
<li>When focusing on a control group, the camera will move to the group's
center. Unfortunately, that will often be somewhere in the middle of the
map where none of your units are. It doesn't smartly choose the largest
subgroup as in other RTS games.</li>
<li>The behavior of pre-configured hotkeys for "select all..." and "cycle
through..." isn't good when it comes to centering camera. It either does
it every time with a single hotkey press, or never no matter how you
press it. </li>
<li>No control group stealing (in StarCraft 2 Alt+number)</li>
<li>No unit wireframes to click on. These two together remove a lot of
flexibility in working with control groups.</li>
<li>No global production queue (present in AoE2).</li>
<li>What upgrades are done for a unit is not well indicated, if at all. In
SC2 it's nicely shown with numbers and color-coded images, and the
command card shows all other researched or available upgrades.</li>
<li>There are no waypoint markers (though shift-click works).</li>
<li>Shift-queuing buildings with villagers is a bit awkward, especially
when building farms.</li>
<li>You can queue building gates only after a wall is
finished.</li>
<li>You need to use ESC when changing what to build, but it can also
deselect villagers.</li>
<li>The sacred sites victory condition UI element is a bit too much in
your face, showing you the status of all sites all the time. While
during spectating it doesn't show you the most important information –
the timer to the victory.</li>
<li>Map not shown on the loading screen</li>
<li>Chat on the side can be easily overlooked.</li>
<li>The chat's profanity filter is extremely aggressive blocking normal
words and unit names. To disable it you have to <a href="https://www.naguide.com/age-of-empires-4-how-to-turn-off-chat-filter/"
target="_blank"><u>edit config files manually.</u></a></li>
<li>An excessive chat delay after posting a message to chat.</li>
<li>Forced Grid hotkey profile & no camera hotkeys.</li>
<li>Menus don't support the 16:10 aspect ratio. </li>
<li>Menus are a bit awkward, don't respond to the ESC key, and tax your
GPU unnecessary.</li>
<li>Search parameters (1v1/2v2/3v3/4v4) often reset and you need to change
them back.</li>
<li>No sound indicator when the game starts. Having one would prevent you
from missing it when alt-tabbed. For some reason there is a noticeable
sound effect during loading but it's somewhere in the middle.</li>
<li>Spectating UI is very bare-bones and closer to being a placeholder.
Both SC2 and AoE2 had way better spectating interfaces for years.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 323px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAJ-_0v9kpMW2N5uYvjtouVFvLaGVk-7xeu6PX1Vn-sUOGUdl2uhoKebRfYU3R_4cNVFjojyTV1S0aqpf-H8srfHfYbOTVK9mXEVDPcvPfWzHnohzHWdwCi8WC8C3hgKAaU0C3UgwIvRe-/s323/2021-12-02_201720.png">
<div class="subnote">Still not the best minimap clarity. <br>
You cannot increase the minimap size or choose which icons to hide.</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 394px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0tXexXqGo-1sBvE1TMG9xPm6rspdkgsKPexLArHGo6RdWUft4cM_KTduVyQqtopWP4dAmj8ZqzTXtuU6wrbQuciDxVEu7nWXMCsUHM4KIaFoFFd2NMFPlCU2CUDyVwKh8GcSMKygcW3Bs/s394/2021-12-03_014154.png">
<div class="subnote">Redundant messages in chat with random delays between
each of them</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv">
<div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIdVB9pUSZjAJAQaLrCJBto2ASWtcYMNl8xNlYxEIjIx0kb8K-lL5Uyj1IUTyMwshy3epm2Y25gGIfXoW9ZuGQt6e-YoAGQJj43WFxbpzL4GrOXiRIwq5wj9-vo5M5F4VuKY9lNyd7ZDao/s843/cursor.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">The mouse cursor not quite pointing where it should</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv">
<div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM0r0K83UYOCYHQLSushickv28qodQ2nyPV9o9gWpwPNFUh9oidFzDcyXMyaaM29XjOfnMuCYo9bB_VKEFX5NYDWQU18QChX4Qz-kDxxrg-dMRG6_3xvu5NMc3uvvZBmvFf_uEtLgYVQeB/s1920/unordered.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Player card positions don't show teams well</div>
</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="features">Features</p>
<ul class="positive">
<li>Multi-queuing for several modes at the same time (1v1/2v2/3v3/4v4)
reduces queue times while giving players control.</li>
<li>You can change your civilization before the match in a lobby. This
reduces issues where a civilization might be bad on certain maps. You
cannot see the opponent's civilization to prevent excessive
counter-picking. However, currently you can avoid certain players.</li>
<li>In-game spectating of live or old games from ladder is possible with a
built-in delay. Players can hide their games if they want to. There is
no way to filter by rank, league, or matchup. I think there is still a
potential to improve spectating, I wrote about it <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/09/TR10-social-features.html#spectating"
target="_blank"><u>here</u></a> more.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicrdx0k6MX3VljWhjQwfk4NGn4zdWiRnohY6C3Ty3ZH7vhsUqxnC1sfu5BRVhGhD5QVOCc4AHwuTEgIzhXG5UAjTwjg182GBb17ei-eSfsr1d_GsFMvlFoGgQu2J8a7pqhb45BsaMh5qeb/s1898/2021-11-18_214355.png">
<div class="subnote">A list of games to watch</div>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv">
<div style="text-align: center;"><img style="max-width: 600px" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpcREvZpG7f295gT-m2Ygf-ec-M_ByQ-8XxnbRIvfZVFtGCpcTzAm8LjgdxL5VmQwSMtR8S0-K2ILFg2WWhOPxPENx2jmL9Ag29YSi8aLPQSOAHH1t8Br9RprLOLl-EUqUI5FbcQi_YhGh/s819/2021-11-18_214400.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">Filtering what games to watch</div>
</div>
<ul class="negative">
<li>No map vetoes</li>
<li>No ladder or leagues</li>
<li>No modding</li>
<li>The lack of co-op other than skirmish is disappointing. I didn't
expect StarCraft II-like co-op, I don't think it would even fit well
into AoE4 due to its different design. However, even a mode like <i>Defend
the Wonder</i> from <i>Age of Empires Online</i> would be welcomed
(it's a 2vAI survival mode). I imagine we might see something of that
sort after modding is added. But a good part of the potential playerbase
might have left by then (similarly how SC2 Co-op was released 5 years
after the <i>Wings of Liberty</i>).</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: 30px"><img style="max-width: 819px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiENgagEM8502mm2OfOja6MAmM7axatqec5VjuJTOk01202ri4owAINptYNGtybRxAoI-p27iISH-iGD_jcow5wMCfMXWe-BtdA_XfCbzknX3eVM98FyTyQ7U39RSZXmxr1vIqx5DojGS1V/s1920/AOE_Roadmap_Full_1920x1080.jpg"></div>
<p class="smallheading" id="economy">Economy focus</p>
<p>AoE4 focuses on the economic side to a much greater extent than games
like <i>StarCraft II</i> or <i>Company of Heroes</i> where most of the
depth comes from combat. For AoE4, this reflects in the increased number
of resources, ways to harvest those resources, or upgrades improving
gathering.</p>
<div class="quoting">
<p>I don’t think AoE IV is as micro-intensive as StarCraft 2 or Age of
Empires II. It focuses more on the macro aspect – strategy and decision
making. It’s about positioning your army and making the right moves and
developing your base correctly.</p>
<p style="text-align: right; margin-top: -1em;"> – TheViper (<a href="https://www.esports.com/en/interview-with-theviper-on-age-of-empires-iv-to-be-honest-for-it-just-being-released-i-feel-like-it-is-an-incredibly-balanced-game-296777"
target="_blank"><u>source</u></a>)</p>
</div>
<p>A part of how civilizations and strategies are differentiated comes from
<span style="color: #ff9900;">which</span> resources to get, but also <span
style="color: #ff9900;">how</span> to get them. There are several
options for how to get food (berries, sheep, deer, boar, farms, fish), and
each civilization has preferred ways. Later in the game civilizations are
differentiated by the use of various infinite sources of gold (Rus'
Hunting cabins, Holy Roman Empire's bonus relic income, English farms,
China's taxes, etc.). The optimal way how to get resources is also
map-dependent resulting in many different game states.</p>
<p>Plenty of interesting decisions are available for players on the economic
side – which resources to harvest, how to harvest them, when to get
gathering upgrades, and when to start transitioning into infinite sources
of food and gold. Food sources work as opt-in complexity – instead of
using more efficient and finite resources (such as deer and boar), a
player might decide to transition into farms earlier at the cost of a
higher initial investment.</p>
<p>SC2 typically lacks these kinds of economic decisions. That's not to say
the macro is easy, but there are fewer decisions to it. The closest thing
is Zerg's creep which has multiple ways of spreading it – Queens, Nydus
worms, Overlords, active tumors, and canceling Hatcheries – and they can
be combined. In ZvT this feeds back into the Terran's economy when
balancing MULEs against scans to clear creep. That's the best SC2 example
of a macro mechanic with multiple options and such that interacts with the
opponent's economy.</p>
<p>Spectating or switching civilizations is also made easier in AoE4 by the
economic focus. Familiarity with basic units is enough for a viewer to
understand fights. There are only a few unique civilization units, and
often a civilization is differentiated by getting access to a basic unit
earlier instead. The economic depth and complexity are hidden unless a
spectator decides to look for them. And when it comes to learning a new
civilization, it's gradual as the basic methods of gathering resources are
shared between civilizations.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiOGUkJZbgebHod0sTeXrkSOzGgEPblLeFofzRehgoGyWH2ETVqfOVFVp3p19P9CCNpUjqUSNuuhrfG-Bv2stthplwe8FkoKzwHf7ujPTWEgeKCfLABp4jYdNkg7G8YZM6_iwFsgIR25GHGF5Yp8bPZl6BdV1wn6zhLBIQoJZMqtzRMu7Ujevyxnxdt8w=s1600">
<div class="subnote">Various sources of food</div>
</div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="variety">Game-to-game variety</p>
<p>The focus on the economy can be problematic when it comes to gameplay
variety. A combat-focused game gains plenty of game-to-game variety
directly from combat interactions between players. With an economy-focused
game this is less straightforward. In AoE4 the economic game-to-game
variety comes from: </p>
<ol>
<li>Diverse and randomized maps</li>
<li>Varied resource access depending on map control</li>
<li>Hard counters and strategies feeding back into the economy by
requiring a different resource balance and expansion rate.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is the most important for multiplayer where players might play a
single civilization over and over on just a few maps. Keeping the
game-to-game variety up becomes the most difficult there, but it's also
crucial for the game's longevity. And I would say it's working quite well
so far after watching tournaments and streams. </p>
<p>The last two points have issues when it comes to team games. Player
interaction is often limited there, games typically go for longer, and
resource access is less of an issue. The game-to-game variety suffers
because of that. And since lategame armies are more similar to each other
compared to a game like StarCraft II, the game cannot compensate with it
for the reduced economic variety. If I'm playing "<i>build big armies and
see them </i><i><i>clash </i> together"</i> then I care less about
economic complexity, and having more diverse armies to build is better.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="combat">Combat</p>
<p>The hard counter system leads to an interesting dance when it comes to
the triangle of archers-spearmen-cavalry. There are other places where
micro can shine, and hopefully these places will be preserved and
cultivated – unlike the Scout micro against wildlife which made the early
game more interesting but was removed in the last patch.</p>
<p>I was a bit disappointed with how siege and ship's firing arcs were
handled. Relic did a great job with <i>Company of Heroes</i> games where
limited firing arcs are widely used, but in AoE4 they seem mostly
non-consequential. Limited firing arcs on ships are mostly just a visual
flavor given ships can turn almost instantly. Doing a bit more with firing
arcs could add additional depth and skill to the game.</p>
<p>It's also a shame there isn't a static unit similar to Lurkers or Siege
Tanks. Such units again make the combat deeper, increase skill ceiling,
and discourage a-move while being very clear visually and easy to
understand. Out of all units, Mangonels resemble Siege Tanks the most, but
they don't provide the same area-of-control, can be a-moved, and there
exists upgrades that make their setup and teardown instant, which removes
this type of gameplay altogether. It's less about their position and more
about targeting the center of the enemy units. And then there are
Springalds which are more akin to light tanks in terms of their mobility.</p>
<p>Overall, combat is good for an economy-focused RTS, but it could be
better as well.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="victoryconditions">Sacred sites and wonders</p>
<p>Sacred sites are a nice addition. As a victory condition, they can break
certain stalemates if you manage to control all of them long enough. And
they incentive player interaction and map presence as they provide a
steady gold income. However, unlike <i>Company of Heroes</i> games, the
resource income from having map presence isn't so high that it limits
viable strategies, and a player has to option to yield map control
temporarily.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 261px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWRgOQwqj6kKBKdxoMBfMVDkvzjaJb3GntwnJtmVFUbYCG-4Ab4MTapXrWZaCCQRthiI37DAQEvSgpuzOL3BtNKhkqk4qo0s6qgXn8Ub1WLOeU5PZCOuBoAAhIUS6MAFDL8E_h6wA7RtHZ/s287/3kcvuewabs081.png">
<div class="subnote">Sacred sites – sometimes with not so fair spawns</div>
</div>
<p>The wonder victory condition is there primarily to break stalemates that
sacred sites wouldn't be able to. In 1v1 this typically isn't needed, but
in team games having a victory condition like this is useful, mainly
because there are many sources of infinite gold and a relatively strong
defender's advantage.</p>
<p>That being said, I don't think this victory condition makes for better
games right now. Especially on defensive maps it's too easy for one player
to get one relatively early. And given it can be placed anywhere, it
effectively places a limit on the game's length. A too short time limit
undermines the fantasy players expect from team games – big battles and
slow territory pushes. Since a wonder can be placed anywhere, it's likely
that when destroyed, the defending team lost their armies and most of
their bases and defenses protecting it. So a wonder limits the game length
whether it's destroyed or not.</p>
<p>I see two ways how to address this: (1) increase wonders' time limit or
cost further. (2) Or an interesting change would be to restrict the wonder
placement to sacred sites. Its cost and time limit can be tweaked as well.
This way it can prevent stalemates just as easily, but the wonder wouldn't
put such a hard time limit on the game. The game could easily continue if
a team failed to protect it. Either way, the current implementation always
felt like it led to worse games no matter whether I have won or lost and
whether it was my or the enemy team building a wonder.</p>
<div class="noborder bigimgdiv">
<div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSy89u9RiQoSWA9TIDqMI6jaTZB_CcN70CkoiKD5tkuPua6kjv08z6sAAuCsqjJoU5AAl97s4LGdeMS7HWrzdQ0Eh7OcHx9xkAUzZ30l3KKAGHAj_D_IKzlFBVHVKi8D5YhyphenhyphenHWi7ONMoy3/s1356/wonder.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Monument of The Great Khan (Mongol wonder)</div>
</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="teamgames">Team games</p>
<ul class="positive">
<li>Compared to SC2 games are less about rushes.</li>
<li>Games focus on macro which fits into the fantasy of building big
cities and armies.</li>
</ul>
<ul class="negative">
<li>No shared passive team bonuses from civilizations (as in AoE2) and
limited synergies between civilizations lead to a lower game-to-game
variety.</li>
<li>Unit composition diversity across all civilizations is lower than in
SC2. This further lowers game-to-game variety. A few factors in the
lategame incentivize players to make all-around armies and thus more
similar.</li>
<li>The wonder victory condition can have a detrimental effect on team
games (as described in the previous section).</li>
<li>The need to transition to trading for gold is reduced compared to
AoE2. It's shame since it's a good collaborative project.</li>
<li>Harder to carry a team due to slow armies and a few other factors.</li>
<li>Harder to join forces with big maps, slow armies, and a weaker
defender's advantage compared to AoE2.</li>
<li>How the player elimination is handled...</li>
</ul>
<ul class="negative">
</ul>
<p>To the last point, if a player leaves, drops, or is eliminated, all of
their units and structures become neutral. Compare that to StarCraft II
where if a player drops or leaves early, the control over units and
structures is shared between the remaining players on the team. The
player's income is equally divided between them as well. This means losing
a player is bad for the team, but it's not unrecoverable. In SC2, it's
common to see a team winning despite having fewer players controlling
their economy and army. But in AoE4, a player leaving or dropping is much
more punishing for the team. This leads to worse games and time wasted
given long queues, game-setup times, and generally longer games.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv">
<div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx0pUkmkOqsGSKQVUn97xTzEs18d0SFfNduMg6YpGNJ-Kcsi_hYRg1ll25PMM3TEcYlXZ3CsCF719S47qh183ct82rYuE293d93P-hKaMAml-jL3bpGwMG2oyi_rGSzpVl10mqjI9TmcQd/s1400/neutral.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">When a player is eliminated their units become
neutral. They still mine resources, some units like Trebuchets still
fire, but overall they do not provide any assistance to the former
allies.</div>
</div>
<p>Another place where player elimination could be improved is with the
landmark victory condition. While in 1v1 the landmark victory condition is
a nice streamlining of classical "destroy all buildings", in team games
given large maps and the difficulty of keeping track of all players, it's
much easier for one player to unexpectedly destroy another player's
landmarks. The player might have had a fully functioning economy and maxed
army, but they are completely eliminated without any chance to help allies
or even chat. That's not a good way to handle player elimination in team
games.</p>
<p>There are a few different options for how to handle this better.</p>
<ol>
<li>A player is eliminated only when all team landmarks are destroyed.</li>
<li>Eliminated players can still chat and spectate. Playing team members
can share control with eliminated players so they can help.</li>
<li>Losing all landmarks leads to a different punishment – e.g., not being
able to rebuild landmarks.</li>
</ol>
<p>I do think that team games in AoE4 have a potential, however, right now I
cannot say that they are actually that much better than team games in SC2.
There is a lot of work to be done. Tweaking the wonder victory condition,
as well as changing how a player elimination works would go a long way.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="conclusion">Conclusion</p>
<p>AoE4 is a very good iteration on AoE2 that is leaning more into faction
asymmetry and took some notes from other games. It has a great campaign
which is the most important thing to a large part of the playerbase. And
the balance for the competitive scene is quite good for a newly released
game. Where the game is lacking is polish and features. There are some
game-breaking exploits, the game has many UI/UX issues, and is missing
features that were common in both AoE2 and StarCraft II.<br>
<br>
It's a rather safe iteration on AoE2. It doesn't push its boundaries in
any way – no co-op campaign, dedicated co-op mode, or something else.
Instead, the goal seems to be reaching some kind of feature parity with
other games in its first year. This includes things like adding the patrol
command, fully customizable hotkeys, or support for modding.<br>
</p>
<p>Overall, it's one of the best RTS in the market, the core gameplay is
very good, and it's great to see more people playing an RTS because of it.
But at the same time, I can understand that some people will be
disappointed with an AAA game that neither pushes boundaries nor is a
polished version of the old. Though AoE4 could become the latter with
further development. And with AoE2 they have shown that they can keep on
improving a game for a long time.</p>
<p>From the game-design point of view, for me, the most interesting things
are the game's economy, victory conditions, the gameplay effects of hard
counters, and the use of landmarks for progression and providing choices.
Plus there are noteworthy things in UI/UX, visual and audio design as
well. AoE4 is without a doubt an interesting game to look at.</p>
<p>Links to check out:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://fluffy.maguro.one/aoe4_hotkeyeditor/" target="_blank"><u>My
hotkey editor for Age of Empires IV</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/04/TR07-teamgames.html" target="_blank"><u>My
post about team games in RTS featuring AoE2</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/06/TR09-gameplay-variety.html"
target="_blank">My post about gameplay variety</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://waywardstrategy.com/2021/11/20/food-gold-and-beyond/"
target="_blank">https://waywardstrategy.com/2021/11/20/food-gold-and-beyond/</a></u></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-47391598351573666142021-11-25T16:11:00.002+01:002021-11-25T16:11:43.219+01:00Mixed strategies<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Mixed strategies</title>
<style>
.lispacing>li {
margin-top: 0.3em
}
.litighter>li {
margin: 0 !important
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div p {
font-size: 40px;
margin: 0 0 0 0;
margin-top: -13px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.dtable {
border-collapse: collapse;
width: 100%;
outline: 1px solid rgb(121, 121, 121);
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Tahoma, sans-serif;
font-size: 0.8em;
margin: 30px 0 40px 0;
}
.dtable tr:first-child {
background-color: #333;
}
.dtable tr:first-child,
.dtable tr td:first-child {
font-weight: bold;
}
.dtable td {
text-align: center;
border: 1px solid rgb(83, 83, 83);
width: 25%;
height: 1.8em;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ1204PqYoMZS-yADyyoUDtbbtB3CzOcirW4Qy88kfaBx67H1l1UvKYk5HpoL9OAna3d9lAoSFJ3Y7bprJWzellgx0AJGZjgD2lB4lKOcEfT4M-4jFjRRk0qlUj3brEO8790VEvWlFqKFz/s1200/banner.jpg">
<div>Mixed strategies</div>
</div>
<p>In this post I tried to explore <i>mixed strategy Nash equilibria</i>
for a few strategies – all-in, standard, and defensive. Games often
feature these archetypal strategies with a rock-paper-scissors
relationship between them. I will also make it more interesting by
introducing other variables like player skill and added randomness.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: This is a fun project. I'm no expert on game theory. I was
interested in how this would look like, how I would implement and
visualize it, and learn something along the way.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="RPS">Rock-paper-scissors</p>
<p>Rock-paper-scissors is a simple game that will serve as a good example.
There are three strategies, each one countering one other with a 100%
winrate: rock < paper < scissors < rock. </p>
<p>We can represent that by a payoff matrix. We don't have to use winrates
as payoffs, but it will be good for later. On the diagonal (rock-rock,
paper-paper, scissors-scissors), I have put 50% for a draw. Also, I don't
have to write payoffs for the second player as this is a zero-sum game.
Those will be 100% minus payoffs for the first player (winrates adding up
to 100%).</p>
<table class="dtable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>[P1↓ P2→]</td>
<td>Rock</td>
<td>Paper</td>
<td>Scissors</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rock</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>100%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Paper</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>50% </td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Scissors</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>50%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Going for one <i>pure strategy</i>, for example always going for rock,
isn't a good idea as it can be easily exploited by the opponent. If we did
a game-theoretic calculation, we would discover that if both players are
playing smart, they would choose each sign with an equal probability.</p>
<p>That's a <i>mixed strategy Nash equilibrium</i>. It's "mixed" because
it's mixing different strategies – like going sometimes rock and sometimes
paper. It's a <i>Nash equilibrium</i> because there is no incentive for
one player to deviate from it given the opponent's strategy.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8tMLmRwTfrZD4oTW_lhBcr6NHytZePnMNZmD2Nly2cSKOBpA86Pyye5Tzbk-cvQXxboi-ThfPR3t_cA3zPepVhx90yrYE7Epmv8f5sXnlgTAYiHwl_IfJ7spB4gNovOpjbTNX7yPkCk4b/s1800/rps.png">
</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="model">Model</p>
<p>This model is similar to rock-paper-scissors as we still have two players
and three strategies. However, to make it more interesting (1) no strategy
will have a 100% winrate against another, (2) we will take into account
player skill, (3) and one strategy will be more affected by randomness.</p>
<p>How does that work?</p>
<ul>
<li>Three strategies (all-in, defensive, and standard)</li>
<li>Player skill is represented by ELO rating</li>
<li>Strategy advantage over another is represented as a bonus to ELO
rating</li>
<li>The all-in strategy represents a strategy where randomness plays a
significant role. This is done by reducing the ELO rating difference by
50% when there is one all-in played, and by 75% with two all-ins.</li>
</ul>
<p>I have chosen ELO because of its simplicity. It's an easy way to
represent player skill, translate it into winrates, and represent strategy
matchups as giving a certain ELO rating bonus. Alternatively, I could have
used TrueSkill with <i>mu </i>as skill, and all-ins increasing <i>sigma
</i>or <i>beta </i>for given matchups.</p>
<p>The randomness and reduction of skill difference for all-ins can come
from for example doing coin-flip builds, not managing to scout a hidden
building, or by focusing on a single early rush with minimal player
interactions where the better player might not get the chance to outplay
the opponent, or the randomness of those few interactions won't get
averaged out.</p>
<p>To represent the relationship between strategies: all-in < defensive
< standard < all-in, I have chosen these payoffs (winrates) for
equally skilled opponents:</p>
<table class="dtable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>[P1↓ P2→]</td>
<td>All-in</td>
<td>Standard</td>
<td>Defensive</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>All-in</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>55%</td>
<td>35%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Standard</td>
<td>45%</td>
<td>50% </td>
<td>60%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Defensive</td>
<td>65%</td>
<td>40%</td>
<td>50%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> And this is how it looks like when there is a 200 ELO difference between
players: </p>
<table class="dtable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>[P1↓ P2→]</td>
<td>All-in</td>
<td>Standard</td>
<td>Defensive</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>All-in</td>
<td>57%</td>
<td>68%</td>
<td>49%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Standard</td>
<td>59%</td>
<td>76% </td>
<td>83%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Defensive</td>
<td>77%</td>
<td>68%</td>
<td>76%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>As expected it's now favoring the player one. Values on the diagonal
aren't the same anymore. Since all-in strategy is more affected by
randomness, two players all-ining each other will be more random and hence
closer to 50% than a standard-standard game.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Now what if we tried to find mixed strategy Nash equilibria for different
ELO differences between players? It would show how players should mix
their strategies based on how good or bad their opponent is. This assumes
both players are rational and knowing all this.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHKGTAsLvbVtKvPcVN2YGx1CBNq7TeC5KGp3DpRba8oiKzmj4cGEukemKYX-vinBZ6FWQ_vFw_cOhUVEGKimXbFk_Cy3oxXSISofpsb6nNoDBox3g8r57nr9GjOqo_iQu2E6bdjNbxrZ9J/s1600/strategy_frequency.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">The optimal mix of strategies based on game theory.<br>
The second chart belongs to the opponent – letting you compare which mixes
of strategies face each other.</div>
<p>A significantly worse player (> 355 ELO difference) should always
all-in as that effectively reduces the difference between players' skills.
At the other end of the spectrum, the player is better off always being
defensive, as they can outplay the opponent later in the game, and it's
all about surviving the all-in. </p>
<p>In this model there are 5 phases where different strategies are viable:</p>
<table class="dtable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>ELO difference<br>
</td>
<td>Viable strategies<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> ? – -355</td>
<td>All-in</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>-355 – -69 </td>
<td>All-in | Standard</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>-69 – 70 </td>
<td>All-in | Standard | Defensive</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>70 – 356</td>
<td>Standard | Defensive</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>356 – ? </td>
<td>Defensive</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>This shows the importance of good matchmaking as the most strategies are
viable for even matches. The same will be the case for close matches in
tournaments.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, in phase 2 we see the number of all-ins increase while the
player is getting worse opponents. It's caused by the rise of standard
strategy for the opposing player. That shows the dynamics between even
with three strategies might not be intuitive.</p>
<p>Another counter-intuitive thing is that a strategy being buffed against
another can lead to the buffed strategy being used less. It will cause its
counter-strategy to be used more and subsequently stifle the buffed
strategy. Here is an interesting example where all-in is significantly
improved but only against the standard strategy. This made all-in better
for some ELO differences, but significantly worse at others where the
defensive strategy became more frequent.<br>
</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghIINUEGsd0TSZEsQ87mRalZ4I50sISme15fQF5HfZzK3C6XXO7tnlRf9XTN3lps9HgfR_g8w692LJWIQcmjc06VAuZKIQhUENOiitEeyE-z1sS9OpMRecuz_K9_HM9AHkegVJVYfUZDkA/s1600/strategy_frequency_allin_stronger_against_standard.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Changing all-in to be significantly better only against
standard has big repercussions</div>
<p> For comparison, I will also include how it looks when all strategies are
affected by randomness exactly the same way. In this case, all strategies
stay viable at any ELO difference. However, I don't think that's a
realistic assumption for most RTS games.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitTqB0KvQc5mSHySwdT5q__PAylKgE5IXN7y8qBVrBSCigByfUv537ogkkdoJvKT3k-B1xMxPqb8LQw1MyiAwt0-37ZJOzqSQkeQ_OXRm4wazdxnzu55o-lAdo1ZsACPskNdfx0fpaO5Dd/s1600/strategy_frequency_ac1.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">All strategies stay viable if all strategies are
affected by randomness exactly the same way</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="randomness">The impact of randomness</p>
<p>Let's plot how winrate scales for certain strategies that are affected
differently by randomness.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaLukDaaY6vqplOV1IMEIWrv_3Pnd6MpNf32FPG4NDeFCew92pcIpcBEQ2hrKzPdTR536ArUy-j-qs4epMMr_oRdqe79HRxyJUGVp2sZZEQwdq936EcdIcQxqImMczZXhjv771F5MtWNIQ/s1280/reduction.png">
</div>
<p>It's not surprising that the more a strategy is affected by randomness,
the closer its winrate is to the 50% line. Flipping a coin would be fully
on the 50% line regardless of the player's skill (-100% skill reduction).</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBcZwdtLRV7hyphenhyphenLoTvv0FBmXiPCkKO3OYv2WVlGAGl8zP1fyCL34z3MHr62X9An2wEm2HXFkNvMWAhzqcvxyOa6Sq_cWpYtuNgmsh4O48CpHVr85TkIoAhj20sg-D7qrKQmMxgtVDX-z5yp/s1280/reduction_ac1.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">If the effect of randomness on all-ins is set to zero,
we get almost the same scaling.</div>
<p>This is an interesting result as well – mixed strategies scale pretty
much the same as standard vs standard. You would think that by choosing
strategies at random, you would introduce some randomness and move closer
to the 50% line. But for this effect to be visible I had to significantly
increase the winrates of strategies that counter each other (from ~55% to
99% and 99.999999% winrates in the two following charts).</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1fUiGCq8JZSpEtJvXvWHpNU4XRhs84FMuCSHGn3Qz_E7DqAh9cWIWBikZNWqhALFOVHdRkbXJWo3m52gP62NDO33LUPSXFkBuFv8Z-1IbsQPf9AztRDDIbHviWOQ797W2616EquaOsmGX/s1280/reduction_90%2525_strategy_winrates.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">When strategies counter each other with a 99% winrate,
the difference becomes visible and the game more random.<br>
Other pure strategies are stacked under the all-in curve as there is no
difference here.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji3xixn1scs2BWSKri3trfGpdweQqAaiWXs40WGpql8sRqKQUczkcurL78MMZUVboxmDDYjrFDNob8b7QWOFJ-MWmtyvVNIsUw_9b4gdb5_ShvsHzRPAEaIYjbbNX0oLBYPeHQDd3LfII_/s1280/reduction_99.999999%2525_strategy_winrates.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">This effect further increases with a 99.999999%
winrate. Asymptotically mixed strategies will go to the 50% line.</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="finalwords">Final words</p>
<p>Thank you for reading. My main goal for this post was to see how I would
implement and visualize this, and learn things along the way. And there
were things I didn't expect – the effect of added randomness to a certain
strategy, or sometimes non-obvious behavior of mixed strategies.</p>
<p>Here is the <a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/Strategies" target="_blank"><u>repository
with my code</u></a>. This includes naive solutions to 2x2 and 3x3
payoff matrices. If I wanted the project to scale to more strategies, I
would be smarter about that or use a library. Overall it was a fun project
and the charts look nice. This cannot be directly applied to a game like
StarCraft II where players aren't fully rational agents, builds are more
on a continuous scale, and there are other variables like balance, maps,
and more.</p>
<p>Links to check out:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/06/TR09-gameplay-variety.html#cheeses_rushes"
target="_blank"><u>https://www.maguro.one/2021/06/TR09-gameplay-variety.html#cheeses_rushes</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introduction-to-economic-analysis/s17-03-mixed-strategies.html"
target="_blank">https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introduction-to-economic-analysis/s17-03-mixed-strategies.html</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="http://www.personal.psu.edu/aza12/402_chapter11.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.personal.psu.edu/aza12/402_chapter11.pdf</a></u></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-14108427627072587952021-10-25T14:35:00.000+02:002021-10-25T14:35:16.388+02:00Transmission 11: Co-op<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>TR11: A plan for co-op</title>
<style>
.lispacing>li {
margin-top: 0.3em
}
.litighter>li {
margin: 0 !important
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div span {
font-size: 40px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.spaced li {
margin-top: 10px
}
/* Table of contents */
.tocd {
display: block;
max-width: 350px;
margin: auto;
}
.tocd a {
text-decoration: underline
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUPtxbLhFLlucjU7Unj-zyguhwj7oA_hZhlF__1oN-rr1-3pRprIjTMKSzOuOR2NTL4pEUplMxSJd0ImCjkzpa4DTx1yXevHtRuWwsQzWlhZyRjYqjjvZPOD1hkWq9Jtf3YAEmTAiUMWy7/s1200/banner.jpg">
<div> <span>Transmission 11</span><br>
A plan for co-op</div>
</div>
<p>In this post, I will look again at Co-op, and more specifically at one
way how I could imagine putting it all together. Speculating and thinking
about individual features is a lot of fun, but here I want to take a more
high-level look and see how a comprehensive plan for co-op could look and
what would even be its goals. Some of the discussed topics are more
general and interesting even outside of co-op or the RTS genre.</p>
<div class="tocd">
<p class="smallerheading">Table of Contents</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="#introduction">Introduction</a></li>
<li><a href="#future_content">A place for future content</a></li>
<li><a href="#loops">Gameplay loops</a></li>
<li><a href="#next_game">The next game</a></li>
<li><a href="#challenge">Challenge</a></li>
<li><a href="#mission_variety">Mission variety</a></li>
<li><a href="#plan">A plan for co-op</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="introduction">Introduction</p>
<p>StarCraft II Co-op turned out to be a big success even though it wasn't
excepted to be played for more than a couple dozen hours. Later it was
greatly improved with new maps, commanders, enemy AI, new modes (weekly
& custom mutations, and Brutal+) and progression systems (mastery,
prestige, ascension). Despite all those improvements and the mode's
success, I believe it still has the most potential for both growth and
improvement in future games.</p>
<p>Previously, I looked at various individual features that could be tried
or improved in Co-op:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html" target="_blank"><u>TR04</u></a>
(survival mode, asymmetric mode, stream integration, etc.)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html" target="_blank"><u>TR05</u></a>
(events, greater events, weekly mutations, progression, etc.)</li>
</ul>
<p>Laying out possible options for features is great. However, it's yet
another thing to choose which of these features would fit together and
which to leave out. In this post, I want to look at one such plan, but
first what are the goals for it?</p>
<ol>
<li>Increase <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/06/TR09-gameplay-variety.html"
target="_blank"><u>gameplay variety.</u></a> <br>
→ Games are unlike each other, and something exciting can happen the
next game!</li>
<li>Provide challenge to players that are looking for it.</li>
<li>Create a cohesive structure that can be seamlessly expanded with new
content.</li>
</ol>
<p class="smallheading" id="future_content">A place for future content</p>
<p> I want to touch on the last point first and make it clear that it's
useful to think about how a system can be expanded later. Getting this
right is especially important for free-to-play games as there are always
new players coming in, and the need for content updates is higher.</p>
<p>After several updates, DLCs, or expansions, many games suffer from
clashing mechanics and overwhelming players. A new or returning player
might get confused by several progression systems, currencies, or mission
lines – some of which can be outdated. If it's not clear what the player
should focus on, the experience might become confusing and frustrating.
New games are usually carefully tested when it comes to new player
experience and good game flow. However, with the following updates,
developers are trying their best to add things with the limited resources
they have, and the new player experience can suffer because of that.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder" style="text-align: center;"><img style="max-width: 650px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgegMQyWz6mYd6E4i6Id8ofD1gYYU9enSVq-HbVRv_97BGDCYGaDaXQpigpbymdM4i-m3dX3NH2hoNYcUOSlx8yhbiC6AB2gI2CPcGKVkwBBaCry2qH-PX0txe9e-l-sCqSQLSqK-pU-lIv/s1659/Angry+birds+screen.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Increased complexity of the main screen after launch
(Angry Birds 2).<br>
While this is just a screen, it's often accompanied by cluttering of
gameplay systems.</div>
<p>Prestiges are a good addition to StarCraft II Co-op. But if a new player
that just leveled his first commander to the maximum level chooses to
prestige their commander right away, the game might feel grindy. The
player will likely be doing the exact same thing again as many prestiges
have only a minimal impact during leveling. Prestiges were designed to add
replayability for long-time players, however, a new player doesn't know
that and might choose to prestige instead of trying out another commander
or playing with a full commander kit on mastery levels.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder" style="text-align: center;"><img style="max-width: 650px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4x6DsiiGbUC-iV_hpniwAK1QLIvSNISmrreanwtn3zoXXDYMQONLGE049pNls1lLZHl-XfVbXxD_oG4f-QsRwnE1CkZkNeGTGmoNtrmTl5Ovc6S6MXpBhCUbzZtTlx6IZt_i1ViOIAo65/s836/SC2.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Choices a new player will have after leveling up the
first commander (StarCraft II Co-op)<br>
The prestige choice might look like the most natural path of progression,
but it might also feel the most repetitive.</div>
<p>Obsolete content can also cause issues in games. Apart from confusing
players, it's also an inefficient use of development resources. Some games
have to resort to removing obsolete content from the game, and then there
is <i>Destiny 2</i> which will remove even content that players have paid
for. That's a PR nightmare. Ideally each update would improve the game in
long term.</p>
<p>This leads us to another point, it's preferable if the goals of
developers (or publishers) are aligned with the player goals. Examples of
misaligned goals would be if the player progression was artificially
slowed so players would buy boosts, or if a competitive game was releasing
overpowered characters and nerfing them only before the next one is ready
for release. In such cases the game's longevity will suffer.</p>
<p>To sum up, there are three things to look for: (1) the addition of new
content shouldn't make the game confusing for new or returning players,
(2) new content should improve the game in the long term, (3) and player
and developer goals should be aligned.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="loops">Loopity loop</p>
<p>Now let's go back to the first point – gameplay variety – and look at the
overarching structure spanning across multiple co-op games. You could
think of it as being made of gameplay loops of different sizes. The point
of these loops is to create a change in content, pacing, and tension.
Books and movies also have a rising and falling tension, however, in games
you typically find loops of all sizes and rewards increasing with the size
of each loop.</p>
<p>What are some loops that you would be able to encounter in co-op?</p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Small gameplay loop</span> – a
macro-cycle</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Bigger gameplay loop</span> – defend
then attack </li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">1 game size</span> – play a game, get
rewards, spend points, check unlocks</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">2–3 game size</span> – encounter and
complete in-game <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html#events"
target="_blank"><u>event</u></a> (optional, could replace bonus
objective, higher challenge, and rewards that include unlocks for
greater events)</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">5–7 game size</span> – complete a <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html#greaterevents"
target="_blank"><u>greater event</u></a> (even bigger challenge and
rewards, static, players can save unlocks for later)</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Weekly size</span> – weekly mutations
provide a reason for players to come back, discuss strategies and rank
commanders</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">25-ish game size</span> – level-up one
commander</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">3–4 months</span> – seasons provide
another reason to come back for new content and challenges. New
commanders and maps could align with seasons.</li>
</ul>
<p>Compared to SC2 Co-op, there are a few new loops – event loop, greater
event loop, and seasonal loop. The last one might or might not align with
commander releases. I believe the two smaller loops would add more variety
to the co-op as it can get a bit stale between weekly mutations. More on
this in the next section.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2tE9up-ue6yQBS74YyQ9XSF55nq3mHaxoIqiEGsjB1ptM52_-Ul4mec9Fd3TY0jS0vepe5GqlNhXRWFx7Y-jjJhpgMXyktBKiss7QQvPwfVqxElIhpiJGlm166ThxMZC6LExIQJtCDId0/s1444/loopity+loop.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Event and greater event loops, and what gameplay
sessions might look like</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="next_game">The next game</p>
<p><i>"Something cool can happen the next game"</i> is something that has
been missing in StarCraft 2 Co-op. While the mode provides a good variety
through various means (random partner, map, commander, enemy race and AI,
and map pattern), the game can still feel repetitive. Brutal+ greatly
improves gameplay variety with random mutators, but rewards stay the same
and it often feels like you either get something all right or annoying.
There isn't the feeling of anticipation – what <em>could</em> be
next?</p>
<p>Some inspiration could be taken from <i>Diablo III</i>. There is a
hierarchy to encounters and excitement coming from them: elite group/boss
< <a href="https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Treasure_Goblin" target="_blank"><u>Treasure
Goblin</u></a> < <a href="https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Gelatinous_Sire"
target="_blank"><u>Gelatinous Treasure Goblin</u></a> (splits into more
goblins). Encounters are randomized and can combine – leading to at times
crazy situations when you pull half the map while chasing goblins. This is
a <a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/schedules-of-reinforcement.html#vr"
target="_blank"><u>variable ratio reinforcement schedule</u></a> at its
finest – affecting both encounters and rewards.</p>
<p>It would be great to have things in an RTS co-op mode that lead to
similar experiences. What could be added to facilitate this feeling that
something exciting can happen in the next game?</p>
<ol class="spaced">
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html#events" target="_blank"><u>Events</u></a>
can randomly appear in missions. These are fully optional and provide
higher challenges and better rewards. Some could be challenging by
themselves, others could make the game harder after completing them
(e.g., enable some mutator), and some could be more like Treasure
Goblins – not providing direct challenge themselves but encouraging
players to extend more.</li>
<li>Randomized rewards that could be and awarded for more rare events.
These rewards could include in-game currency, experience, greater event
unlocks, cosmetic rewards, or commander side-grades. I'm against <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJb7i8JCX04Znco-9_i22VJYvhloWtPVKNk32tVQnDHwR1LlIOknfkOjo6NS5LbdxWXngKTHhiopBy0ptMx4YeLzA7QqxqbmteWMJ5d_0Lwe13MouPntnULQSMqmQrhYUCCpo6yi-_L6WG/s0/celeste2.jpg"
target="_blank"><u>incremental upgrades as seen in AoEO</u></a>, but I
could see a limited amount of rare side-grade upgrades working.</li>
<li>My <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/01/survival-mode.html" target="_blank"><u>survival
mode</u></a> has solarite upgrades where you can choose one out of
three randomly presented upgrades. If leaned more heavily into this
design, you could get something closer to a deck-building game. For a
survival mode on a single map, this adds much-needed gameplay variety.
The current upgrade design isn't the best, but it's still exciting when
you manage to stack +10 bonus range to turrets while playing a commander
with strong static defenses. If these upgrades are meant to be exciting,
there has to be at least a chance for them to be game-breaking.</li>
</ol>
<p> Similar upgrades can be found in <i><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1522820/Orcs_Must_Die_3/"
target="_blank"><u>Orcs Must Die 3's</u></a></i> <i>Scramble mode</i>
(third-person wave defense) or in <i><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1516750/Alien_Marauder/"
target="_blank"><u>Alien Marauder</u></a></i> or <i><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1426450/Age_of_Darkness_Final_Stand/"
target="_blank"><u>Age of Darkness</u></a></i> (survival RTS games).
In all cases, these choices lead to unique playthroughs while leaving
players some agency. One difference is that my solarite upgrades are given
for completing objectives on the map and not just progressing. That gives
players reasons to venture on the map and makes offensive-focused
commanders more useful. I hoped there was a similar incentive in <i>Age
of Darkness</i> with malices and crystals where enemy waves spawn, but
you can only trigger a wave early or gather a few small crystals after
it's triggered.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXxHdEhxWZmt0sEG4X2mC678GN9zqKzaJDUti01J-gaMIjzTs07OiwSOqeEb-nT0SuNKwsKsqpdsZLhNtKqR8tNtiph8YPk_9fC0lC1BHLo7C3BP-xefDWwmiva-0EPV6yJT0ZxLK9_zvj/s1920/Alien+Marauder.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Choose your reward from the available options (Alien
Marauder)</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMHzuXUXGTENF7UCrYWTqVypSzKDX7-cHpM5HA_xQETNgKP2cLMsB-tLTvQ0_fSXYIkS-uptkVfk-28WvlhBcLHK_hgo1KRol7172TumwNtodsmAwrhwWjnES6UUi11BDM49ziXvrqChKI/s1536/AgeOfDarkness.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Pretty much the same thing but with prettier UI and
higher impact (Age of Darkness)<br>
Blessings are given after each wave (up to five).</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRkh0fSzFUOXvhq048Q5a2vwy1exUrbri_BwQAuMO3bmQncLdWFJQPn3K-zvaG7xw073Z2eFk3iFBa6BKyNuAIU5hE9zRg7SnXoazgWZjuQyZGhKkd47aM3ELmTLGplSYJomswLjygxsJV/s1920/AgeOfDarkness2.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Random negative modification (malice) active for one
night (Age of Darkness)<br>
On a custom difficulty these can be permanent.</div>
<p>What else made you excited and motivated to play just a bit more? In
Diablo, it's the unpredictability of encounters and item drops, and the
loop of trying out new equipment and skills while obtaining new ones at
the same time. In Civilization games, it's the <i>"one more turn"</i>
syndrome where there is always one task that has been long underway and
could be finished the next turn. Seeking closure is natural and so players
are motivated to play <i>"one more turn"</i>.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder" style="text-align: center;"><img style="max-width: 480px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioIO5V4Q7HslaY0BCD1qahav8rXSUfVjnqOGskiEMhM-29e0CoCMQQ1Z9i2SwDukyQHg1vRq6wMOWiAvxWhSpBfPZ266SXHPVeGDZiS3xXMq_LZnHFCiuY9IUZFNz0vv21JNaduD93uLhU/s480/just-one-more-turn-of-civ-5-aaaand-its-monday.jpg">
</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="challenge">Challenge</p>
<p> What would be the main sources of a challenge for players seeking it? </p>
<ul>
<li>More difficult the highest standard difficulty</li>
<li>Weekly mutations and their backlog that can be completed</li>
<li>Events & greater events (~weekly mutation difficulty)</li>
<li>Empowered greater events (~hardest weekly mutations)</li>
<li>Survival mode (~you will most likely lose)</li>
</ul>
<p>Typically as challenges become more difficult, the room for error becomes
smaller, and the role of randomness increases – which mutators did you
roll? what's the map? what commander do you and your partner have? Before
you could overcome this randomness with skill, but the more challenging
the mission becomes, the less randomness you can overcome. Knowing a
challenge beforehand reduces the role of luck, and enables strategic
planning before the game – coming up with a plan and choosing the right
combination of commanders or specializations. This can be a lot of fun,
and I would say this is the most "strategic" activity the majority of
players will do in StarCraft II.</p>
<p>Because of this, more difficult challenges (greater events and weekly
mutations) would be known beforehand, and players could prepare for them.
Difficult challenges would be also aimed more at parties instead of random
matchmaking. This again reduces randomness and makes strategic planning
easier.</p>
<p>Basic events are less challenging, and so those could appear randomly
during normal missions. They would also be optional, and so players could
adjust their strategy during the mission before engaging with the event.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"><img style="max-width: 600px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLC4YZE44G1uvYbUrYtud0jNb2dZtfrPqh8R2f3JhH-pNRzlUnqvZ_TPItbmQy_U9eUTg78S2drG-2JddkrUFMjJPuRTh6MLHwJ4-48qowZYiMWrDUFUbKWcS7QOd6oxbaD4Tzco5Ggqet/s1802/2021-10-12_160409.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">The map and mutators are known before the game for
weekly mutations in StarCraft II Co-op<br>
This reduces randomness and lets players strategize.</div>
<p>Let's approach this topic by looking at the game's unpredictability. We
typically want some unpredictability, but it cannot be too low or so high
that player actions don't matter. </p>
<p>Content that's not challenging can become too predictable, and so there
is a role for in-game randomness (RNG) to spice up the gameplay and
increase gameplay variety (e.g., random events, AI, map, mutators).
However, if we increase the difficulty, the challenge combined with RNG
could mean that the game becomes too unpredictable – it's decided by the
RNG, and players lose the power over the game's outcome. For more
challenging content it's better to reduce or remove RNG and let the
unpredictability come from player execution and strategy.</p>
<p>From a low to high challenge:</p>
<ol>
<li>Casual co-op (low challenge, RNG is good and increases gameplay
variety/unpredictability)</li>
<li>Co-op challenges (medium to high challenge, RNG should be reduced)</li>
<li>Speed-running or competitive modes (maximum challenge, RNG can hinder
gameplay)</li>
</ol>
<p>Recommended RNG here is inversely proportional to challenge. However,
that's just a broad recommendation and there are always exceptions. In the
end, it's all to have good gameplay variety while keeping player agency.
There can be fun casual games with no RNG, competitive games like <i>Hearthstone
</i>with a great deal of RNG (for better or worse), or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess"
target="_blank"><u><i>Fischer Random Chess</i></u></a> with just initial
board <a href="http://keithburgun.net/randomness-and-game-design/" target="_blank"><u>input
randomness</u></a> (to combat the excessive focus on memorization of
openings and build-orders).</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 0px;"><img
style="max-width: 600px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-OtgzlKn_V_LnIsyd4gutw6lj74CwHelUVBkBiHEolOQ0TUc-xx-3po7yVq5eebZLU9h7GFe2djY5CeIIngosqlb3oLzsnqS7G3wpFI7gGdOmUYC4sPKYc7GzwpIa2Buk-GfbWNIkYmhG/s1015/fisherchess.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Fisher Random Chess randomizes the positions of
back-rank pieces and mirrors the positions for the opponent</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="mission_variety">Mission variety</p>
<p>It can be difficult to have enough content that can be played with
commanders. SC2 Co-op eventually reached 15 unique missions with
randomized patterns, enemy factions, and the maps could be further
enhanced with various mutators in different modes (weekly & custom
mutations or Brutal+). Let's see what other approaches could help the
effort for more content playable with co-op commanders.</p>
<ul>
<li>When creating campaign missions, make it as easy as possible to later
port the mission to co-op. While a co-op campaign would be great, every
mission would likely not support all present and future co-op
commanders, as that would limit the campaign and commander design too
much.</li>
<li>Have an easy way for mapmakers to let players use their purchased and
leveled commanders in custom maps. The system would automatically get
which commanders the player has and what's their progression status. No
experience would be granted for custom maps, but it would make things
easier for mapmakers (thus better and more content) and make purchasing
and leveling commanders more meaningful.</li>
<li>If there is a variety mode that changes rules each week, co-op
commanders could be playable during some rotations.</li>
<li>Having good challenging content with interesting rewards will be
enough for some players. I believe the addition of events, greater
events, and some kind of survival mode would help here.</li>
<li>Increased randomization (events & bonus objectives, attack wave
timing and spawn points, more diverse hybrids/heroic units, experiment
with dynamic weather effects like rain, snow, desert).</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="plan">A plan for Co-op</p>
<p>With all that out of the way, let's finally look at one possible plan for
co-op. This plan builds upon SC2 Co-op, is by no means perfect, and could
be structured differently – for example with more focus on the survival
mode, 2v1, or something wholly different. There might better ways to
approach it, and I'm looking forward to seeing what other games will do.
SpellForce 3 will be adding a co-op system, and there might be something
to learn from Overwatch 2's Co-op missions as well.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">1. More challenging highest standard
difficulty</span>. Together with the challenge of basic events, this
would make the baseline co-op experience better for experienced players.
The goal is to push the need for different modes that provide a challenge
a bit further.</p>
<p>Standard difficulty cannot scale to the same difficulties as Brutal+, but
there is a design space for some difficulty increase. This could include
stronger and more upgraded earlier waves, hybrids gaining new or improved
abilities, randomized spawn points, an equivalent to harassing Nyduses and
Warp Prisms – similarly how Terran AI harasses with nukes, or heroic units
like Leviathans being a part of later attack waves. Not showing attacking
wave indicators is another possibility, but that might not fit well into
co-op.</p>
<p>The downsides of having increased maximum difficulty for standard
missions are higher fragmentation of the matchmaking queue if there are
more difficulties, or making it harder to advance to the next difficulty
if there aren't more difficulties. This could be addressed with an
improved system for mixed difficulties, which doesn't work that well in
StarCraft II.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUwJzdOhYjc9LtWZSLf1Tt1X8FGbVlg0DS2eswZkR0tGsW6uRiQ3cITzi4WDQHEYTchyphenhyphenz3WofnUcUpOT9Q_8_hEW7wRCNftlaHJ0TlvhlEdRXCM_AvL-a1aGPPFO0OQKyxX2iXkxWIOcLC/s1920/VL.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Attacks on the Void Launch mission can be scary when
waves combine and include heroic units like Motherships<br>
(StarCraft II Co-op)</div>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">2. Increased mission randomization</span>.
This is to increase gameplay variety for normal missions. Randomization
could affect events, bonus objectives, attack wave timings and spawn
points, or enemy heroic units. More commander-to-commander interactions
can have a similar effect in the random queue. It would be also
interesting to explore a way to start a map at different times of day and
weather (rain, snow, desert). That could be a purely visual effect –
either random or tied to certain mutators and events (e.g., Blizzard →
snowing). This should make the experience more distinct and memorable.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">3. Randomized rewards</span> are something
I enjoy in action RPGs like Diablo, and it could lead to more excitement
about rewards and more interesting progression. It's an understatement to
say that you are not very excited to get your 59.5k XP after a mission in
SC2. However, it's important to strike a good balance between what's
randomized and what isn't. Randomized rewards can be tricky to get right.</p>
<p>I imagine each mission would provide a consistent reward the same way as
in SC2 Co-op, this would include experience and in-game currency if there
is any. Events, greater events and other challenges would also grant
randomized rewards (cosmetics, bonus XP and currency, commander
side-grades, etc.). Granted that there would be an alternative way to get
a specific commander side-grade if you were unlucky and wanted it badly.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">4. Events and Greater Events</span>. I
talked about them <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html#events"
target="_blank"><u>previously</u></a> and in this post, and I see them
as the main way to increase gameplay variety, create rising and falling
tension and difficulty between games, and in the case of basic events also
increase unpredictability. The main distinction is that basic events can
appear randomly during normal missions, while greater events are
semi-randomized challenges that a player can unlock and complete at any
time when in a party. Greater events provide a higher challenge and better
rewards. There could be empowered greater events for even more challenge
and rewards if more unlocks were spent on them.</p>
<p>There is a lot to talk about, but one question is particularly
interesting. Would requiring a party for greater events be beneficial? On
one side it's a bit bothersome having to talk to someone and form a party,
but on the other side, it leads to a better social experience. The goal
would be made to make this as painless as possible. First, unlocks for
unlocking a greater event are provided by the party leader, and so a
person helping is rewarded without spending any of his unlocks. Players
are encouraged to help others.</p>
<p> Second, unlocks can be saved up. This means there is no pressure to
party up when you don't feel like it. The unlocks can be spent later when
a friend comes online. This also makes solo play in random matchmaking
more meaningful as it impacts when you play later in a party. And it
naturally shifts these more difficult challenges to when you are in a
party.</p>
<p>For these reasons I think requiring a party for greater events
could be beneficial. Automated dungeon finders in MMOs like <i>World of
Warcraft</i> certainly made it a lot easier for players to enjoy the
content, but at the same time, it also hurt the social side of the game
which is the main selling point of MMOs. I think greater events could
incentivize social interaction, and that would have a positive effect on
the game in the long term. This is also why I argued for making it as easy
as possible to go from talking to someone outside of the game to playing
together (with <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/09/TR10-social-features.html#links"
target="_blank"><u>links</u></a>). Though I cannot be sure that
requiring a party would have the desired effect. Plus it depends on other
factors like other social systems, how often would you engage with greater
events or what are rewards. If players engaged significantly less with the
content because of the party requirement, then that would be a
problem.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder" style="text-align: center"><img style="max-width: 580px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7hkTo-CmSZBsky4o62h75imjwbDjYHCNsWWX2XndQRT4KBQi6yq8SfjydKZF9Mg9jMqBNSgmnL5dWGnx6MXdDCB81EAhjDtdfOj0Hhv7qWQPxhdNtRdiJUgqc7Ogpt4fmMIvI0-1akXWV/s580/dungeon+finder.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Automated dungeon finder in World of Warcraft<br>
Great for getting to play the content, less good for socializing in the
game</div>
<p> <span style="color: #ff9900;">5. Weekly mutations and backlog</span>.
Weekly mutations have been a great addition to SC2 Co-op and it would be
great to see them continue. One nice thing to add would be a list of
previous mutations. It would mark which mutations you have completed, and
let you play any of them when in a party. You could be given a reward for
completing the ones you haven't already, but the reward would be lower
than when completing it in its week. Still, that would be a lot of content
for people who weren't playing each week.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html#weekly" target="_blank"><u>I
also previously suggested</u></a> letting players repeat the current
weekly mutation with unique commanders few times for limited additional
rewards.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9DNwmUYHyr9skonEwYypV1MCrzlBINuCsp00m2a8vORhWlFdblaLV-DSyZXFMRY2a61UoIhRWRNBhcVdgw1A4KMgBEbj1s81rqz4jOU-NUDSaPBBH2bRAaWywD38DYsOpZ2B8YCKTZYEe/s1920/weekly2.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Weekly mutations could be promoted on the main screen</div>
<p> <span style="color: #ff9900;">6. Survival mode</span> is something that
shouldn't be missing from Co-op. But there are multiple ways how it might
be implemented. It could be part of greater events, an optional part of
certain missions, or a separate mode altogether. </p>
<p>Another question is what exactly would be the goal? Is it to survive a
certain amount of waves as in <i>They are Billions</i> and other recent
survival RTS? Get the best score with infinite ever more difficult waves?
Or complete as many side objectives while defending? My demo for SC2 Co-op
was with infinite waves, but I also like the idea of a fixed amount of
waves and side objectives to complete. That would enable some sort of
dynamic difficulty by players choosing what they will try to complete, and
increase variety by randomizing these objectives.</p>
<p> <span style="color: #ff9900;">7. Game passes/seasons</span> could be a
part of Co-op. The main idea is to add something new for players to enjoy
on a scale of 3–6 months. These might or might not align with commander
and map releases. They could include new rewards, (greater) events, and
other gameplay modifications which might or might not stay after the
season ends (similarly to leagues on <i>Path of Exile</i>).</p>
<p>There could be additional monetization beyond purchasing a commander, but
that would be tied with other modes like competitive, and I don't want to
speculate on that here.</p>
<p class="smallheading">other notes</p>
<ul>
<li>I didn't mention streaming integration. While I think it's great to
have, it's not something defining co-op.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html#2v1" target="_blank"><u>Asymmetric
2v1</u></a> with co-op commanders could be a lot of fun. If there
was enough willpower to try it, I would lean more towards trying to
seamlessly integrate it into standard co-op than creating a whole
separate mode.</li>
<li>I didn't include anything similar to Brutal+, though (greater) events
would likely include mutators. I don't think the mode is bad, but there
are challenges with it in StarCraft II. This includes using mutators
that were designed for something different, not knowing the mutators
beforehand, and lower Brutal+ difficulties being more annoying than
challenging. A lot of it could be improved, but right now I prefer the
event-greater event system more.</li>
<li>There are a lot of ideas about other modes with mutators like my <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/04/challenge-mode.html"
target="_blank"><u>challenge mode</u></a>, scaling modes where each
mission adds mutators (or you choose from limited options), or
player-created mutation challenges that can be completed by anyone or
selected players. These are very interesting as well and could be used
if co-op was structured another way.</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p>This has been a long post, and I think I have touched on a lot of
interesting topics. The goal here wasn't to show a recipe how to create a
co-op, but instead to see what such recipe should even do, and then try to
formulate something that I could imagine working. I don't expect the
actual co-op mode to look anything like this, but hopefully the post was
useful and interesting. Thank you for reading.</p>
<p>More links to check out:</p>
<ul>
<li><u><a href="https://www.erikstill.me/blog/the-7-elements-of-a-satisfying-grind"
target="_blank">https://www.erikstill.me/blog/the-7-elements-of-a-satisfying-grind</a></u></li>
<li><a href="https://blizzardwatch.com/2020/11/24/wow-game-systems/" target="_blank"><u>https://blizzardwatch.com/2020/11/24/wow-game-systems/</u></a></li>
</ul>
<p>And previous transmissions...</p>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-71987772959252219832021-09-13T15:53:00.004+02:002021-09-13T16:50:31.809+02:00Transmission 10: Social Features<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>TR10: Social Features</title>
<style>
.lispacing > li {margin-top: 0.3em}
.litighter > li {margin: 0!important}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div span {
font-size: 40px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.quoting {
margin-left: 10px;
padding-left: 10px;
padding-left: 10px;
border-left: 3px solid #555;
margin-bottom: 30px;
}
.quoting > p {
padding-top: 5px;
padding-bottom: 5px;
margin-bottom: -10px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd6EaOtpmKEoSNkC15SwbFu_rFaX7Vjyc_tGgvEANcdN6lw0FY4FGaOmWksQGqv_1oSTqR-Tk46YR5f29ttYeMZR4BnipVh-XzoXpn7Trxlk_9qaQd3vJnfkbBFFqqB-hpVKMcs1U-B6Jp/s1200/Banner+-+Social.jpg"><br>
<div> <span>Transmission 10</span><br>
Social Features in RTS</div>
</div>
<p>I wrote about socialization in RTS <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html#socialaspect"
target="_blank"><u>before</u></a>, but with <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/phajwa/discussion_topic_20219_social_features/"
target="_blank"><u>the new discussion topic on r/FrostGiant</u></a>, I
thought it's worth revisiting it. After all, socialization is important
and helps to grow the community around the game. Plus I believe there are
social features that have a potential and could be looked at.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>My interaction with social features in StatCraft II (SC2) has been fairly
limited. I mainly use discord and reddit for communication related to
gaming. And of course, YouTube and Twitch deliver most of the video
content, while Twitch is also a decent place to interact with other
viewers.<br>
<br>
While I did use official forums, I'm not sure it's worth having them when
discord and reddit fill those rolls well and are more accessible and
discoverable. It would be good to promote these communities (reddit,
discord, etc.) in the game – together with currently live streams and
other community content.</p>
<p>Basic features like a friend list, party chat, and direct messages are
still very useful for communication in-game. A good ping system can reduce
the need to chat in team games and lowers language barriers. But a
built-in voice chat is something I have never used in any RTS game.</p>
<p>Some older games (BW, WC3) managed global chat channels a bit better than
SC2. I also like the idea of putting players into chat channels based on
their location (in addition to the global chat). It's probably a better
experience to see players you have something in common and players you
might see again, rather than a randomly selected group of players from the
whole server.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Now let's look at some more interesting features. Some of them might be
bigger in scope, but I believe it's the small changes that can make the
biggest difference by reducing the barriers in how players interact with
the game. This includes how easy and fast is it to go from talking with
someone on discord to playing a game together, or the other way around –
how easy is to share things to social media. If a feature is awkward,
takes too many clicks, or doesn't work consistently, then players won't
use it even if the feature itself could be great.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="links">1. Links</p>
<p>A player could generate a special link and post it both outside or inside
the game. Clicking the link would send another player directly to join a
lobby, a party, to an in-game spectating session in progress, to join a
clan, a group, or to a replay hosted on the game's servers.</p>
<p>This could be a good improvement given how much communication nowadays
happen outside of the game. Often times setting a party with someone is
just a bit too much work for one or two games. With this you could
generate a link, post it into the chat, and clicking it would
automatically add the player to your party. The goal is to reduce the time
and work it takes to go from chatting with someone to playing with them.
Though links could have many other uses.</p>
<p>To prevent clicking on the link and launching the game only to realize
the party or session is long over, the link could go first to a game's
server. The server would check whether the session is still available, and
if yes, redirect the user to launch the game if necessary and to the
session. A feature isn't very good if it doesn't work consistently.</p>
<p>The game launching fast helps as well. I can go from desktop to killing
demons in <i>Doom Eternal</i> in 10 seconds if I smash buttons. But I
will be more reluctant to play few games if launching the game takes a
significant amount of time.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI0rfnRvhSHrz9r5hS0j73zl_1HTX9CA25WqLWECQ0bxBp2s5KKkmON-Nk243BEsXQUgZwciDsrHuUO-xyXH5D5-wFxWA5gAGlg6pnW-6tXSdvz8HGgTIK9icSOf8UM2_5LD7Kgnp9FBbn/s1920/2021-09-08_153429+copy.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Every second counts in games (<a href="https://youtu.be/RzZSyjag7cQ"
target="_blank"><u>source</u></a>)</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="shareablecontent">2. Easily shareable content</p>
<p>Another way to reduce barriers is to make sharing in-game content easy. I
already wrote about <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission06.html#postgamescreen"
target="_blank"><u>post-game screens</u></a> which tell a story that can
be shared. I tried creating such post-game screens in my MM maps (<u><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhax6IjIFFoMdOXdEYAN11tKfrqy_UIfT3rX3kk_gOibWOnGOv6jVOv80QHL7nJ8zTC-aDITPJQ5M0Dzx9VjgxbqkKeNtTam5eGfhRidGQZt2m2kozjnvd_k24dzhSJN333ighMeplgQQOW/s1920/mm+score.jpg"
target="_blank">image</a></u>) and SC2 Co-op Overlay.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder" style="text-align: left;"><img style="max-width: 800px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyG3Hgd9b33hwpGbyqJP9SBSw8b5g_jAsdj3WmweiMRJ4ZdGDjVq7tzycLQRsaeIecO4Ay821mVzCoTvEBIBBkcLzlmc8IiUwahSH0sHe-_Qzhldm4avQ6jiLd8Wpxr-98NmyWlAGcoNza/s1069/Overlay_161027.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Post-game information in my <a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/SC2_Coop_overlay"
target="_blank"><u>SC2 Co-op Overlay</u></a></div>
<video controls="controls"> <source src="https://i.imgur.com/wYilbQD.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag. </video>
<div class="subnote"><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/558990/Opus_Magnum/"
target="_blank"><u>Opus Magnum</u></a> is excellent at making it easy to
share your solutions</div>
<p>Another interesting feature would be if after each game few interesting
moments would be automatically identified. Players could replay them
in-game (a sort of mini replay) to remind themselves of the cool moments,
save them to their profile or share them. There could be an option to
render them into a video for sharing outside of the game. Players could
choose specific times from a replay, but having those moments
automatically identified would make it significantly easier.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="streamingintegration">3. Streaming integration</p>
<p>Streaming integration can help to make streaming more engaging for both
streamers and viewers. I wrote about it <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html#streamingintegration"
target="_blank"><u>previously</u></a> and created my own implementation
as a proof of concept for my <a href="https://www.maguro.one/p/my-maps.html"
target="_blank"><u>MM maps</u></a> and the <a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/SC2_Coop_overlay"
target="_blank"><u>overlay app</u></a>.</p>
<p>I believe there is some potential, especially for PvE modes. Other games
have their implementations like <i><a href="https://vermintide2.fandom.com/wiki/Twitch_Mode"
target="_blank"><u>Warhammer: Vermintide 2</u></a></i> where viewers
can add buffs or items to players, spawn enemy units or activate mutators;
or <i><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/780310/The_Riftbreaker/"
target="_blank"><u>Riftbreaker</u></a></i> lets viewers join as enemy
mobs, and vote on upcoming events.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEithwkWD_oIX0eutxKEjJRJSCxWmGNuw9MDOkfy0ugx3wKkZAuVMi5E7Okce1NoYTxgl431Er6s-MuIRfnV5dnb_TNF_NilYuZ0E5oCiCN0gRv3X-hK2TGHS2pcaeapDXjJrxv6-NdLDNY3/s1600/party.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Viewers joining the game – no gameplay effect but it's
still more engaging for the viewers</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="socialcontext">4. Social context when playing</p>
<p>Playing a competitive 1v1 or team games in a random queue can feel
lonely. Giving more social context to the game can make it less lonely and
your achievements more meaningful. Leveling a commander in Co-op feels
more meaningful because you know you will be able to play it with other
players (even if you switched to your main commander right back).</p>
<p>Other things that could help:</p>
<ul>
<li>Showing notifications to friends or clan members when a player
achieved something. Blizzard games do this to some degree for
"achievements", but that mostly comes off as spam. Only the truly
important events should be shown (e.g. a player advanced into the next
league in 1v1).</li>
<li>Leaderboards for players in a clan or local area.</li>
<li>Show MMR in relation to people you might know. SC2 has divisions, but
I don't think people care about the random players in a division. It
could be better to frame your progress relative to noteworthy players
like your friends, common opponents, etc.</li>
</ul>
Things in sections <i>#2 Easily shareable content</i> and <i>#5 In-game
spectating </i>can improve the social context as well<i>.</i><br>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKoTGtz3pLz8NYVBTQTB9xox6TVGvzI_wwycY0RAEMRjPXWKSTvGlPWRPSXTRv9EH1DdBlFuoJw4nhNd0mOhweztl66fcXLyF2MB_Clb2v4OxYUDtg2Q9spvNYkqE9qge7qPtpl65hTTu/s1920/artosis.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">The focus on losing points isn't good, but the game
nicely shows your progress relative to your friends<br>
(StarCraft Remastered)</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="spectating">5. in-game spectating</p>
<p>In-game spectating could be a good addition to the game. I can see it
work in various situations:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Spectate a friend's ladder game. This would be good for socializing
and learning. The vision would be limited to your friend, and ideally no
or minimal added delay. Low delay would be very helpful for coaching as
well.</li>
<li>Spectating selected or a random player in the chosen league and
matchup. This would be good for learning and socializing if more
spectators are there. Spectators have full vision, can chat with each
other. But there is an added delay to prevent abuse.</li>
<li>Spectating tournaments.</li>
</ul>
<p>I wrote about this topic before:</p>
<div class="quoting">
<p> There could always be a list of ongoing games that you might find
interesting. You could update your preferences based on matchups you
want to watch, favorite players, or leagues. Games with more viewers or
with your friends would be more likely recommended.</p>
<p>Spectators would be able to chat with each other, form a party to join
another game together, or bet on game outcomes. There could be cosmetic
rewards tied to spectating and betting.</p>
<p>Overall, I believe this could be good for socialization, learning, and
just maintaining interest in the game. Some days you just don't want to
play, but you might hop in and spectate a few friend's games or with
friends. I don't believe online streaming provides quite the same
experience, it has a barrier to entry, and not everyone can or will
stream.</p>
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"><img style="max-width:500px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi70iPSGQKUjC7t4HNmXCc_J6NWEvfshgyYmwLVmcOiuAR34j7hrsKbvz_Lyzg8QDLfHbnoFP8gcVLSSRUYtxaZYotBegbBN4l2hjNIF97kbts6xUz4mgwxnS4nba2CE6HQSDVe6Cv40QDQ/s1317/streaming.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">My naive image of how in-game spectating could work
with the lockstep architecture</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="betting">6. in-game Betting</p>
<p>In-game betting could accompany in-game spectating. It's a lot more
engaging to watch a match that you have bet on – even if it's meaningless
internet points.</p>
<p>I imagine it being similar to the betting system on Twitch. There would
be a betting currency that players would be given for free periodically.
The only way to use it would be to bet on in-game matches or tournaments.
Winning would get you more of the betting currency and there could be a
chance for other rewards if the game supports it. But other than that, the
betting economy would be self-contained without any option to purchase the
currency or cash it out. Its sole reason is to make spectating more
interesting. The only things to gain is to show your betting stats and
occasionally gain few cosmetic rewards.</p>
<p> Betting has been done in the peepmode (arcade map) in games like
StarCraft II, you can bet your Twitch points on Twitch, and Dota 2 has an
extensive betting system. </p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"><img style="max-width:500px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwBBoCpxDbgCqsCEK6XCt3Qf8ifyKgYPlh3cgOeqvsaesVKOyV-vftAe_PPcI2PBSSvJclyz-hYYg8lmYM5yznK4afFE_3afOIOZKHk2QUixu9uFXIqDEobRymItHrSL7hWpbWAwI-lJvx/s754/2021-09-06_160612.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Betting with Twitch points on a game's outcome</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="clans">7. Clans & Groups</p>
<p>I have thought about clans for some time, but it's hard to find a good
use for them in a game like StarCraft II. Most of the communication
already happens outside of the game, and then going from there to playing
the game should be as easy and quick as possible.</p>
<p>Still, some support for players to organize in-game is good – whether
it's a clan or a group – basic features like shared chat, moderators,
ability to post links and announcements.</p>
<p>Other clan features could include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Clan leaderboards (of clans or players in a clan) if there are good
metrics for that.</li>
<li>Clan cosmetics for all members – those could be obtained by individual
members or by "leveling" the clan in some way. Perhaps these cosmetics
would have more options for customization and combination to make them
uniquely clan-specific.</li>
<li>Some small rewards could be given to everyone in the clan when a
player obtains a certain reward. The goal of these would be to make clan
members appreciate the one particular member who is directly responsible
for that reward.</li>
<li>Then there are always clanwars but implementing things like that is
likely to be difficult.</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p>Thank you for reading. I highlighted a few social features in this
article, and hopefully we might see some of them in future RTS games. I
believe there is a potential for improvements – whether it will come from
bigger features like streaming integration or from smaller changes
reducing obstacles and framing things better.</p>
<p>Interesting links to check out:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.erikstill.me/blog/social-features-social-experience"
target="_blank"><u>https://www.erikstill.me/blog/social-features-social-experience</u></a></li>
</ul>
For discussion check <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/pngt1j/tr10_social_features/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread on r/FrostGiant</u></a>. And check out my
previous posts and transmissions.
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-58446388296880593982021-08-20T12:27:00.007+02:002021-08-28T10:29:16.710+02:00Faction image & design<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Faction image & design</title>
<style>
.lispacing>li {
margin-top: 0.3em
}
.litighter>li {
margin: 0 !important
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div p {
font-size: 40px;
margin: 0 0 0 0;
margin-top: -13px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
#protoss_list li {
margin-bottom: 0px
}
#protoss_list>li {
margin-top: 10px;
margin-bottom: 0px
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_mkRZssClGF4Fj_K0UYuFBomirqUKYkaIcscFOM8CfibBKQMATZ3lngx3J2q_sDiYShe2kDOB87KHtaSD4X-8KKYVq5MEbpGqqt5_rC40Bjw3tKHkocrRud6Hxr_V3WP_BlwzBQkgTL7x/s1200/Banner.jpg">
<div>Faction image & design</div>
</div>
<p>Sometimes a faction in an RTS is perceived negatively. And while a game's
balance changes every patch, these perceptions can be more deeply rooted
in the faction's design. Looking at the reasons behind this could help to
explain why some factions have a bad reputation, or this knowledge might
be useful when designing new RTS factions.</p>
<p> One difficulty to exploring this is that the current balance affects
faction images as well – an uneven balance will make the currently
over-performing faction look easy to play, and the under-performing
faction hard to play. It becomes difficult to separate this effect from
more underlying design issues. Fortunately, there are games like StarCraft
I & II that received many patches and expansions during which balance
changed often. It becomes easier to separate these effects, and I will
look at StarCraft II later in this post.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="examples">Various examples</p>
<p> I will go over reasons why Protoss often gets a bad image. StarCraft II
is after all a great case to look at – thanks to its long-term support and
highly asymmetric factions. But it might be interesting to first look at
other games and see why factions there get a bad image.</p>
<p> <span style="color: #ff9900;">Traveler-59</span> in <i> C&C3
Kane's Wrath</i> is a Scrin subfaction. In my opinion, the main dislike
comes because of various mind-control (MC) abilities available from <i>
Cultists </i> (single-target permanent MC) and <i> Prodigy</i>
(single-target permanent MC and area-of-effect temporary MC) all with low
cooldowns (20/30s). The enemy stealing your units always feels bad, and
Traveler-59 can focus on MC abilities heavily. Compare that to the strict
limitations of <i> Dark Archons</i> and <i>Infestors</i> in StarCraft.
Even if a strategy focused on MC abilities is balanced, losing to it will
always feel bad. Prodigy stealing and instantly selling a <i>Construction
Yard</i> or T3 tech can be a game ending moment as well.</p>
<p> There are other things like fast <i>Disintegrators</i> that can
straight up end the game. And it compounds with the Scrin faction
seemingly not always playing by the same rules. For example, if a GDI epic
unit is low on health and taking damage, there is a good chance it will
get destroyed which is a potentially game-ending moment. But Scrin faction
has several get-out-of-jail cards – it can teleport the epic unit back to
safety, make it temporarily invulnerable, or stasis the enemy army and
walk home. This can feel unfair even if it's balanced.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWfjRHI0PEb6UZiH5aPqeDgZwufs_4Qv2F10K6h1uyxticoaaEcTiTxhnPWH5QT47FUk_isl8iaFeSZCLAudzF0a7mJMNbm_X5wsZMBZGhyphenhyphenZaxrQICSLKux2HQ_nCsUwxczpJYslym7Jll/s2860/prodigy+cultists.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote"> Prodigy and Cultists have strong mind-control
abilities <br>
(Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath) </div>
<span style="color: #ff9900;">Oberkommando West</span> (OKW) in <i> Company
of Heroes II </i> is a German subfaction that also got its share of
dislikes. It has a powerful early game <i>Sturmpioneer</i> engineering
squad that fairs well against most enemy infantry, as well as other
all-around units for all stages of the game. The faction scales extremely
well into the lategame with powerful units and more veterancy levels than
other (sub-)factions (five instead of three).
<p> There are also things that OKW can do that other factions cannot, for
example retreat its anti-tank gun (<i>Raketenwefer 43 Anti-Tank Rocket
Launcher</i>). Overall it's a very powerful all-around subfaction that
sometimes doesn't play by the same rules or isn't punished for the same
mistakes.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7xO0pITh2Hq7Ht9A6Wp_xO0AIajJuv1mmnEaKQKVTEaosY9ZIov8XalctgIPGerqBpttYPrzVuShHQk6cdsM7paLpmpwNKHJZMJZTLT2rpVPVtA0xrnr05cdFUjVYExKEx13RGTZphBln/s1920/okw.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote"> Oberkommando West has solid generalist units that
excel at all phases of the game and scale well into lategame <br>
(Company of Heroes 2) </div>
<span style="color: #ff9900;">Sweden</span> was also disliked after its
addition to <i>Age of Empires III</i>. That stemmed from balance issues as
their <i>Caroleans</i> (Swedish musketeers) were very effective and without
apparent weaknesses.<br>
<p> Though the balance of <i>Caroleans</i> has been addressed in the
following patches, there are still things like Swedish Torps. These are
houses that also spawn berries, automatically harvest nearby resources,
and have an attack to kill animals or defend themselves. That's a lot of
functionality given to a bit more expensive house, and at least on the
surface looks like something for an easy mode.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1dTZ3F2BaxGrFs-IcAL4K5ZKCRiXb2r_Oql6P2hm-m-14gId2FDMX3lu0lTqrwnX6hWwGXC3bO9Y06jWi7wqEk-0-iTaVoTfuhpgdcn7goSmeO7iiZlOJOvL7oAMJVuiRJUCaVZMZmt9L/s1041/swe.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Swedish Caroleans & Torp (Age of Empires 3)</div>
<p> I wouldn't say <span style="color: #ff9900;">Allies</span> in <i> Red
Alert 3 </i> get a bad reputation as they are difficult to play well.
But they have things that feel bad to play against – especially the focus
on freezing units. A frozen unit is stunned and will get one-shotted by
anything. Taking agency from the player and delaying the unit death can
feel worse than just losing a unit. <i>Cryogeddon</i> (upgraded support
power) is the big culprit, but that also comes to how spammy support
abilities in <i>Red Alert 3</i> are.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTNW18yfqqynsTDhmqMDENUZwvDrG62whFbp-ouY3nON9p55xORzXdMk-D6zvHxvfaqtLCa0Cp8jwQ3F5s84GKaWaeB_UNBHqtTznuhjz9UOX5yE2XpWJCU9Xj7waLzY37svdT-FcCwepT/s1920/cryo.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Cryogeddon freezing an entire army (Red Alert 3)</div>
<p> <span style="color: #ff9900;">Raven clan</span> in <i>Northgard</i>
can feel bad to play against as players are forced to make defenses around
coasts, costing them wood and valuable building slots in coastal tiles.
Their ability to harass puts skill checks and limitations that no other
faction does. This doesn't lead to wide dislike of the faction, but it's
one of the things that can accumulate.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM2cGc-Fvg8Y_GyAPFA8bQmsHdfJHUwxwQGQf2BezC6YGBzaEDQkBDyhSYX265hGp7xUQNEHypS8bkCNTnL_eOjvmg4rOKU5ExI84oUa2fSIFDg61qSsct-eIyJcKhxJpQNYgU__D4X851/s1091/raven.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Raven clan (Northgard)</div>
<p class="smallheading" style="margin-top: 0px" id="takeaways">Takeaways</p>
<p> Can we take something from these examples? What are some design elements
that can increase the chances of a faction having a bad image?</p>
<ul>
<li> The faction seemingly doesn't play according to the same rules. It
isn't punished for the mistakes other factions would be.</li>
<li> It uses design elements that are not fun to play against (e.g.,
removing player agency, abilities and strategies lacking counter-play,
induced high loss aversion). These are basic issues that mechanics in
competitive multiplayer can have.</li>
<li>Significantly restricts strategies available to other players.</li>
<li>Has moves that are easy to pull off and hard to counter.</li>
<li>Coin-flippy mechanics and strategies.</li>
<li>Units without apparent weaknesses.</li>
</ul>
<p> I wouldn't say a well-designed faction won't have any of those. In fact,
I would expect asymmetric factions to have some of these, which gives each
faction a different flavor and feel. In an asymmetric game, each faction
plays according to slightly different rules and restricts the opponent's
options differently.</p>
<p> The issue is when these elements accumulate for one faction or are
especially pronounced. If a faction is having an easy time with too many
mechanics and isn't punished for the same mistakes, it will start to gain
negative perception unless it's easy to see where else the faction is
difficult and punished more.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p> Apart from avoiding the points above, what are some things that can make
a faction image better?</p>
<ul>
<li> <span style="color: #ff9900;">Clearly visible impact of skill</span>.
If the skill is hidden, players and spectators that are not closely
familiar with the faction might assume the skill is not there. This
visibility of skill includes both positive impact (e.g., great infantry
splitting and kiting) and negative impact (being punished for mistakes).<a
href="https://www.twitch.tv/artosis" target="_blank" title="Artosis' twitch stream"></a>
It's a common tendency to disregard the skill and effort of a player,
and it's so easy when the skill is not clearly visible. For example, <a
target="_blank" title="Artosis' twitch stream" href="https://clips.twitch.tv/EnjoyableIntelligentCookieArgieB8-YVczQOdfVnX9s9dI"><u>Artosis</u></a>
likes to complain that <i>"the opponent did literary nothing"</i>.</li>
<li> <span style="color: #ff9900;"> Clearly visible what caused the
player to win </span> (e.g. micro, successful drop). If the cause is
hidden, players and spectators might assume the player won because of
some "bullshit". Though this can be difficult for RTS games, as the time
between a cause and its effect is higher than in other genres, and there
are many interacting systems. So identifying the cause can be difficult.
The game can end with one army rolling another, but the cause might be a
delayed expansion 5 minutes ago. Having an <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/04/TR07-teamgames.html#InformationOverload"
target="_blank"><u>easily comprehensible game state</u></a> can help
and many RTS tried to improve that.</li>
<li> <span style="color: #ff9900;"> Units with pronounced strengths and
weaknesses </span> make it clearer when they are used correctly,
better show player skill, and lead to a wider range of outcomes. For
example, a <i>Siege Tank</i> is an iconic Terran unit mainly defined by
its weaknesses. It cannot shoot air, it's costly and vulnerable when
(un-)sieging, when sieged it cannot shoot at low ranges and deals
friendly splash damage. It's these weaknesses that make the unit and
engagements interesting.</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="impact">The impact of negative perception</p>
<p> It's unfortunate for a game's audience to have a deeply rooted negative
perception of one faction. It's detrimental to both players playing the
faction and playing against it. A tribe mentality forming around factions
is normal, but it shouldn't be overly negative.</p>
This is a part from <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1xyv9k/mc_weighs_on_on_protoss_imbalance/"
target="_blank"> <u>a full post</u></a> from <a href="https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/MC"
target="_blank"> <u>MC</u></a> (Korean professional Protoss player) from
2014 which was during heavily Blink all-ins and strong <i>Mothership Core</i>.<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"> 진짜 프로되서 밸런스 징징 이런거 같이 이야기 나누고 하고 싶지않았는데 <br>
I really didn't want to talk about balance whine because I'm a pro
player, but</p>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"></div>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"> 프로토스 게이머들은 뭐 노력도안하고 종빨로 맨날 이기는거처럼 애기하니까 <br>
People are saying that Protoss players don't even try hard and win due
to the race <br>
<br>
내가 선배입장으로써 애들이 안타깝고 분통이 터져서 적어봅니다 <br>
As a veteran, I feel bad for players that get all the hate and feel
angry about it. <br>
<br>
오늘 올라간 주성욱 조성호는 일주일내내 놀다가 화투쳐서 16강 딴것도 아니고 <br>
Zest and Trap didn't go to ro16 after they were fooling around for a
week. <br>
<br>
누구보다 노력 많이했을수도있는데 무슨 종빨이니 어쩌니로 선수는 폄하 안하셨음 좋겠습니다 <br>
They probably worked very hard. So please stop saying that it's "the
power of protoss".</p>
</blockquote>
<p> <br>
It's easy to dismiss the achievements of players. It's easy to blame the
balance when the faction is already negatively perceived due to its design
issues. Then the faction image can take a nosedive when there are just a
few issues too many (in this case strong Blink all-ins and <i>Mothership
Core</i> that was eventually removed).</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder" style="text-align: center; margin-top:0px">
<img style="max-width: 687px" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSOYbM0u1wq825R8Os8Hx85XRDAvNg3YNaG0c1jGHAPe5neTG3YKCF1AbcqaEO1bpfzNvTpAeQHghfIXJSM2sQ8I_zZejtdGRuiIm5KYqIf2LvAvaPES2TSX2eIj3j-8TBBwh788-T35Vp/s687/sadzealotbackground.jpg">
</div>
<p class="smallheading" style="margin-top: 0px" id="protoss">Protoss</p>
<p> I could make a list of views contributing to a faction's negative image
for other factions as well, but as mentioned previously it's the
accumulated effect that counts. People will subconsciously compare such
lists against each other and find an outlier. When a faction has a
negative perception throughout two games, three expansions, and many
patches, there must be something to it.</p>
Disclaimer: Do not take these notes as facts, a wide enough perception that
they are true is enough. After all, this post is about image and perception.
A view can be unsubstantiated and inaccurate, but at the same time, if it
exists, the implications could be as severe as those of actual balance
issues.
<p>So what views contribute to the negative Protoss image?</p>
<ul id="protoss_list">
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Having a good repertoire of cheesy and
all-in strategies</span></li>
<ul>
<li> These increase the role of luck in the game, and through it players
can get few easy wins. It's easier to learn one strategy than to learn
to defend all of them and how to play standard. And they force the
opponent into a very different type of game. <u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/06/TR09-gameplay-variety.html#cheeses_rushes"
target="_blank">I wrote about this topic previously in more detail</a></u>.</li>
</ul>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Having powerful unit compositions that
are very effective with minimal control</span> and take more effort to
fight against (Chargelots, Immortal-Archon-Chargelot, traditional
Colossi deathball, Skytoss).</li>
<ul>
<li> I would say this mostly falls into the lack of having a "clearly
visible impact of skill". Though it's possible that some of these
compositions are consistently over-performing at lower skill levels, I
don't have any data on that. Balancing such an asymmetric game is
basically impossible for all skill levels.</li>
</ul>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">The faction seemingly ignores certain
mechanics or has them easier</span>. As mentioned before, this is
natural in an asymmetric game but it compounds.</li>
<ul>
<li> Warpins lets Protoss players ignore the defender's advantage to a
certain degree. Often the Protoss player has faster reinforcements
than the defending player.</li>
<li>Less punished when out of position thanks to recall and warpins.</li>
<li>Easier base management than other factions.</li>
<li> Not having units that need a setup (e.g., Lurkers, Tanks,
Liberators). All units can be a-moved and move at a decent speed. High
Templar was even given an auto-attack to make a-moving easier. Why do
Protoss players need that while other factions do not?</li>
<li> Sturdy units with auto regenerating shields are more resilient to
splash damage than units of other factions, and shield regeneration
prevents attrition.</li>
<li> Warp Prisms provide a high potential for damage at a very low
investment cost, especially if we compare them to something like
Medivac drops.</li>
</ul>
<li> I would also argue that the <span style="color: #ff9900;">tendency
to deathball, snowball, and often resulting binary outcomes</span> of
battles don't help the faction image either. There are few reasons for
that. First, binary outcomes with high stakes amplify the role of
randomness. Second, if engagements snowball quickly (binary outcome),
then the game can end convincingly for the winner with a simple a-move.
Due to less visible skill and a higher role of luck, the cause can be
easily misattributed to an imbalance. More on this in the next part, but
now let's look at some reasons why Protoss tends to deathball and
snowball.</li>
<ul>
<li> Sturdy units naturally snowball more (less attrition, less
susceptible to splash).</li>
<li> Auto-regeneration (shields) prevents attrition damage to the
deathball and helps to snowball after a fight.</li>
<li> There are a lot of Protoss options for splash damage that make
engaging deathballs even harder.</li>
<li> Higher weapon ranges increase DPS density and make deathballs more
effective.</li>
<li> Units that gain increased weapon range once the target is acquired
(Void Rays, Carriers) make disengaging an army harder which leads to
more snowballing. Both units also have some ability to move while
attacking when in combat, which has the same impact.</li>
<li> Warp gate reduces defender's advantage and makes the game more
snowbally.</li>
<li> Due to warp gate design, there is usually an expensive core of
units with basic gateway units serving as a meatshield in front. The
core is either cracked, which is very bad for Protoss, or not cracked
and gateway units are quickly reinforced through Warp Gates, which is
bad for the other player. This differentiation makes the outcome more
binary and the game more snowbally.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p><br>
I want to put the last point in contrast with the widely liked <i>
Marine-Marauder-Mine-Medivac vs Muta-Ling-Bling </i> matchup in ZvT.
There all units are frequently getting killed, armies consist of many
small units with low weapon ranges, units are often split into multiple
groups to attack different locations or to surround, and defender's
advantages are preserved. This has lead to one of the best matchups in
StarCraft II.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="balance">Effect on balance</p>
<p> Balance isn't the point of this post, but I thought it might be
interesting to look at how some things make it harder for developers to
balance the game.</p>
<p> I would say the main issue is with the game being decided by few player
interactions with binary outcomes and high stakes (for example <i> "Did
you scout it or not?</i>" or <i>"Who won that one big battle"</i>). If
a game's outcome significantly relies on a single interaction between
players like this, then the game is more difficult to balance.</p>
<p> One could argue that the game state will be inevitably reduced to a
binary outcome (win/loss), but what matters is how many meaningful player
interactions have led to it. One big battle deciding a match isn't a bad
thing if there were multiple engagements throughout the game that led to
one player having a better army. However, if there were no engagements
before that, then that single moment can have too much weight put on it.</p>
<p> If there are more interactions between players and with more gradual
outcomes, the difference in player skill is more accurately measured over
many interactions. A single impactful interaction would amplify the
effects of randomness (coming from the game itself or execution) and
doesn't measure skill well. The more skill matters, the less a faction
choice or any imbalance matters.</p>
<p> If there is a balance issue with a certain unit or game phase, having
multiple player interactions throughout the game will reduce the effect of
that imbalance. On the other side, a single interaction with a binary
outcome and high stakes can amplify this imbalance (e.g. overpowered
cheese, all-in or lategame fight). Developers might also have an easier
time when more interactions matter due to there being more things they can
tweak to precisely target a problem.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p> Protoss can naturally amplify any imbalance while focusing on it through
dedicated cheese/all-in. Warp Gate tech helps with that, as well as the
effect of Chronoboost and diverging tech with high investment. This means
that Protoss is very good at putting everything into a single build. The
cost it pays is less solid gameplay outside of these dedicated builds.
Though this improved especially in <i>Legacy of the Void</i> through the
effort of developers.</p>
<p> Protoss tendency to deathball and snowball also leads to more binary
outcomes often deciding a game, and made balancing the game harder.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="conclusion">Conclusion</p>
<p> Hopefully, it's more clear what are some reasons that can make a faction
have a worse image. Such a situation isn't good for any players or
spectators. Some design elements can also make the game harder to balance
for developers.</p>
<p> I think that Blizzard's StarCraft team has done a good job at improving
Protoss throughout the years, but it has been a constant battle against
Protoss' design issues. Ideally, the worst issues would have
been avoided in <i>Wings of Liberty</i>, but it's easy to say now.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/poll/pbzz78" target="_blank"><u>Related
pool <i>"Which race do you dislike the most?"</i></u></a> from
r/starcraft</p>
<p> From interesting links here is <a href="https://illiteracyhasdownsides.com/2016/12/01/rts-design-principles-and-protoss-a-call-for-a-new-design-patch/"
target="_blank"> <u>an old Brownbear's post about Protoss design (2016)</u></a>.
Though he is mostly focusing on reasons why Protoss wasn't that fun to
play.</p>
<i>And now for some old Protoss memes...</i> <br>
<p></p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 600px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwCagKOJKz7mNJg4tHtsfuWCRqnZpzTRpx4m2UBHBOpoLoFFBqwMLN9jKZaV7d-dOSRtVs1oo09g9eEv46b5dzMe-JeplHUiR8sLEB7UFSc5kE7VLcT3eL6cwqQcSt767BTbdtZwECjntq/s500/e8WLoSH.gif">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 600px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJDLeOiy911e9IfFoWrq81rPEPCFMBtu0_oBxIR4Xk89tjI5rfeliDWfKfoJUr6b42xWGpoafMLUMwmmcqqN75_4B2SFFRKYdu9LaD1tB_gRLAwGkawvSc8HdpxfJ7hN3v-dkBOZRWeEPY/s700/31956.jpg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 600px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh_QFWLUdMdflE3kGlclhcQkNXo1nAdcgWnzeC_4M3ayz8BjB9apHe9mmUP3MhHNd5erKmpm9T9xT8NJmBxhjpTCxxIinu_LLZ6tuKifMufYnBp_dV5AghZ5UHZYOGuFbKzlZZTxqs2oP-/s842/z92ivt4b3iu01.png">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 600px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnhfQvCx6KxOTKDIqL3Cvypnq0WCOfUxaHu5gEetSRuZOg1HXTsoKR2et9GHNcZ1rzNCascWBt12_Ymq-m0iW09N1DwRI18m7Fr7xofTAt-gnNV0vho_i7pBnT05lBRykRudqlh4goEvNO/s525/2021-08-18_190952.png">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 600px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhexonLsuAVraj_21ZyVYsASt7AhhzyCeJuei-zYH7e0IdUONMc_eCATbS-3S-2J-n8Td5mn6l553H3SN6S6_-Z4e82QDwhlNq0qU91Hk6pQcPorbSlxdjoZo5igyMzalmBWeEXoyvvCaDa/s2048/oyu9htmbeyh71.jpg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 600px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR1N4QO3WZrAvUkmn0fnuIpdEOxSndzL8wzn0HxZOVUlDsq5JhgedFFXYSW4Gc0SScMZUDB2636zEMQiYJFQRvpPzI76V1Pv2COvz_Ign0h2_6f6Kc2zTkvctIhJM1u5nN3Ab57gdHQk0J/s1421/rjfzoquqpyh71.png">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 500px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2LIYkEDJZV96dsyQNIomXjEkoG21Oq6jLqe-LVZcnJ2rzpVUVcmyY3T-uCMecqFdV5JVh0W_llbmKSA_Iq77XGSAu9g8SOlhsgCLzQ27oR5ze9rRdoQ5-etkzbDqss58_Wn6xYRM16FwR/s500/9fd2da2d3e461f61dc895440448581ca79447ece04c918b9c4cf0a77c9bdec87.jpg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 500px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy4YrofnNvjX8WLzpXVmi0Ax-8d5l_Al3M-fiW5I9NhXxP_b5Aou1F7dmmtvYeEEfZsuxWyhxR7XE7K4_7Hgg-xK1QMBfAuifQY8gyRIncKvThXmQGHbH17nj8j9NGDFNrv5lfJH4aWsSK/s614/25iambd.jpg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 500px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNxg_0Ca6Hzv2GLVeCwpaqBZ-29hK9EHrSHz-TxgcQO2Uvk4I9HtAIx6iYz8UedwbcayQ4Wi_ukL0iPxCVC96FOYMkq_nx9JXD2cPAtAdBj_RgAbf0SYNEmYbmMWgHJo7c7ZjwXtX3c2oJ/s1097/BzBuCJG.png">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 700px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaUV0yvHP-7oqRVtnBy3H5FYRBKMr9HPTOoMM9WcigSMgXfn2ZzUXSxEhumglPpKDUnlxAAAjsYhkCDWLt7FEdFy-M4wE9WW_WTaK8xF-HHmyRxQyspf3tolF9Q6qZZVJ-_0P6OmdYTNxP/s1265/gL7ETf3.jpeg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 469px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG0zcwFN5oosnimXeuxuaQ842RpopjrB3jV8SQ2Ky68uT0FoaZJeQq0VGUBlsWD7uZBTRP-Uthgp7swJ3BDM6Ogln0sYiaoibnz6DxrcGCvzsCDY4SNtShGI14UDqhmJMOeL_NUFYsVSx6/s469/210ee1689001c7b65fa23700d3517614b60cb90406d70bad4a593198fe013516.jpg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"> <img style="max-width: 600px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig0M3NUpetlteU1Eug_GHfil1SSuyW9450SUixwW-kWc6LW2dpH1jT7xOtU3MRda7oe2oFa3sYXcdwU6m8TMuwFxOUsbE4lWC7VbbX8aiOhySUFNsIuAMfABI3SitBouIctLOn8FXw_oaL/s735/2021-07-13_142610.png">
</div>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-13672063590798395862021-06-23T16:09:00.005+02:002021-06-23T16:14:16.082+02:00Inhumane<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>New mutator: Inhumane</title>
<style>
.lispacing>li {
margin-top: 0.3em
}
.litighter>li {
margin: 0 !important
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div span {
font-size: 40px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
video {
width: 100%;
max-width: 100%;
height: auto;
margin-top: 30px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUKqOTEUUz45SK5tI7fDLIW3gO7lc9lIHZsEYr6VkUQZEXVFtWRHT61dOqeqg0RiMRM6almfuaJsUgTNgWl_j1A_-MbywdxwhphW2D5dW-HedJ1uBlOeqD4tW8Eh9uRoBPy3FKt-VlSLqN/s1200/banner.jpg">
<div> <span>New custom mutator</span><br>
Inhumane</div>
</div>
<p>Inhumane is the latest addition to custom mutators available on my <u><a
href="https://www.maguro.one/p/my-maps.html" target="_blank">[MM] maps</a></u>
on all servers. Its fantasy is massive paratrooper drops – drawing from <span
class="module__title__link"><i>World War II</i> </span>and Raynor and
Mengsk strategies centered around massing infantry units while losing
significant numbers. Some Raynor players don't even bother
with Medics, how <em>inhumane</em>.</p>
<p>With this mutator, paratroopers periodically drop on your army position.
Later in the game, a drop targeting bases will occasionally happen as well
but with a warning beforehand. While destroying a horde of paratroopers
might be fun, they put on quite a bit of fight, and players have to adjust
their tactics and strategy accordingly.</p>
<video controls="controls"> <source src="https://i.imgur.com/y3MCVLJ.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag. </video>
<div class="subnote">Paratrooper drop near a player's base</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">Gameplay notes</p>
<p>The mutator rewards commanders and units that can deal with a lot of
small units. Unlike <em>Alien Incubation</em> or <em>Walking Infested</em>
mutators, paratroopers are significantly more dangerous.</p>
<p>Paratroopers use a weaker weapon (<em>C-12 Light Gauss Rifle</em>)
compared to a standard Marine rifle (<em>C-14 Gauss Rifle</em>). Its
damage is reduced from 6 to 4. This is for balance reasons, and it also
encourages getting armor upgrades, which are often overlooked in Co-op.</p>
<p>When a drop hits, players might have to disengage if they are in combat,
or risk fighting both the enemy and paratroopers together. That's one
small tactical decision created by this mutator.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Strong mutator synergies:</p>
<ul>
<li>Self Destruction & Fireworks</li>
<li>Barrier & Just Die!</li>
<li>Alien Incubation & Walking Infested</li>
<li>Polarity</li>
<li>Fatal Attraction</li>
<li>Black Death</li>
</ul>
<video controls="controls"> <source src="https://i.imgur.com/pxICQpS.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag. </video>
<div class="subnote">Fenix's army dealing with paratroopers</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">Development</p>
<p>Originally, I had a lot more attack waves targeting bases, but dealing
with them was too annoying (as expected). Eventually, I made drops on
bases rare, starting at around 16 minutes, and give a warning beforehand
to players so they can reposition and prepare. These changes made them
more manageable and not breaking the game flow as much.</p>
<p>As mentioned before, paratroopers use weaker Gauss rifles dealing less
damage. This encourages players to get armor upgrades, but it was done
primarily for a balance reason. It lets me reduce the mutator difficulty
while preserving its fantasy – a big number of paratroopers descending on
your army. A smaller number of more powerful paratroopers wouldn't deliver
the same fantasy.</p>
<p>On the visual side, parachutes are taken from Nova's Griffin Airstrike,
and Medivac shadows are a re-textured splat model. The sound of the
opening parachute is taken form an old game, and I wonder if someone will
recognize the game.</p>
<p>Despite the mutator's simplicity, a lot of tweaking was required for the
mutator. As usual, I targeted the difficulty where it's challenging but
doable for me to consistently solo missions on Brutal with this mutator.
That makes the mutator difficult, but easy enough so it can be combined
with other mutators when two players are playing.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: -30px"><i>A few screenshots:</i></p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc9a3H5P24Hf0eNnRuzeVfJugiGVKxC1EhbLmmUDw2wrfNWzpBvNSTbgDeHa6ewTOEXuu2BKB20F_ohCSG25xB-aFNKll-aWUYdMoxMnRoOmULVb10YtLKQIyAqEOJmDmfUy2PpAMvGHw4/s1200/fenix.jpg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBhdcJNlrWn9XgBZCjQeFfOrxOddl-YR-3Jjt_qB_bBDlxe9P5ds9N9JeQTkFYd8-812hgYm3yjRxOiNbwt8ssfSgnYPktazKRU9X6dgBai5Lt_7XrF-ezD7CkzZv1R1n3RoB0tLfqBad6/s1200/airdrop.jpg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_OBC_colW3gZmEFvB0LhvAsJK_x_nvrpTnEmABVmoc4svxHzG9Uqsyw6Oneh3j5xWj30bp2DUMmRan0M1Bdo9GeT908SVQXWbB-ioWS03Is5IEuTEdHQoqHhVGy1O2rYDdXPGPELVa_JX/s1200/glevig.jpg">
</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpgwve67SSodFdgWh4EqRPavJ0yU2QAqFnpvkT2YtxZenZ2Y4f24f97MxWjWKTILTrPlHLOt4aOvzQ1tIqy8zr_b5is-2Dy9tiqF3P1XMGdxNUm449ISWba2qXP4jg2zfOb3xSXKSGYHNn/s1200/tesseract.jpg">
</div>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-55686471044718975892021-06-09T14:43:00.003+02:002021-12-03T16:09:35.121+01:00Transmission 09 - Gameplay variety<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Gameplay variety</title>
<style>
.lispacing > li {margin-top: 0.3em}
.litighter > li {margin: 0!important}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div span {
font-size: 40px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg5_cPx9tArSyNeEbGIdu37RQs1LrQRVb0aK-ZIkrSk_xg-1MkFo5DuojUN6ZzVmXw_xsKs5TQlrBHzI4P8GWy85dWKQXU7wnF78o3EwSXKmZg4zuxeenLEzR9-Ox82cLqx6ZUIcORccXM/s1200/banner2.jpg">
<div> <span>Transmission 09</span><br>
Gameplay variety</div>
</div>
<p>This post will focus on gameplay variety as it’s particularly important
for keeping the game interesting and fresh. I will also touch on related
topics including player interactions, issues with the early game, cheese
and all-in rushes.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="sources">Sources of gameplay variety</p>
<p>For the game to stay interesting, we want <span style="color: #ff9900;">game-to-game
variety</span>. It would be no fun if every game looked the same. We
also want <span style="color: #ff9900;">moment-to-moment variety</span>,
where there is a potential for something exciting happening at any moment.
Games like soccer or basketball accomplish that very well – scoring a goal
is always just a few passes away. Gameplay variety has to come from
somewhere:</p>
<ul class="lispacing">
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Player execution</span> – in games with
a high skill ceiling for execution, variety (and randomness) is
introduced through imperfections. Mistakes will inevitably happen, and
engagements will resolve slightly differently each time. A strategy has
to be constantly adjusted around these outcomes.</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Player interactions and strategies</span>
– rich strategic space and interactions between players can lead to a
great number of distinct game states. Players can't be familiar with all
of them – leading to each game feeling more unique. This will amplify
any differences between games and moments. <i>Chess</i> and <i>Go </i>make
use of this. Distinct game phases can improve moment-to-moment variety.</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Player selection</span> – variety
introduced through getting different teammates and enemies. In 1v1 this
leads to different matchups. In team games, you will often get a unique
combination of allies and enemies. When amplified by team bonuses (<i>Age
of Empires II</i>) or varied specializations (<i>MOBAs</i>), this can
lead to each game being unlike another.</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Built-in randomness</span>:</li>
<ul class="litighter">
<li>Randomly selected map from a map pool (<i>StarCraft</i>)</li>
<li>Randomly generated maps (<i>Age of Empires II</i>)</li>
<li>Random drops <i>(Warcraft III</i>)</li>
<li>Random combat (miss chance in <i>Brood War</i> or <i>Company of
Heroes II</i>)</li>
<li>Random map patterns, enemy compositions, mutators (<i>StarCraft II
Co-op</i>)</li>
<li>Random card draws, effects (<i>Hearthstone</i>)</li>
<li>Random units (blind pick mode in monobattles in <i>StarCraft II</i>)</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0GTxY3bu8JBgiXDbQ8JnZuC-XrzCQ1oW0jcTg7QQ6767Pt4b4rCRiTLUsegOH4U3oLEuGcdWWtJlP-pBCrr8xr4G-uZvuZ98AXSf2o-hM1To3PhgyCaCdcsyQ88ZLy3Dyaoi7N3CKul3o/s1920/BW.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Engagements are full of mistakes and that makes each of
them unique (StarCraft: Remastered)</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="randomness">Built-in randomness</p>
<p>Built-in randomness is a great source of variety for casual games,
however, it can be tricky for competitive modes as it shouldn't
significantly affect the outcome of matches. It's there to introduce
gameplay variety or limit the <a href="https://keithburgun.net/uncapped-look-ahead-and-the-information-horizon/"
target="_blank"><u><i>information horizon</i></u></a>, not to take away
the player's control over outcomes. To prevent these issues, randomness
can be either reduced or take the form of <a href="http://keithburgun.net/randomness-and-game-design/"
target="_blank"><u><i>input randomness</i></u></a> – that players can
react to and manage better.</p>
<p>A mirror matchup on a randomly generated but symmetric map is an example
of input randomness. There is randomness, but players are informed of it
and <i>then </i>adjust their builds and strategy around it. (This is
similar to <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/490220/Prismata/"
target="_blank"><u>Prismata</u></a>'s game start). If it was not a
mirror matchup, and one faction was heavily favored by the map, then it
would be <i>output randomness</i>. The random element (map generation)
would come <i>after </i>a decision (choosing a faction). Players would
have no influence on which player would be randomly rewarded for choosing
their faction.</p>
<p>Input randomness feels better because players keep more control over the
game. Though it wouldn't be hard to come up with unfair and frustrating
examples as well. The example with a mirror match on a randomly generated
and symmetric map is an outlier, typically it's hard to introduce such an
impactful random element while keeping it fair. <a href="http://blog.prismata.net/2014/07/15/luck-in-games/"
target="_blank"><u>This post on Prismata</u></a> and many others have
gone in-depth about the role of randomness in games.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEfW089jwoXUWxL9ZINZAC94ClEDCYlVJ6bSAqO7KxBFnqDLOd0T8yzRapYyDvRG1eI_8YbDsOGPjQ14EKwbtapJuJjiYgj7vyaPNCjdYkLLwu1oguhuwN7Bp7OkPlSyPxxUJQ9Csc3qBi/s1390/discover.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Discover mechanic in Hearthstone – cards are randomly
chosen from a pool, but the player retains some control by then choosing
one card and forming a strategy around it.</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="interaction">Player interaction</p>
<p>Interactions between players can be a great source of variety in a game,
and are typically the most exciting part of the game as well. Too few
interactions can lead to boring or uneventful game phases, as is often
seen in the early game.</p>
<p>More interactions can also give players better feedback on how they are
doing during a game. If two players just macro-up, fight one battle and
the winner takes the game, was the issue with macro, build, composition,
or micro? Providing this feedback is very hard for RTS games, but more
interactions between players can help with that. A game where both players
macro up and end it with a single engagement is a bit like racing where
contestants only compare times in the end. Racing becomes a lot more
interesting when you can compare how the contestants are doing throughout
the match, and that's without direct interactions. Although racing has the
advantage of having a simple game state where it's clear who is ahead and
by how much.</p>
<p>It might be a good idea to target a minimum number of interactions
between players in a game. It doesn't feel great when one side lost
because they didn't scout one thing or just after one engagement. This is
often unsatisfying and can feel like a waste of time.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA7buJBftZNuTS1u4Nuvk8C6izOo8ArnTjmXfRRpt5ICor-hgWjhuK-PLTu6vXOU8zF9gVEmyObIW0iqOlErxMHvQH-LCE8sTLXgBLGtu-sa0c7GqmAbbdeK7D3jrRVp_b9amdnjR9p7Pr/s1600/coh2.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">The mission structure in Company of Heroes II leads to
constant player interaction and provides good feedback to players on who
is ahead</div>
<p>Skill shots are widely used in MOBAs because they facilitate good
interactions between players – allowing both players to express themselves
through skill. It's rewarding to successfully both hit and dodge skill
shots, and less frustrating to fail to do so. The feedback is immediate,
it's clear where the mistake was and how to improve. The skill shot usage
can be exciting, easily comprehensible for both players and viewers, and
introduce variety through imperfect player execution and enemy prediction.
Skill shots might not always be the best fit for an RTS, but we can look
for similar mechanics.</p>
<p><i>StarCraft II Co-op</i> is a two-player cooperative PvE mode. Because
it lacks back-and-forth interactions with a human opponent, it has to rely
more on built-in randomness to improve gameplay variety. Though to a
lesser degree, variety can be introduced through an ally. This works a lot
better when the presence of an ally has a meaningful impact on your
gameplay. This can happen through passive bonuses (<i>Guardian Shell</i>,
<i>Vorazun invisible bonuses</i>) or active cooperation (<i>shared Nydus
Networks</i>, <i>Stetmann’s satellites</i>, <i>Dehaka’s P1 bonuses</i>).</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="earlygame">Early game</p>
<p>The early game is where RTS games often struggle with long stretches of
nothing interesting happening. <i>Legacy of the Void</i> approached these
issues by increasing the number of starting workers, <i>Age of Empires II</i>
introduced <i><a href="https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Empire_Wars"
target="_blank"><u>Empire Wars</u></a></i> mode where players start
with more villagers and some pre-built structures, and <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/290790/Grey_Goo/"
target="_blank"><u><i>Grey Goo</i></u></a> has its <i>quickscript mod</i>
giving players more resources and accelerating the early game. In all
cases, the goal is to skip at least a part of the uneventful early game.</p>
<p>Cheeses and all-in rushes can make the early game more interesting, but
they are not a great solution as they often have binary outcomes and
facilitate only limited interactions between players before the game ends
(e.g., did you scout it or not, or a game being decided by one fight). And
by their nature cheeses and all-in rushes cannot, or better to say should
not cover all of the games played – still leaving many matches with
uneventful early games.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/05/TR08-attention-and-macro.html"
target="_blank"><u>the previous post</u></a>, I wrote about macro, which
could make limited interactions in the early game less of an issue for
players if macro was sufficiently enjoyable by itself. However, that won’t
solve it for spectators. If there are five minutes of just macroing up,
viewers will naturally switch their attention to something else, and
possibly miss the action when it happens. Viewers are not excited by
enjoyable macro, and even if there are strategic decisions introduced
through it, the complexity of those decisions won't carry five or more
minutes with very limited player interactions.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>I think the lack of player interactions in the early game is a
consequence of its steep economic growth and high opportunity costs. If a
player sends units over the map, the chances are that the enemy will have
significantly more by the time the units get there and crushes the attack.
That leaves the first player with two choices:</p>
<ul>
<li>Make those units earlier – and with that sacrifice the economic growth
and go all-in</li>
<li>Don't attack in the first place – which leaves us with the uneventful
early game</li>
</ul>
<p>Another way to look at this problem is that units have to be balanced
around all-ins first, which can leave them too weak for aggression in the
early game when not going all-in.</p>
<p>Few things that can introduce more interaction into the early game:</p>
<ol class="lispacing">
<li>For the attacking player, early <span style="color: #ff9900;">units
that you can't easily all-in with</span> – for example units that
don't scale with numbers, units focused on dealing economic damage, or
units with number limits (like heroes).</li>
<li>Avenues to deal <span style="color: #ff9900;">limited damage</span>
to the defending player. The <i>limit </i>is the important part, it
can't be easily pushed into an all-in. You can steal sheep and boars
from the enemy in <i>Age of Empires II</i>, but the player will be only
slowed and not dead. You can harass villagers outside of the protection
of Town Centers, but early units have very low damage against buildings.
The enemy capturing your region in <i>Company of Heroes II</i> is bad
but not game-ending. This ability to deal limited damage puts limits on
the effectiveness of static defenses as they shouldn’t make a player
completely safe, at least not without investing in them excessively.<br>
<br>
Having avenues for limited damage doesn’t mean something big cannot
happen. For example, a player might overextend and lose a hero which can
be a game-ending moment. However, punishing an opponent's mistake is
different than going all-in from the start. There is at least one
additional interaction that's required and preceding the action.</li>
<li>Good<span style="color: #ff9900;"> ability to retreat</span> in the
early game. It prevents fewer units from being overwhelmed, reduces
risks of noncommittal aggression, encourages early action, and reduces
skill floor (not having to know when moving out equals losing the game).</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Points of interest on the map</span> can
encourage early interactions between players (for example Immortal's
Pyre camps, WC3's creep camps, C&C3's Tiberium spikes, or the whole
map in Company of Heroes). These points of interest provide something to
fight for and build strategies around. However, if it’s crucial to
control these points, defensive strategies might become unviable.</li>
</ol>
<p>The goal of all of these is to make early interactions more viable,
encourage players to gain advantages through them, but without them
deteriorating into all-ins and thus being constrained by that balance. <a
href="https://gatesofpyre.com/strategy-redux/" target="_blank"><u><i>Immortal:
Gates of Pyre</i></u></a> is covering multiple points with Pyre
camps, safety towers, and making sure units can retreat in the early game.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1AWDyvkl_xNCqOp8CELfPyvQkNdOzStqNA4T-KlMfTP9rqAoUuJBTZgzmOuhSvOaIDdwZqTl9_8vGec325Z9gJn4lq2BXkgm1aamZ5DTM0pCy6bmK_Pw_dO77AxXjVV_Gk5ZY08-iLkp/s1711/AoE.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Age of Empires II has prolonged early game, but the
free scout unit can provide some action, and reacting to an unknown
randomly generated map makes things more interesting. </div>
<p>The focus on worker harassment in StarCraft II is a form of limited
damage. Hellions killing workers deal damage to the economy, but they
likely won't kill your buildings and army as well. However, this alone
didn't make the early game that exciting, Hellions come relatively late,
and diving on workers is a big commitment. The gameplay around denying
creep spread is better as it facilitates more interactions, but it’s still
limited and the stakes are quite low. Ideally, there would be more avenues
for early interactions between players.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Introducing gameplay variety early into the game – whether it's through
player interaction or randomly generated map – can also break static build
orders. That could make the early game more interesting, increase the
skill ceiling (reacting to new situations), and lower the skill floor
(reducing the burden of knowledge of learning build orders). Completely
breaking static build orders might be unrealistic due to various practical
reasons, however, I don't believe it would be a bad thing if that
happened. Strategies would form around <a href="https://terrancraft.com/2016/04/23/revisiting-convergent-points-lotv/"
target="_blank"><u><i>convergent points</i></u></a> which are the basis
of build orders but without the exact path how to get there.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="midlategame">Mid & late game</p>
<p>Gameplay variety is important past early game as well, otherwise the game
would become unexciting and the meta stale. This affects the longevity of
the game and can reduce the need for patches to shake up the meta.</p>
<p>Typically a variety is introduced through player execution that has kept
games like <i>StarCraft I/II</i>, <i>Warcraft III</i>, or <i>Age of
Empires II</i> exciting to this day with only some strategic variations.
However, we can't forget that games like <i>Chess </i>or <i>Go </i>did
manage to stay alive for centuries based on the variety through sheer
strategic complexity and some player differences.</p>
<p>It's also interesting to note that the perceived variety can be different
between players and spectators. For players, even small things can be
interesting: changing timings or build-orders. However, spectators likely
won't notice these things and require more visible changes – different
strategies or army compositions.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="cheeses_rushes">Cheeses and all-in rushes</p>
<p>I have touched on cheeses and all-in rushes already as they introduce
some variety to the early game. But it might be interesting to look at
them more closely even if it’s not further connected to the main topic of
gameplay variety.</p>
<ul class="lispacing">
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Cheese</span> – an aggressive strategy
that relies on not being scouted. If it’s scouted, its chance of winning
is minimal. It usually hits early due to limited scouting opportunities
and other factors.</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">All-in rush </span>– early attack
(rush) that has to kill or severely cripple the opponent (all-in)</li>
</ul>
<p>The reliance of cheese on not being scouted leads to luck having a
stronger impact on the game’s outcome. Also, in a standard game,
randomness introduced through decisions and execution will be mostly
averaged, and the better player will usually win. However, in a short game
and with only a few interactions, these factors won’t get averaged, and so
the chances of them going favorably for the less skilled player are
higher. For these reasons, it’s a good choice for a less skilled player to
cheese a better player, as luck gives him better chances than a standard
game which tests players’ skills more thoroughly. If I want to win, I
would rather play rock-paper-scissors with <a href="https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Serral"
target="_blank"><u>Serral</u></a> than a game of StarCraft.</p>
<p>An all-in rush doesn’t necessarily rely on being unscouted. But it’s
still a good choice for less skilled players as there will likely be fewer
player interactions.</p>
<p>It’s not to say that good players won’t cheese, in fact they should. In
game theory, mixed strategies are the optimal solution for certain
situations. And so even the best macro players should mix in cheese or
aggressive builds to prevent opponents from being too greedy and cutting
corners, even if that means losing few games they would have won playing
normally.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH290r2XjnDiLhwLZRiPbBGd1JcH9PSmrao3OWLREoj0pprjKp0U6_eIYVzv-JIQEObJaH6I67qNJSxG9ND_pmKm1DWLTQWT_5hPnPhNeRqDiT9ZJcm4h-b7oIzUgJSxniNm0zHxrJI6cO/s1752/cannon+rush.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Cannon rushes usually fall under cheese, all-in rush,
or both depending on the variant (StarCraft II) </div>
<p>An upside of cheeses is they provide gameplay variety in the early game,
and there is often a good diversity between cheese strategies. The more
cheeses there are and the newer they are, the more effective they become.
It's also less difficult to come up with a cheese than to innovate in
midgame and lategame. That makes it easier and rewarding to come up with
new ones. Still, cheese is often perceived as something bad and
frustrating to play against. Why is that?</p>
<p>One reason might be its perceived “cheapness” as it’s much easier to
learn a single aggressive strategy than to properly defend all of them and
know how to play a normal game on top. I imagine this is even worse in
lower leagues. Less experienced players might gravitate to them more as
cheeses or rushes are the simplest working strategies and the easiest
paths to get a few wins. Because of this, it might be harder for players
in lower leagues to play a “standard game”, as they will have to learn how
to defend all the aggressive builds first. This significantly increases
the skill floor for new players if they don’t want to cheese themselves.</p>
<p>Cheeses increasing the role of luck in games is another reason. Losing on
ladder to a coin flip always stings. In tournaments, a clear underdog is
more likely to cheese, but there are very few players like <a href="https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Has"
target="_blank"><u>Has</u></a> who can cheese all the way to the top.
The more likely scenario is that the clear underdog will get eliminated in
the next round, and we might not see any more games of the better player.
But even a cheese between two good players can feel like the game was
decided by a coin flip and we have missed out on a better game.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI6iN2qs5IxmwX6VQGYBJ-LZUOowXWnmxGgk-v985ykEwAYqidqw8JDozDaZF4PtYFiXOUfxJK90k-ObLFW54w7XGz-yUyD-z4GRCsdRQ3QueydEH7FJGzgDN12kt7GOc0eCgJoQ9sq2IM/s1683/hidden.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Hiding a Dark Shrine to rush the enemy with Dark
Templar (StarCraft II) </div>
<p>And finally, cheeses change how the game is played. A player might have
an image of a game he wants to play – some macro, micro, multitasking, and
armies clashing against each other, and queues up looking for this
experience. However, the opponent cheesing can force the player to play a
different game, for instance a game of defending a cannon rush. While
scouting a cheese, having a solid build, and learning how to defend and
execute these strategies are things that definitely fall in RTS gameplay,
the player might feel that the gameplay is different enough from the
expected experience that he has no desire to engage with it –
it can feel like a wasted time whether it's a win or a loss. Of course,
you could extend this to any strategy that the opponent is doing. <i>”I
want to play against bio and the opponent went mech, oh no!”</i> We want
to have a diverse set of strategies viable, and so the question is then
how different gameplay can be forced on players?</p>
<p>Individual players will have their own preferences – some like certain
cheeses, some don’t, some prefer one matchup over another. With matchups,
unranked players could have the option to queue for a certain matchup, but
with cheese you have to balance these different experiences living
together while some of them will be forced onto players. And if some
cheeses become unviable for various reasons, the early game might become
uneventful – as it usually happens once meta stabilizes. Because of this,
I think it’s better to design for rich early interactions that don’t rely
on the existence of cheeses and all-in rushes. They can still exist, but
the game doesn’t have to rely on them.</p>
<p>When not depending on all-ins to keep the early game interesting, a game
can be more stable – players have a higher defender’s advantage. I believe
a more stable early game is better for both team games and players in
lower leagues. Conversely, when depending on all-ins to keep the early
game interesting, the game necessarily has to be balanced around the
possibility of a player dying at any moment, which puts limits on the
defender's advantage and can feel overly punishing.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="closing">Closing</p>
<p>Thank you for checking out this post. These ideas have been on my mind
for some time, and getting to write about them has been fun. The topic of
gameplay variety, early game, and player interactions is very interesting
and important for the game to be fun and exciting on game-to-game and
moment-to-moment scales. I don’t believe this post brought up something
radically new. I see it as an overview that could improve further
discussions on related topics.</p>
<p>For discussion check <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/nvwqxp/tr09_gameplay_variety/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread on r/FrostGiant</u></a>.</p>
<p>Previous posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
01: Setting, scale, heroes, socialization, and shareability</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission02.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
02: Player onboarding and lowering the skill floor</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/12/transmission03.html" target="_blank">Transmission
03: Divided playerbase, variety mode, victory conditions</a></u></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
04: Improving Co-op</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
05: Co-op events & progression</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission06.html" target="_blank">Transmission
06: API, replays, post-game screens</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/04/TR07-teamgames.html" target="_blank">Transmission
07: Team games in RTS</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/05/TR08-attention-and-macro.html"
target="_blank">Transmission 08: Player attention and macro</a> </u></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-15548223875630323772021-05-11T16:56:00.008+02:002022-02-04T13:11:46.781+01:00Transmission 08 - Attention and macro<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Attention and macro</title>
<style>
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div span {
font-size: 40px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.noborder img {
border: 0px solid #222;
}
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.spaced_list li {
margin-bottom: 0.7em;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihKeAEDNduJFBJbgm10lwDaA-JV7PAtmgTN1ecFoRPzn48RezdBAcm2Fh3JK162VgceyROBSNXZEKtp13lG_M92q9xcd2uR4IQbJfcimTwy_eLHxNH3sFiXamo1MuCDhLUvXQL8XsPcS0B/s1200/banner.jpg">
<div> <span>Transmission 08</span><br>
Attention and macro</div>
</div>
<p>The post will touch on player attention spent on army control, and the
topic of macro (economy, base management). As these two, army control and
macro, are the biggest competitors for player's attention. This is by no
means an exhaustive post about this topic – only a few thoughts I wanted
to share. It's shorter compared to <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/04/TR07-teamgames.html"
target="_blank"><u>the previous long and in-depth post about team games</u></a>.
Writing that one was a lot of fun, but this should easier to digest.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="attention">Attention spent on army</p>
<p>I wanted to explore how players distribute their attention in-game,
and how that changes across skill levels. My hypothesis was that players
in lower leagues spend less time on their army, which turned out to be
true. In the following chart for Terran, attention spent on army
went from 16.8% in the bronze league to 38.8% for professional players
(2.3x increase).</p>
<div style="max-width: 600px; margin: auto;width: 100%;"> <img style="max-width: 600px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiAVGST8Ti7EMqUOkB1YiyXfRhBwLPPyKewM2XnFjZ_p_mcP0w8IoqmY2-RaKbTXPbjgfaEkrnk2k61pa-fpK3XHK67SemYeYz55cRzTCsd4du4vINspicD_J-eDDouQn2uSB8ObXbORs1AEDv7BXferEQlIAUSDhMbAt461T1YSO1fxK3Hazwq7nqJ6w=s924">
</div>
<p class="smallerheading" id="methods">Methods</p>
<p>Data were obtained from 5194s 1v1 replays from ladder and tournaments
(professional category). The code uses a re-purposed version of <a href="https://github.com/ZephyrBlu/selection-analysis"
target="_blank"><u>this repository by ZephyrBlu</u></a>. It tracks which
units are selected, and then divide them into predefined categories:</p>
<ul>
<li>Economy – comprised of workers and command structures (e.g., Nexus)</li>
<li>Infrastructure – all other buildings</li>
<li>Creep Spread (Zerg only)</li>
<li>Queens (Zerg only)</li>
<li>Army</li>
</ul>
<p>For reference, here is <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/ki4jmu/what_do_pros_spend_more_attention_on_economy/"
target="_blank"><u>ZephyrBlu's post</u></a> with charts showing how
player attention changes during games for individual players. It's only an
estimate of player's attention, but the absolute values don't have to be
completely accurate for us to observe relative trends across player skill
levels. My code repository is <a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/Player-attention-distribution-SC2"
target="_blank"><u>here</u></a>.</p>
<p>Unit selections are only counted for the first 15 real-time minutes. This
is to keep games more comparable to each other, as there is a dependency
on game length. Longer games will have a higher share of army focus (+2-3%
without a limit), and shorter games will have higher economy focus (3-5%
lower army focus when limited to the first 10 minutes). 15 real-time
minutes is roughly a typical StarCraft II game length.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiorDCgPLdOaURFQWsvVFNcT5o5wxH_Al6G94kMLwwdheiHSEBLRJ-K92LVZBHSQ4KS3gKJC4VFTMKyAgJqkxDjZFHz6zVRgRB-vnTi6ojDBcqWGsGYmlBlneKhqP8KuH1PrFa75VARSiLr/s2000/result15.png"
target="_blank"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfsCoQ1ZCI2BPPHTUIuZoAhH04qxlblVzyRx_0yBjy55XoWT-3wjFc6scyz-N3wsXJQ9lXB7Fh6Z1R0HDjw-RCVEg18J-8dtUfWnNxa8hltx2FGgejJsBi11ZACgG3S7QbPLxkUDrcnfuz/s2000/result15.png"></a>
</div>
<div class="subnote">The trend is present for all races (StarCraft II)</div>
<p class="smallerheading" id="discussion">Discussion</p>
<p>There is a significant decrease in the time spent on army control as we
go to lower leagues. Professional players spend around 2.3x more time on
their army compared to bronze-league players.</p>
<p>I find it unlikely that players in lower leagues enjoy macro that much
more. Instead, they might be overwhelmed by the macro requirements leaving
them little time for army control, scared of pushing on the map, or not
seeing the point in interacting with the opponent throughout the game.</p>
<p>I don't think this is an ideal situation. StarCraft II is very focused on
action and army control, and if players in lower leagues interact with
this part of the game significantly less, the game will be likely less fun
for them. Players could get the impression that the game is too
macro-heavy. A player might also watch a streamer, form expectations, but
the actual gameplay will be very different and the player disappointed.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Let's see some approaches addressing this. StarCraft II Co-op has reduced
macro requirements by having only one expansion and bases that will
usually not mine out. This fits well with its more casual audience, and a
game mode that's not focused on economic harassment and base denial.
Moreover, highly scripted missions force players into being active from
the start of the game.</p>
<p>An upcoming RTS<i> Immortal: Gates of Pyre</i> has <u><a href="https://gatesofpyre.com/lowering-the-skill-floor-without-harming-the-skill-ceiling/"
target="_blank">its solutions</a></u> to these issues:</p>
<ol>
<li> Significantly easier macro compared to that in StarCraft II</li>
<li>Encouraging players to be more active on the map through:</li>
<ul>
<li>Pyre camps (creeping spots rewarding the third resource)</li>
<li>Towers providing vision and safe spots to fall back on</li>
<li>Making sure that players aren't punished too much for moving at the
wrong time in the early game (the ability to retreat). This can change
as the game progresses to later stages.</li>
</ul>
</ol>
<p class="smallheading" id="isMacroFun">is Macro fun?</p>
<p>In both previous examples the macro was simplified, which is a valid
approach, but is it the only way? I don't believe so, and I would even say
that for professionals macro could be more difficult – somewhere between
StarCraft II and Brood War. However, as <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission02.html#Macro"
target="_blank"><u>I mentioned before</u></a>, for new players or those
in lower leagues, it should be easier to reach the baseline macro
efficiency – get the production going, and let them focus on action and
engage with the strategy layer.</p>
<p>Ideally, as players get better, they can decide to focus more on either
economy or army control like we saw in Brood War – leading to more player
expression and a more distinct player fingerprint (<a href="https://youtu.be/9Mi6su6-zHY?t=5160"
target="_blank"><u>as described by CatZ on his podcast</u></a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>I enjoy macro and multitasking. But do I like it because it's an
enjoyable part of RTS games in general? or is it because if I didn't enjoy
it, I would have moved to play other genres as many players have? Is there
a <i>survivorship bias</i> at play? and how strong? That's a relevant
question when targeting a broader player audience outside of core RTS
players.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv noborder"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCjt8Dw6midtrXysgVqb8666fr3se0Vlx0MZU9lWKc-lcEOxUnsneofSztirX4X-yHcx1Is-7DlPaUJK100BfeydAH0wEjYdap1RsKfiufiUiaiIAZOwu0qlgdsb7oDV8TcelckCeAketd/s1920/Survivorship-bias.svg.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#In_the_military"
target="_blank"><u>Survivorship bias</u></a> –These are recorded bullet
holes on airplanes. Would you add more armor to areas with the most
recorded bullet holes? or to places without any of them? Airplanes hit
there might not have returned and the bullet hole positions weren't
recorded.</div>
<p>Answering this question for macro is particularly difficult. The most
popular RTS games (StarCraft I & II, Age of Empires II) lean heavily
on the macro part of the game. We can throw in here games like <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/9350/Supreme_Commander/"
target="_blank"><u>Supreme Commander</u></a> or <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/644930/They_Are_Billions/"
target="_blank"><u>They are Billions</u></a> as well. However, there are
games light on macro and still very popular – Warcraft III or Company of
Heroes 2 – and of course the whole MOBA genre. One could easily argue
either way whether higher or lower macro focus correlates with success
positively. And there are many other factors that influenced the success
of each RTS game – muddying the waters further. </p>
<p>From new games, Immortal is going for a more streamlined macro, while Age
of Empires IV might be closer to Age of Empires II, but we will have to
see about that. Overall, it's safe to say that a significant part of the
core RTS audience enjoys macro, but it's not so clear when it comes to the
broader player audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>I love that in StarCraft II or Age of Empires II, a player can spend 100+
APM on macro alone. However, whether to have such a high skill ceiling for
macro is a design decision and there is no right answer to it. But there
are two things that I think are important:</p>
<ol>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Lower skill floor for macro</span> –
easier to get basic macro going, and let players engage with army
control and strategy layer sooner (compared to StarCraft II)</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Inherently enjoyable</span> </li>
</ol>
<p>As for macro being enjoyable, a good benchmark is if the game is fun to
play even without any opponent. If the base-building is satisfying by
itself, then we are on a good path. Visuals, audio, feedback,
responsiveness, intuitiveness, fantasy, enjoyable gameplay loops (macro
cycles) – all these help to make macro more enjoyable.</p>
<p>Apart from adding depth to the game, macro is primarily about player
expression – to build something of your own. There are likely things to
learn from the sim genre such as city-builder games, or optimization games
like <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/427520/Factorio/" target="_blank"><u>Factorio</u></a>.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtXoYCGkCaKm7mklhqkA3hdD130j-3K6uOi-E1jFjI18PZtDkuL5cRnZWVCOplhhsjp4VWPfDPfxTNfiebuUDGTL7KwQPb9FeRfApvcs7lcFdLFDN9X2i-zQk72Mrx12WiQv-7BAInMZHC/s1920/AoE2+copy.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Building a beautiful city is rewarding in itself (Age
of Empires II)</div>
<p>Base-building in Age of Empires II is supported by its familiar and
bright setting. It matters less that macro is more demanding when managing
the city is fun in itself. Also, most mechanics don't feel artificial –
cutting down trees, building houses, assigning villagers to new jobs –
it's all part of the fantasy and intuitive. Defensive structures support
this fantasy as well, and I wouldn't mind also seeing more mechanics from
the Stronghold series.</p>
<p>Among other things, having four resources adds more depth to the economy,
and increases the skill ceiling for players naturally through balancing
the economy with moving villagers between resources nodes according to
player's needs or using the market. I don't think the skill floor is
increased too much with how intuitive these resources are (food, wood,
stone, gold). As for the roles of resources, I found these two videos
interesting – <a href="https://youtu.be/AHicJbnPAzQ" target="_blank"><u>food</u></a>,
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVk0kycSieE" target="_blank"><u>stone</u></a>,
and <a href="https://youtu.be/v1riRC3dR4A" target="_blank"><u>gold</u></a>
(by <i>HarvestBuildDestroy</i>). </p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0mTTJqll1I5_F2FpzBud7JDsFjzmgVYqGirLFaXO2GMoTONjD4BqoOFuFJU6UhvL1ozTnWQnnjnBXGPGWLARju7DeVCmpKr0x9Js4i-6e615-e5lOaX4s1latSN9uK25fneEq_NsJc-ub/s1920/Viscera+Cleanup+Detail.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Even cleaning can be fun if done right (<a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/246900/Viscera_Cleanup_Detail/"
target="_blank"><u>Viscera Cleanup Detail</u></a>)</div>
<p>For me, Zerg macro and especially <i>creep spread</i> is quite
enjoyable. The creep spread has several good qualities:</p>
<ul>
<li>It's not strictly necessary, and you get some for free. This is good
for lower leagues.</li>
<li>There are several ways of spreading it (Queens, Creep tumors,
Overlords, Nydus worms, Overlords dropping Queens).</li>
<li>It facilitates interaction with the opponent, particularly in TvZ.</li>
<li>Players and spectators can easily see how the creep spread is going.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3nXTKMQ4RkCiptwprSV5sOl9hcd-h4aFkoOsl4WAT6oSwg3omdRZsyyWUQBWI-XAZbR8pL8AC7rvxDPHoEVrhVlf3jEKicL-iTVGumbArmKXg_JXcCj16-kjMV7JuBE9II4aGNmOqeGZp/s1600/queen.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Spread creep with Overlord drop and Queen (StarCraft
II)</div>
<p><i>Larva Inject</i> is another Queen's ability, but it feels very
artificial and like a chore. I can see why it was added, and that it has a
role, but from all macro-mechanics in StarCraft II, this one might be
lacking the most.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Few more notes on macro:</p>
<ul class="spaced_list">
<li>One consequence of deeper macro is that it can open more distinct
strategies (eco, tech, rush). <a href="https://illiteracyhasdownsides.com/2016/12/30/starcraft-ii-is-not-a-successor-to-brood-war/"
target="_blank"><u>Brownbear touched on it in this article</u></a>.</li>
<li>Here is an interesting topic and especially discussion in comments
related to player attention <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/l3bfdb/makro_chores_vs_decisions/"
target="_blank"><u>Makro: Chores vs. Decisions (r/FrostGiant)</u></a></li>
<li>I'm a fan of Brood War. It's fascinating how many things it managed to
do right – sometimes despite its archaic limitations, and other times
because of them. Creating something similar in a modern game would be
certainly difficult, but at the very least there are a lot of things to
learn from the game.</li>
<li>How players split their attention is an important design decision. And
we have seen here some data for 1v1 in StarCraft II. But how often
players switch their attention is another important factor. A game can
feel more overwhelming when players have to shift their attention
rapidly. <br>
<br>
And the other way around, an even more mechanically demanding game could
feel slower if attention isn't switched as often. For example, one could
argue that Brood War has more demanding tasks after each screen switch,
which makes intervals between attention switches longer, and that leads
to the game feeling less overwhelming despite such high APM
requirements. </li>
<li>I have provided <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/04/TR07-teamgames.html#mechanics"
target="_blank"><u>few arguments for mechanical tasks</u></a> without
strategic decisions associated with them, and that interleaving
mechanical and strategical tasks can be lead to a better experience.
However, this can be difficult to design for. One player can complete a
sequence of tasks quickly and without thinking, while another player
will take five times longer, and has to think about them. That's another
thing that makes designing enjoyable macro experience across skill
levels hard.</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="Closing">Closing</p>
<p>Thank you for checking out this post. I believe there should be a healthy
balance in attention spent between army and macro, and we should monitor
this balance across skill levels. I'm also of the opinion that macro can
be enjoyable in itself, and particularly great for player expression.</p>
<p>For discussion check <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/n9zpmy/tr08_attention_and_macro/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread on r/FrostGiant</u></a>.</p>
<p>Previous posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
01: Setting, scale, heroes, socialization, and shareability</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission02.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
02: Player onboarding and lowering the skill floor</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/12/transmission03.html" target="_blank">Transmission
03: Divided playerbase, variety mode, victory conditions</a></u></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
04: Improving Co-op</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
05: Co-op events & progression</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission06.html" target="_blank">Transmission
06: API, replays, post-game screens</a></u></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/04/TR07-teamgames.html" target="_blank">Transmission
07: Team games in RTS<br>
</a></u></li>
</ul>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/Chart.js/3.7.0/chart.min.js"
integrity="sha512-TW5s0IT/IppJtu76UbysrBH9Hy/5X41OTAbQuffZFU6lQ1rdcLHzpU5BzVvr/YFykoiMYZVWlr/PX1mDcfM9Qg=="
crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>
<script>
function plot_chart() {
const chart_data = {
labels: ['Bronze', 'Silver', 'Gold', 'Platinum', 'Diamond', 'Master', 'Grandmaster', 'Pro'],
datasets: [
{
label: 'Army',
data: [0.16796211137564074, 0.21318224537071356, 0.2134545443133813, 0.25744125705910365, 0.2727369089555301, 0.31293528547042465, 0.3622601647251601, 0.3876830827713309],
backgroundColor: '#3378B6',
borderColor: 'black',
borderWidth: 2,
fill: true,
},
{
label: 'Economy',
data: [0.5032364757261637, 0.5002382226767969, 0.49877451226889646, 0.46833338506919947, 0.46403138737723665, 0.4313123238386586, 0.3939619559531151, 0.36379886474787587],
backgroundColor: '#D97C00',
fill: true,
},
{
label: 'Infrastructure',
data: [0.32880141289819553, 0.2865795319524896, 0.28777094341772225, 0.2742253578716967, 0.26323170366723314, 0.2557523906909167, 0.2437778793217248, 0.24851805248079334],
backgroundColor: '#4F9521',
fill: true,
},
]
};
const text_color = '#ddd';
const line_color = 'rgba(255,255,255,0.2)';
const support_text_size = 15;
const chart_config = {
type: 'line',
data: chart_data,
options: {
responsive: true,
plugins: {
title: {
display: true,
fullSize: false,
color: text_color,
text: ['How players distribute attention in-game', 'Terran | StarCraft II | first 15 real minutes'],
font: {
size: 16
},
},
legend: {
labels: {
color: text_color,
}
},
tooltip: {
position: 'nearest',
callbacks: {
label: function (v) {
return `${v.dataset.label}: ${(100 * v.raw).toFixed(1)}%`
}
}
}
},
interaction: {
mode: 'nearest',
axis: 'x',
intersect: false
},
scales: {
x: {
title: {
display: true,
text: 'Player skill',
color: text_color,
font: {
size: support_text_size,
weight: '600'
},
},
grid: {
borderColor: line_color,
color: line_color,
z: 1,
},
ticks: {
color: text_color,
maxRotation: 30,
minRotation: 30,
font: {
size: support_text_size
}
}
},
y: {
stacked: true,
title: {
display: true,
text: 'Attention usage',
color: text_color,
font: {
size: support_text_size,
weight: '600'
},
},
grid: {
borderColor: line_color,
color: line_color,
z: 1
},
ticks: {
color: text_color,
font: {
size: 12
},
callback: function (value) {
return 100 * value + '%'
}
}
}
}
}
}
let ctx = document.getElementById('mainchart').getContext('2d');
let chart = new Chart(ctx, chart_config);
}
plot_chart()
</script>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-75350791766265999172021-04-15T12:31:00.007+02:002021-04-30T12:36:55.075+02:00Transmission 07 - Team games<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Team games in RTS</title>
<style>
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 60px 0px 0px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 22px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
/* TITLE */
.mtitle {
margin-top: -30px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
max-width: 100vw;
}
.mtitle img {
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div {
color: white;
text-shadow: 0 0 4px black, 0 0 20px black;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
font-size: 50px;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
transform: translate(0%, -50%);
width: 100%;
}
.mtitle div span {
font-size: 40px;
}
/* IMGS */
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
/* Table of contents */
.tocd {
display: block;
max-width: 300px;
margin: auto;
}
.tocd a {
text-decoration: underline
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mtitle"> <img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrBJILenvXZbbLYqTGSMzLVF_w3U63FRERaDccfZB-pOhzj1yftUvfNGJrwMuOtURW3s9wasTHfJYRyw-dEZU5dUQq38M-quJcUHor4NC77KkEvvsIq-SxN3b-fo9OSM8LYZpzuQh9hHrC/s1200/Banner.jpg">
<div><span>Transmission 07</span><br>
Team games in RTS</div>
</div>
<p>Team games are a popular part of RTS games, as they are more accessible
and provide a stronger social experience than 1v1. Some RTS games managed
to make team games more enjoyable than others, and this post attempts to
uncover the reasons behind it. The goal is to see which factors contribute
to creating a good team game.</p>
<p>It's a complex topic; building a competitive 2v2 game is different than
going for a casual 4v4 experience, and so I will generalize. Also, while I
find team game dynamics very interesting, I do not have a deep team game
knowledge of every game mentioned here. I watched and read as much as
possible, but take my observations with a grain of salt. I want to thank
people at <a href="https://twitter.com/waywardstrategy" target="_blank"><u>Wayward</u></a>'s
discord for answering my questions, and particularly <a href="https://twitter.com/Solid_monk"
target="_blank"><u>monk</u></a> for his insight into Warcraft III team
games.</p>
<div class="tocd">
<p class="smallerheading">Table of Contents:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="#AoE2">Age of Empires II</a></li>
<li><a href="#RoleDifferentiation">Role differentiation</a></li>
<li><a href="#Cooperation">Levels of cooperation</a></li>
<li><a href="#SC2Coop">Co-op in StarCraft 2</a></li>
<li><a href="#InformationOverload">Information overload</a></li>
<li><a href="#WC3">Warcraft 3</a></li>
<li><a href="#SC2">StarCraft 2</a></li>
<li><a href="#DoW2">Dawn of War 2</a></li>
<li><a href="#Takeaway">Takeaway</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="AoE2">Age of Empires II</p>
<p>Let's start with a game hailed as one of the best RTS for team games.
After that, I will look more at theory, and finally go over more RTS
games.</p>
<p>Many things make Age of Empires II (AoE2) a great game, but which make it
a good <i>team </i>game?</p>
<p class="smallerheading">1. Strong defender's advantage</p>
<p>It provides more stability to the game and prevents it from deteriorating
into rushes. A player can't be quickly focused and destroyed by multiple
players, or at the very least the player can buy time for his allies to
help or counter-attack.</p>
<p>The defender's advantage is already strong in AoE2, but in team games
it's further reinforced by allies covering flanks, which leads to fewer
walls and defensive structures needed, and easier positioning on defense.</p>
<p>Castles, Town Centers, and walls are great for defensive purposes, but
they also have their weaknesses. Walls can't shoot, Town Center's attack
is quite weak, and castles become available at the Castle age (3/4) and
are costly. That means that there are still openings for harassment and
action. Players are unlikely to get eliminated completely, but aggression
can still damage their economy, which is a more interesting outcome for
everyone, and especially for the player that would be out of the game in
StarCraft II.</p>
<p>These limitations on static defenses are important. Too strong static
defenses would lead to passive gameplay. In the Imperial age (4/4),
castles can be out-ranged and destroyed by Trebuchets, which prevents them
from slowing the game excessively.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSuZay1X0hJdFt9DelvCTpv_JD2vKLtU5a4YVyJQGnd2dARdobEkZ1aQOuaN2PqBSeykVtDpj4dgMCIu5-9likPajAcLRgXnF5G6y5IoGq_TIWPH26jeYWijEbgcEWTU5O_Lhv91apYDjj/s1920/aoe2.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Strong defender's advantage in Age of Empires II<br>
We can also see some role differentiation between players</div>
<p class="smallerheading">2. Role differentiation</p>
<p>Faction differences encourage players to take certain roles in the team,
for example, a civilization might have a bonus for cavalry and so a player
will focus primarily on it. Any civilization can deal with any threat, at
least in theory, but choosing to work within these roles is more optimal.
Cooperation isn't required, but it's rewarded.</p>
<p>Different armies can work well together (e.g., crossbowmen and cavalry)
which rewards teamwork, and larger battles don't degenerate into huge unit
blobs the same way as merging multiple similar armies does. Imbalanced
resource spending, which is the result of focusing on certain units,
encourages sending spare resources to allies. This is another opportunity
for good teamwork.</p>
<p>Civilizations have strengths in different parts of the game, and so
strategies can form around that – letting certain players to <i>boom </i>(quickly
expand economy), while others secure the map or <i>feed </i>(send
resources). Spawning positions play a role here as well, a player in more
secure position might decide to boom and shift its power spike to later
stages.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</div>
<p><a href="https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Team_bonus" target="_blank"><u>Passive
team bonuses</u></a> are shared within the team (e.g., Scorpions have
+1 range). While I prefer emergent synergies in competitive multiplayer
games, these do have positive effects on the game:</p>
<ul>
<li>Make players feel like are always contributing</li>
<li>Change how economy or army operates – making the gameplay experience
more diverse</li>
<li>Discourage multiple picks of over-performing civilizations as
identical bonuses don't stack</li>
<li>Make a pre-game strategy of picking civilizations deeper</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallerheading">3. Keeping the complexity down</p>
<p>To keep the overall match complexity at a reasonable level and comparable
to 1v1, the game is simplified in certain parts. This also plays well with
the more casual audience of team games. AoE2 accomplishes this in a few
ways:</p>
<ul>
<li>Allies covering flanks means the surface on which action happens
doesn't increase linearly with players. There are no air, teleporting,
or stealth units to harass everywhere.</li>
<li>Role differentiation leads to players controlling fewer unit types
compared to 1v1. In team games, a player might often control an army
composed just of cavalry or archers. This also makes battles easier to
visually parse, identify mistakes in positioning and coordinate with
teammates.</li>
<li>The economy is easier to optimize for the production of one unit type.</li>
</ul>
<p>More on this in the <i>Information Overload</i> section.</p>
<p class="smallerheading">4. Economy scaling</p>
<p>One set of rules that affects how the economy scales during a game might
fit 1v1 but lead to problems in team games. For example, reduced mineral
amounts in <i>StarCraft II Legacy of the Void</i> lead to more dynamic
games in 1v1, but were too restricting for team games, especially with the
maps where players couldn't expand as frequently as in 1v1.</p>
<p>In AoE2, trading routes are practically absent in 1v1, however, this
mechanic adjusts the scaling of the economy in team games – serving as an
unlimited source of gold in the lategame. It's also a team effort, a
potential target of harassment, and requires high investment which leads
to a strategic choice when to start building trading routes.</p>
<p class="smallerheading">5. Other factors</p>
<p>Players can easily feel like they are contributing – whether it's through
passive bonuses, strong civilization units, feeding, defending, repairing
allied structures, or pushing with static defenses together. It's less
likely a player is completely out of the game and unable to contribute in
any way.</p>
<p>Of course, having good support for team games in terms of playtesting,
balance patches, and map pool helps as well.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="RoleDifferentiation">Role differentiation</p>
<p>Let's go deeper on few factors that contribute to creating a good team
game experience in RTS games. First, let's look at role differentiation
(player specialization). Specialization happens when players opt for
different strategies to complement their teammates. Let's distinguish a
few types of specializations based on how players can deal with different
situations:</p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Inherent specialization</span> – Players
are given roles and cannot deviate from them. No single player can do
everything (Dwarfheim, monobattles, RPGs with classical tank/heal/DPS
trinity).</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Somewhere in between</span> – Players
can deal with any situation but not always effectively. Focusing on
faction's strength is more optimal (Age of Empires II).</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Emergent specialization</span> – Players
have one or more ways to deal with any situation effectively.
Specializations emerge because of team play (Warcraft III, StarCraft
II).</li>
</ul>
<p>Specializations can happen along several axes:</p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Unit type</span> – based on range,
movement, bonus damage, and others (crossbowmen & cavalry in AoE2)</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Army type</span> – defensive, offensive,
harassment or armies good at holding positions can complement each other</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Game phase strength</span> – players
have different strengths at different game phases (this can be either
inherent strength of a certain faction, or a player might decide to
focus on the economy while allies defend)</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img style="border: 0px solid black"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtP2w2zI6sAPYVZ-7fyHRiGLZkGD6jbdnOJ4EQxGYjk5dHEeqSuUWLEYYI0lQUPdi0d8YDdDxIJ8bwn_WRbAeugUOOnmsUYhuTH18wrY-1OZgqhuJPIKtH2TOGjQbW3WqGLsgaMLG55vWy/s824/maxresdefault.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Map Seton's Clutch leads to emergent specialization –
typically 2x navy, 1x ground, 1x air (Supreme Commander)</div>
<p>What are some advantages of having role differentiation in a game?</p>
<ul>
<li>It encourages team play and adds more depth.</li>
<li>It makes each game feel more different as interactions between allies
and strategies will change.</li>
<li>It can reduce information overload. Fewer unit types improve visual
clarity.</li>
<li>It can make it easier for a player to contribute effectively. Player's
roles are simplified (economy, army composition, and army control) and
inherent faction bonuses add an edge for the player.</li>
</ul>
<p>Negative effects can come up mainly when high coordination is required
due to inherent specialization. Having to rely on allies can be
frustrating and lead to toxic behavior.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Monobattles in StarCraft II (4v4 arcade mode where you can make only one
combat unit type) are popular because of the reasons mentioned above. It's
a lot about novelty, every game being different, and what you can do with
such limited tools is strategically interesting. It's not balanced,
but it's not framed as such. AoE2 does something similar with civilization
and team bonuses, but to a lesser degree and in a more balanced way.</p>
<p>In AoE2 the specialization in unit types can be quite high – to the point
where a player is making just one unit type. This is partly because unit
diversity isn't high to begin with, and partly because of a strong
defender's advantage and the lack of harassment units ignoring walls and
terrain. If we compare it to StarCraft II where many units ignore terrain,
and time-to-kill is very low, every player has to be more self-sufficient.
In AoE2 walls and static defenses will usually buy enough time to
reposition and defend.</p>
<p>High investment in upgrades and production structures also leads players
to specialization into certain unit types. Though this approach is more
opaque to casual players, who often don't grasp the opportunity cost of
getting every upgrade available.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="Cooperation">Levels of cooperation</p>
<p>Team games can demand varying levels of cooperation. Some can be enjoyed
with random players you just met, other games ask for high levels of
coordination and trust. <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/977650/DwarfHeim/"
target="_blank"><u>Dwarfheim</u></a> is one such game and with strong
inherent role differentiation – players can choose from three roles:
warrior, builder, and miner. Because these roles are highly dependent on
each other, the game requires good cooperation and is best enjoyed with a
group of friends.</p>
<p>In games with such strong role differentiation, you have to rely on your
teammates heavily. If the cooperation is lacking, it can quickly become
frustrating and lead to toxic behavior, which MOBAs and games like
Overwatch have to fight in <a href="https://www.erikstill.me/blog/behavioral-scoring-in-dota-2"
target="_blank"><u>various ways</u></a>.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the best situation for an RTS is when cooperation isn't
required, but it's rewarded. Ideally, you could do things alone, but it's
more optimal and fun to do it together. This is where role differentiation
is emergent. Though I can see that for practical purposes adding some
inherent specialization helps (AoE2).</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKj0QLBGwX75R3vLniwlEu2lKrI6h2kJFLr4IG-T-1jMQrgZ070kRK_38EUbtuzp8frAp6XdgjgS7kG1IisEhNDKLH3G59HkZLSh72o3qKk8VFJAL3s_xlPkgzl2U3bRtRz-V60tjG07uq/s1920/dwarf.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Builders build, Miners mine, Warriors wage wars
(Dwarfheim)</div>
<p>Related to this is what I call the <span style="color: #ff9900;">"<i>ability
to have fun alone</i>"</span>. In some games this ability is
relatively low – if you are a healer or support in Overwatch, you rely
heavily on your team. Moreover, the focus being on a single objective
means you always need your team. Compare that to games like Call of Duty,
where you can have a decent time no matter if your team is doing well or
not – you can always run alone, get some kills and weapon unlocks, and
have fun.</p>
<p>This doesn't mean one approach is better than the other, but this "<i>ability
to have fun alone</i>" is an interesting concept. It's not directly
linked with the "<i>ability to carry</i>", it's more about the degree to
which you can have fun despite losing and despite your team not doing
well. The higher it's, the more players enjoy the game, and fewer players
gets frustrated and display toxic behavior. However, designing both for it
and a good team play experience is very hard.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="SC2Coop">Co-op in starcraft 2</p>
<p>In this post, I'm focusing on PvP team games, but let's quickly look at
Co-op which is purely PvE. Most games in this mode are played with a
random partner through matchmaking, and so Co-op can't rely on
high-coordination tasks. Those few missions that require even the most
basic cooperation are often a source of frustration.</p>
<p>Except for those few forced interactions, essentially every mission can
be done solo with any commander. Even mutation challenges can be carried
or done solo for most of the part. This makes matching with a random ally
a lot more enjoyable.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoF6qaj-NKIkf2wddt8Dst-VV1_V2-EsB-G-IhMTh2YJJSCnUOD2KO_3_-e5vI2LV0zI_ON1FVvdoXJsVV5bTiC1iOkymgNpYO_laH-xLSPGzMYnQGIfUdY3-bpgVbmZd4TXIkSgca38TQ/s1396/lock.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Players have to capture locks together. <br>
Sending a unit seems simple, but not everyone will manage (StarCraft II
Co-op)</div>
<p>Passive team bonuses, similar to team bonuses in AoE2, are a good
addition for very similar reasons – players contribute by just existing,
each game is a bit different, and there is more strategic depth when
choosing commanders. Few examples:</p>
<ul>
<li>Vespene Drones – more vespene resource changes build orders and
compositions</li>
<li>Guardian Shell – units gain temporary invulnerability on-death, this
changes the strength of certain unit compositions and lets players be
more aggressive</li>
<li>Emergency Recall – cloaked and burrowed units gain increased damage,
regeneration, and on-death are teleported to the main base instead of
dying</li>
</ul>
<p>Ideally, there would be many such bonuses where each makes the game a bit
different. However, not all commanders have these.</p>
<p>Actual coordination is rewarded in Co-op as well. For example, Vorazun
can put enemy units into a black hole, and the ally can use area-of-effect
damage to destroy them. Kerrigan's allies can use her Omega Networks to
travel around the map. These interactions between players feel rewarding,
and the more of them there are, the better. Highlighting where the mutual
help occurred can improve the feeling of good team play.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="InformationOverload">Information overload</p>
<p>One player's actions usually occupy the player's whole attention budget.
The game state of a 1v1 game was designed complex enough to be interesting
but not overwhelming. But even in a 1v1 game, it can be challenging for
professional observers and casters to catch all the action happening, and
to understand the current game state.</p>
<p>Scaling this into team games can be an issue. Suddenly players and
spectators might catch only a part of the action. This makes identifying
the current game state harder, and the game state might be also
significantly more complex. In a 1v1 game, you could follow the story of
the match, but in team games, this story might be too complex for players
or viewers to see or enjoy. That's an information overload.</p>
<p>Carefully designed complexity and pacing for 1v1 can break when scaling
for more players. Clarity and unit balance can break when scaling for more
units. Let's see how some games manage the increase in actions and
complexity.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</div>
<p>2v2 suffers the least from the information overload, as the number of
players is only twice that of 1v1. <span style="color: #ff9900;">Warcraft
3</span>'s 2v2 still works well because of this, smaller armies, low
base count, centralizing effect of heroes, and slow time-to-kill. Hero
levels are a good indicator of how the game is going (game state).</p>
<p>Higher team sizes still work decently in <span style="color: #ff9900;">AoE2</span>.
Compared to StarCraft II, the action is slower, the surface on which
action happens is limited (doesn't scale linearly with players, units
cannot get past walls easily), and strong role differentiation encourages
players to make simpler armies – often massing just one unit type. Strong
defensive structures slow down any pushes. All of this reduces the
complexity of game states and action to manageable levels.</p>
<p>Team games in <span style="color: #ff9900;">Red Alert 3</span> suffer
from information overload. The game's 1v1 is designed for fast action
happening all over the map with very impactful units and support
abilities. This can be quite exciting to play and watch in 1v1, but it's
extremely hard to follow in team games. The economy was simplified to make
the game state clearer, but this change came with negative consequences as
well.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">MOBAs</span> (typically 5v5) have the
advantage of one unit per player which greatly simplifies things. The
basic game state is also nicely shown in their UI (team kills, gold value,
levels, destroyed towers). The game has enough "<em>structure</em>" so
players and viewers are aware of broad strokes, and where the game is
going – there is less strategic confusion. However, it's not perfect
either. The true game state that relies on items purchased, abilities
chosen and dynamics between all heroes, this state is way too complex for
the vast majority of players and viewers. Also, the clarity in team
battles still suffers from all visual effects.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Real-world team games</span> like
basketball or soccer focus most of the action on the ball, which makes the
action easy to follow. The game state is also easy to understand with a
simple score system and the number of players being usually constant.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p id="mechanics">One interesting connection is between the general idea of
information overload and mechanical tasks in RTS. This can involve common
micro patterns, small tactical maneuvers, or macro-cycles. These do not
contain strategic decisions, and typically don't change where the game
state is going. Some might ask – if they do not contain meaningful
decisions, why are they there? I can see few reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>They are a different type of skill check, and a parallel and more
incremental type of progression. You might get stuck with your strategic
understanding of the game, but you can always improve on macro, micro,
or unit positioning.</li>
<li>Deep strategic decisions are mentally demanding as they are done by <a
href="https://www.bettercognitions.com/articles/system-1-and-system-2-thinking/" target="_blank"><u>system 2
(slow thinking)</u></a>. However, if they
are interleaved with actions that do require very little brainpower,
those executed by <a href="https://www.bettercognitions.com/articles/system-1-and-system-2-thinking/"
target="_blank"><u>system 1 (fast thinking)</u></a>, then the brain
can rest for a while, or compute in the background – not breaking the
flow state. That's a better experience than every action having deep
strategic meaning, and doing this under time pressure. Speed chess isn't
for everyone. I believe this is one of the reasons behind the feedback
that StarCraft II <i>feels</i> harder than Brood War.</li>
<li>Given these actions or tasks do not individually change where the game
state is going, a player or spectator doesn't have to be aware of all of
them. This is even more important in team games where many players are
always doing something.<br>
<br>
Macro in AoE2 falls into this category. Nobody can follow all actions
spent on macro in a 3v3 game, but those actions keep players engaged,
and don't increase the complexity of the game state excessively. Compare
that to a hypothetical situation where all player's actions are spent on
multi-prong attacks. That would be a lot harder to follow.
</li>
</ol>
<p class="smallheading" id="WC3">WarCraft 3</p>
<p>Warcraft 3 (WC3) has a healthy competitive 2v2 scene. That's party
because of a decent map pool and balance changes aimed directly at team
games. I have just mentioned factors that prevent information overload,
and let's look at a few other reasons. High time-to-kill means that
players can react and help their allies. The Town Portal spell even lets
players teleport their army to the allied base. Compare that to StarCraft
2, where being even few seconds late can mean the battle is already over.</p>
<p>Because of fewer units, all players can engage in a 2v2 battle. However,
due to higher unit spacing, large armies typically don't create a blob –
positioning remains important. The game flow seems to be preserved from
1v1. That's partly because of the defender's advantage, and because the
creeping mechanic gives the game a <i>structure</i>. The game doesn't
degenerate into rushes as StarCraft 2 does; strategic and unit diversity
are preserved. Strategic diversity can be even increased due to synergies.
Creeping also discourages deathballing – when to join armies is a
strategic decision and comes at a cost.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSQE_SjmJDMe2y8KC5pNCxK8KJL7P_jqMb3VHwo4bZ9JEHEjzRyUlnQeP2rr182EbR1S30YFI1mvLepMhJB4Mr-EqK2qRGtLg4yoY_39eU7s8maRxKFF9eXtyLLJkk6KAkYlp2ZyFSINbD/s1200/wc3.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Ghouls + Crypt Fiends combo (Warcraft 3)</div>
<p>Cooperation isn't required, but it's rewarded. Synergies come from
various heals and buffs, and abilities like <i>Siphon Mana</i>
(Bloodmage), which can be used to either transfer mana from enemy units or
recharge mana of allied units.</p>
<p>Role differentiation is emergent, and happens on few axes:</p>
<ol>
<li>Range – typically a combination of tanky melee unit and ranged DPS.
This is more optimal due to upgrade costs, and limited surface area for
melee units. Players can also switch roles during the game. For example,
Orc + Undead team might start with <i>Ghouls </i>(Undead melee) + <i>Headhunters
</i>(Orc ranged), and then transition into <i>Crypt Fiend</i>s
(Undead ranged) + <i>Taurens </i>(Orc melee).</li>
<li>Army type – certain armies are more suited for hit-and-run tactics, to
harass and buy time (e.g., Huntresses) while other armies are slower and
more lategame oriented (Undead).</li>
<li>Game-phase strength – players take roles based on whether their
faction's strengths lie in early, mid or lategame. For example, a Night
Elf player might secure a strong early game, expand, and later feed an
Undead player who has a better lategame.</li>
</ol>
<p>Players try to take advantage of the power spikes and strengths of their
faction, and let their ally compensate for their faction weaknesses. The
more coordinated the team is, the more they can lean into their strengths
while not leaving themselves open for an attack.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="SC2">Starcraft 2</p>
<p>Despite StarCraft II (SC2) being an awesome and popular game, some issues
prevented its team games from becoming more popular. They never got much
attention in terms of (map) design and balance, leading to long periods of
stagnant and not enjoyable metagames. But there are other reasons as well.</p>
<p>Low defender's advantage together with high lethality and used maps leads
to the prevalence of rushes and cheeses which limits strategic and unit
diversity, especially on higher levels. This restricted map design, and
shared main bases became a necessity to prevent at least part of early
rushes. High lethality also means fewer chances to help your ally as
battles can end in seconds.</p>
<p>Past early game, high lethality tied with many units ignoring terrain
makes defending harder, as all players have to prepare for a variety of
harassment and aggression (Dark Templar, Mutalisks, Oracles, runbys, etc).
Players are not as free to coordinate with allies as in AoE2. It became
even more difficult in <i>Legacy of the Void</i> when players were forced
to expand even faster.</p>
<p>Overall, I think that together these factors made the game full of early
aggression, unstable and difficult for teamwork.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</div>
<p>There is some <span style="color: #ff9900;">role differentiation</span>
on all axes in SC2. For units, it's due to melee-ranged or air-ground
split, and damage bonuses against different armor types. On the game-phase
axis, players hit power spikes at different times, or one player might
focus on macro. Feeding is possible as well. Despite that, I think role
differentiation didn't flourish and became more interesting because of the
reasons listed in the previous section. Plus there are no team bonuses,
and Zerg can be even detrimental when it comes to basebuilding due to
creep blocking allied structures.</p>
<p>Despite the focus on harassment, multi-prong action, and the lack of
reduction in complexity, I don't think <span style="color: #ff9900;">information
overload</span> was an issue in SC2. That's partly because of rushes
keeping game lengths short, maps being quite small, and the lack of a
professional scene for team games.</p>
<p>Issues with <span style="color: #ff9900;">lategame unit compositions</span>,
particularly deathballing and skytoss, are in both 1v1 and team games, but
there is a potential for it to be more problematic in team games. Firstly,
DPS densities and effectiveness of splash damage, both problematic in SC2,
can reach even higher levels in team games. Secondly, asymmetry in
required skill and coordination to defeat certain unit compositions can be
even more lopsided in team games, where tight coordination between players
isn't always possible. Both of these factors have the potential to change
a normal unit composition in 1v1 to a broken one in team games.</p>
<p>I do think the <span style="color: #ff9900;">economy </span>was an
issue, especially with the changes in <i>Legacy of the Void</i>. While it
made 1v1 more dynamic, players in team games can't expand as easily or as
frequently. This didn't play well with other issues of team games in SC2
and made the game flow very different to 1v1 – further encouraging
aggression.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYGkHDHXfvq65RzQAkRgiw93b8kLhXh1_zi4_BTWSwovUiSSz4eOGErO6j-T3VnvW6fcn9_R5p_-uArgwD4Cdcyasha9td88wyKCDaVid-jnxTpt38ugr4lE3SIHU06UHU5XWogCj6IPrR/s1920/sc2.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Early rushes are prevalent in team games (StarCraft 2)</div>
<p>Where normal 4v4 failed, others took its place. <span style="color: #ff9900;">Megaton
with unlimited resources</span> is a solid 4v4 map that fixes the
limited economy and pushes the game flow closer to 1v1 where epic battles
are more likely. There is also a small reduction in the complexity due to
no need to constantly expand and transfer workers.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Monobattles </span>is another popular 4v4
team game where players can make only one combat unit type. This greatly
reduces information overload, simplifies both economy and army control,
and adds a huge amount of game-to-game diversity.</p>
<p>I would also argue that not being part of the ladder made these maps
better. On the ladder, the objective is framed as winning the game, and
players are more likely to rush even if they do not enjoy it. In the
arcade, there is no reward for winning, and the objective is to have fun.
Also, the matchmaking on the SC2 4v4 ladder isn't much better than picking
players at random, so not much is lost there. Games not being framed as
balanced can prevent some frustration with allies as well. For example,
the most popular mode in monobattles, <i>blind pick,</i> is inherently
not balanced.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="DoW2">Dawn of War 2</p>
<p><i>Dawn of War 2</i> and <i>Company of Heroes 2</i> are two of Relic's
RTS that are unlike other games I have mentioned here. They are good team
games, and one reason for it is that each match is very stable – a player
can practically never lose straight up and be unable to participate in a
game, which can happen all too often in StarCraft 2. Matches are
guaranteed to last some time, but despite the strong defender's advantage,
there is action from the very start of the game.</p>
<p>That's all because of how the economy and objectives are structured –
both resources and victory points are gained through territory control.
Pushing to player's bases is unusual, and enemies are likely to focus on
securing victory points instead – giving the losing team a chance for a
comeback. An upkeep mechanic provides another helping hand to the losing
team – while feeling better than the one in WC3.</p>
<p>The stability of the game is further improved with the retreat mechanic
(units can quickly flee the battlefield and replenish at the main base).
Deathballing is discouraged by the importance of territory control.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaSaiHVuKajvwhxZPOE87PFi5xTjV2PKoXZ-anyrPYWtf6xiWuDbWgBAmhOnWBgbEiPKg2LfgxvNFzcNrFw9toaqTpkzrfJVMk6PWCPx-6cGeJxdNAMtE3Fs8UkcUWMFT-vnaTJKRUnLP0/s1920/dow2.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Score system (top), minimap showing both economy and
positions (bottom-left), unit tab (bottom-right).<br>
Together all these give a good idea about the current game state (Dawn of
War 2)</div>
<p>Information overload is kept at bay by focusing on a single front-line
and having a relatively low number of units. The game has also more <i>structure
</i>than most other RTS games – it being essentially a tug-of-war in the
middle. Plus there are other factors that help players and viewers to get
a good idea about the current game state – territory on the minimap
corresponds to the economic power, units have permanent icons on the
screen, and a simple score system is always visible on the top. All of
this makes it easier to see how the game is going.</p>
<p>Company of Heroes 2 puts more emphasis on positioning with static
defenses, and weapons firing in arcs. This makes team play even more
important to protect flanks or outmaneuver the enemy. It can stabilize the
game further since it makes pushing into the enemy territory with exposed
flanks and an uncertain retreat path even riskier.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKzs_2aVkhQwqIiArRk9Pnei657VMO-nyml8RP-yFUT6I2izUgCV_5Qz_qRXwOgLHxmzLGYQBmmERIFQ0ni-ThSx27RHER510dBlmyuIUiVegwUBgyVsFGQ8HiAvCX7i1FFJ_a8MBhy9Iy/s1200/coh2.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Strong positional focus in Company of Heroes 2</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="Takeaway">Takeaway</p>
<ol>
<li>The number of important actions and the <span style="color: #ff9900;">complexity
</span>of the game state are often designed for 1v1 and don't scale
well for team games. However, some mechanics and dynamics can help to
reduce the complexity and keep it at manageable levels. Good UI can help
players and viewers identify the game state.</li>
<li>One set of rules for the <span style="color: #ff9900;">economy </span>might
fit 1v1 but not team games. This can have a negative impact on game
flow, faction design and balance. It's possible to have an economy model
that scales well into team games or mechanics that are targeted at team
games (e.g., trading routes in AoE2).</li>
<li><span style="color: #ff9900;">Map design</span> can help with
mentioned issues, but when neglected it can introduce new problems.</li>
<li>New <span style="color: #ff9900;">balance </span>problems arise in
team games – mainly in early game rushes and lategame deathballs. If
balance issues are not dealt with, the strategic and unit diversity will
suffer, and games become less enjoyable.</li>
<li>A player being eliminated early on and not being able to contribute
isn't good for anyone. A strong <span style="color: #ff9900;">defender's
advantage</span> can stabilize the game, but it shouldn't prevent
action between players. Other mechanics can stabilize the game or
facilitate comebacks (retreat, victory point system, upkeep, etc.).</li>
<li>Passive team bonuses and <span style="color: #ff9900;">role
differentiation</span> can add more depth, encourage team play, reduce
information overload, make it easier to contribute effectively, simplify
the game for players, and add a lot of game-to-game diversity.</li>
<li>Having good opportunities for <span style="color: #ff9900;">team play
</span>is important as well. Role differentiation can help with this,
whether it's inherent or emergent. I prefer when cooperation isn't
required, however, when it happens, it should be highlighted and
rewarded so players can appreciate it more easily.</li>
</ol>
<p class="smallheading" id="Closing">Closing</p>
<p>Thank you for reading this. The post became a lot longer than I expected.
What makes team games work is extremely interesting, and there is a lot
more to it than this post. Still, I hope it made sense, and you got
something from it.</p>
<p>For discussion check <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/mrcmvr/tr07_team_games_in_rts/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread on r/FrostGiant</u></a>.</p>
<p>Previous posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
01: Setting, scale, heroes, socialization, and shareability</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission02.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
02: Player onboarding and lowering the skill floor</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/12/transmission03.html" target="_blank">Transmission
03: Divided playerbase, variety mode, victory conditions</a></u></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
04: Improving Co-op</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
05: Co-op events & progression</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission06.html" target="_blank">Transmission
06: API, replays, post-game screens</a> </u></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-65647665129787539682021-03-16T16:44:00.005+01:002021-05-13T14:45:32.258+02:00Transmission 06 - API, replays, post-game screens<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>API, Replays, Post-game screens</title>
<style>
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 40px 0px 10px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 26px
}
.post-title {
display: none
}
.bigimgdiv {
margin-top: 45px
}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #222;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.mquote {
color: #999;
max-width: 650px;
margin: auto;
margin-top: 50px;
border-left: 1px solid #999;
padding-left: 10px;
}
.mauthor {
text-align: right;
margin-bottom: 50px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -30px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHeiUccUcYTxekb0FXw7P4YhFVu1lKhf6VoujuPZDAjxHhnwAlOXn78PtZMgF5_BxNUmTTJibE3-gMoR_aFWm8CNJKhpOoU98jTBGLQexRniEZAMot41E6DGpTbjC0XiYn1VW44utF6eyJ/s1500/Banner6.jpg">
</div>
<p>Getting moment-to-moment gameplay just right is very important, but there
is more to a game than that. Many things outside of gameplay can make the
game feel more meaningful and enjoyable, improve socialization, and
empower the community around the game. I want to look at a few
improvements to these things. This includes replays, APIs, post-game
screens, and more.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="campaigns">Campaigns on Arcade</p>
<p>Custom variations on official campaigns are a great way to enjoy and
replay campaigns anew. Mapmakers have shown their creativity in StarCraft
II by modifying campaigns to be playable in party, with different races,
randomized units, or even by switching sides with the enemy.</p>
<p>While StarCraft II has recently improved support for custom campaigns,
it's still not perfect. I would love good support for mapmakers from day
one – letting them modify and share their campaigns easily.
Meta-progression and areas like Hyperion or Leviathan could be easily
reused and modified, and movie sequences triggered.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgajLvPkhrAYgHDWauVePTMCYmPw0x1GYnhnvZqCE_0whvQLCDGpET34o0agyYgtjuvEeKu9mQ2qST0W7MQFxaju7kXYFO_MxLqNd_hAceI0iy_8aDp5Kh2y2b-jKhuTLVGWuWxqizXM-kv/s1920/reversed.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">In reversed campaigns, you switch sides with the enemy
AI (StarCraft II)</div>
<p>This would, of course, come with a system that checks whether a user has
purchased the campaign. This somewhat works in StarCraft II, but it's left
to mapmakers and so it can be confusing and inconsistent. For example,
users cannot filter which missions they can play in menus. Some campaigns
will kick the user after a mission starts, other maps will complain but
let the user play, and some just don't care.</p>
<p>While resuming from replays is a great feature for single-player when
it's enabled, it's not consistent with how saves work in the original
campaigns, and some players might not be aware of it at all. This can be
another point of friction for users. To sum up, custom campaigns greatly
improve replayability for the audience that enjoys single-player content,
and there are ways to make the experience better.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0rtLBDM-F1mIjY3hJdzUV2jCl9tuAXINlhW9yJqflz8FaDHN4wW1IqjCrtZUKxbNnf2i1oAP8bT3D7K_7ZYf9p6heyCqHAAm1Mhm6TGt-iRSNTyZrMzrknDqHgzSO0DrRexcaRf94Jshl/s1089/campaigns.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Custom campaign section (StarCraft II)</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="replays">Replays</p>
<p>Replays are excellent for learning, tournaments, or just coming back to
awesome games. They also enable a lot of projects for tracking player's
progress and performance. I have my <a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/SC2_Coop_overlay"
target="_blank"><u>Co-op overlay</u></a> and an older <a href="https://analysis.maguro.one/"
target="_blank"><u>webpage</u></a> with various tournament statistics.</p>
<p>The existence of replays depends on how the engine is used and the
networking architecture. If replays weren't supported, it would still be
nice if users were given the option to save similar match data to a local
file – even if the game couldn't be replayed from these files. That would
make possible similar analyses with community-built tools.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhia-pMzQqbxtdns4i6CduDzH5O1TIOLyv-p4rGqpslLXm1DvPxnuNiIQ9euOr6EhI9KpsBypUSbHSZcKEEpq2jQQ5pGtwcZEAXr9AvDhGwcuyYIl2v9J6aLMf1DOaXDWvHqWo1yD4cP4UW/s970/abathur.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Statistics about ally commander choices taken from my
replays (<a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/SC2_Coop_overlay" target="_blank"><u>overlay</u></a>)</div>
<p>Current replays contain a good amount of data; only a few other things
like coarse unit locations or whether abilities were actually executed
would be useful. Also, when you are watching a replay, it might be
interesting if you could see when a unit received a command from a player,
perhaps in a form of floating text above the unit. That might make it
easier to learn execution in certain situations or appreciate
micromanagement.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXf-AWAWr1WDWXYwzvycSryZ0im5eSVflsecSl65TNspEZuHoaH0pRU8WjipOu_Hk5GVgy_wsw9u32qBGhT4YADSO_PETsQiAWALNddWFDoUd7pjC2uayNKvnm1bhzlTbs68-cZtEv5ONI/s1575/dehaka.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Ability sequence for Dehaka (StarCraft II)</div>
<p>Another interesting use of replays could be after a game. If you lost, an
algorithm would find a replay of a game with the same map, races,
compositions, and situations, but where your side won. This would be
useful for learning. It might also reduce balance complaints since many of
them stem from not being able to identify how the player could have won.</p>
<p>Replays would be chosen from better players, so there are things to
learn. However, the skill gap can't be too high, there are just too many
differences between for example gold and grandmaster league players.
Player names in replays might need to be anonymized. How fast replays can
be loaded and replayed is also important. If it's too slow, most players
won't bother. A better algorithm will also affect the effectiveness of
this system, it might find more useful replays, and perhaps even point to
specific things where to improve like macro, army composition, or control.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="postgamescreen">Post-game screens</p>
<p>There a few things that a post-game screens can provide:</p>
<ul>
<li>Show progression</li>
<li>Provide insight into the game via stats</li>
<li>Tell a story that can be shared</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>As for the last point, players want to share and talk about games they
had. A nice screenshot from the post-game screen can greatly help with
that. Both my overlay and score screens on MM maps were <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html#postgame"
target="_blank"><u>designed to be shareable</u></a>, but it can be
improved further with mission-specific backgrounds or cleaner UI. Things
like font-sizes should be considered based on what players see in-game,
and how the screen will be shared. There could be dedicated buttons for
saving a screenshot or sharing it directly. This could improve
socialization and serve as free marketing, so it warrants at least some
attention.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw_lsaclTfvYADRmPu69VjQN3j3-VpejLZ2py9XiWLHLbokgv55BjjPKPrGBCgAN3MTZMOztOry9YJsUNIFUqD-6YxXWWsn9PAM6E7ZJILUnjXGLnXHjz18VeUI0lhQ4neXuV1RyvgvnY4/s1212/aoeIItimeline.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">A pretty compact way to tell a story, though some
important info is missing to tell it whole (Age of Empires 2)</div>
<p>Videos can be shared as well. An algorithm would choose a few good plays
for each player, and players could share any of those moments with one
click, or save them to their profile.</p>
<p>This has similar positive effects as mentioned with screenshots, plus the
player can feel better about a game when rewatching these cool moments
even if they lost. Overwatch has a somewhat similar system where players
can render and encode gameplay highlights to local video files, but it's
not as streamlined, and not a one-click solution. <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/558990/Opus_Magnum/"
target="_blank"><u>Magnum Opus</u></a> has integrated gif-maker for
sharing your solutions (<a href="https://i.imgur.com/wYilbQD.gif" target="_blank"><u>example</u></a>).
It's a popular feature, and because of it I will recognize the game
despite not playing it.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Showing progression in a mode like Co-op is quite simple via earned XP
and unlocks. However, in competitive modes this can be more tricky when
dealing with wins and, more importantly, losses. From a post describing
the design of slot machines:</p>
<p class="mquote"> The basic idea is to make good things (for profitability)
feel better than bad things feel bad. To do this, manufacturers and
developers simply make wins salient and losses non-salient. Wins are an
audio-visual spectacle with flashing lights, colorful motion graphics,
amplified coin pouring sounds, and a loud and cheery victory jingle.
Losses are the exact opposite, the user interface just fast-tracks the
player to the replay button without any spectacle.</p>
<p class="mauthor"><a href="https://www.erikstill.me/blog/how-does-gambling-work"
target="_blank"><u>Eric Still - How Does Gambling Work?</u></a></p>
<p>A similar approach can be used in games as well. Make wins a spectacle
with audio and visual effects, show all the progression and rewards.
Losses can have a more neutral tone while showing things where players
made progress and statistics where they did well. Also, players should be
able to skip screens after losing quickly.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5NPyUCJa-FIB828wv81ibLCjsVrBUrGPyNKTC8TQ53Y8XlejTjE_DlZ4p643-JBHlSS8gRrWLTofZ3g61w1QDpZSGRCDvD6ndtnu76cZSnHdn6aArFW0n904HUKbNglkGOgYDOSr76u5c/s1200/OW.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">Overwatch focuses on positive things and places where
you made progress.<br>
(though this screen isn't that interesting to be shared)</div>
<p>While I believe MMR shouldn't be hidden, I don't think it should be the
main focus either. </p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKoTGtz3pLz8NYVBTQTB9xox6TVGvzI_wwycY0RAEMRjPXWKSTvGlPWRPSXTRv9EH1DdBlFuoJw4nhNd0mOhweztl66fcXLyF2MB_Clb2v4OxYUDtg2Q9spvNYkqE9qge7qPtpl65hTTu/s1920/artosis.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKoTGtz3pLz8NYVBTQTB9xox6TVGvzI_wwycY0RAEMRjPXWKSTvGlPWRPSXTRv9EH1DdBlFuoJw4nhNd0mOhweztl66fcXLyF2MB_Clb2v4OxYUDtg2Q9spvNYkqE9qge7qPtpl65hTTu/s1920/artosis.jpg"></a>
</div>
<div class="subnote" style="max-width: 650px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"><a
href="https://www.twitch.tv/artosis" target="_blank"><u>Artosis</u></a>
is not happy about losing his points. See the chat. (StarCraft Remastered)</div>
<p>In this example, the perceived loss of progression is in the forefront
and even animated – prolonging and amplifying the negative experience. He
might have learned few things in that game, actually improved and
progressed forward, but the game is set on informing him that he just lost
all the progression he has been working toward for the last hour.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</div>
<p>But I have to give it to StarCraft Remastered, the idea to display real
players, preferably friends or rivals, relative to your position is a nice
touch. Showing your progress in the context of players you know can help
to make the game feel more meaningful and alive. It seems more elegant
than being in a StarCraft II division with random 99 players you don't
care about.</p>
<p>On a related note, the game could post notification messages when a
friend achieves something noteworthy – advances into the next league or
completes a difficult challenge – to make the experience feel less
isolated. Battlenet does something similar with achievements, but
individually those are of no consequence. These messages could be also
automatically linked to discord servers if set up that way.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="data">Data for mapmakers</p>
<p>An option to see various statistics and logs would be useful for
mapmakers. This could include things like games played, winrates, used
lobby settings, game lengths, and more. A mapmaker could also decide to
log a small amount of data in-game to get stats uniquely important to
their maps. All of this could help mapmakers to create higher quality maps
and with better balance.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="api">API</p>
<p>APIs are another thing that can help the community to grow and build
tools around the game. Server APIs can be used to get various statistics
about the ladder, while local game client provides data useful for example
for automatic scene switching for OBS.</p>
<p>I have been mostly using what the local game client provides. And while
there are things that I wish were added, the most important thing is that
developers can easily add or remove things.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"><img style="max-width: 600px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-cJnwIHytiBt-b7nOrWRjyGZFgDeKkvnKyAn3NdFM5NYPdxRADjKP48YbujJX3CYiJiASleDduVfDSlXXojYDAlKE6MeIWoOpLcVaD8EKxWRNORpQF6DMSwaTeWvehz80P5islbJmKiSM/s1181/localdata.png">
</div>
<div class="subnote">An example of data provided locally by the game client
(StarCraft II)</div>
A few additional things I would have found useful:<br>
<ul>
<li>Unique player handles</li>
<li>MMR in competitive</li>
<li>Map</li>
<li>Clan tags or ids</li>
<li>Co-op mutators</li>
<li>Players' commanders, levels, masteries, and prestiges</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="coaching">Coaching</p>
<p>I think a coach should be able to spectate their student on the ladder
while being limited to the student's vision. I don't believe it would
undermine the integrity of the ladder, as it's not too different from
sitting next to a person.</p>
<p>This would reduce the barrier to coaching when compared to finding a
suitable opponent and setting up a custom game. Socialization would be
improved whether this is used for coaching or just friendly spectating.</p>
<p>Students could be able to rate coaches. Highly rated coaches would be
rewarded with some goodies like special portraits, borders, or other
cosmetics.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="spectating">More on Spectating</p>
<p>I already wrote something about spectating <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html#spectating"
target="_blank"><u>previously</u></a>. It might be interesting if there
was always a list of ongoing games that you might find interesting. You
could update your preferences based on matchups you want to watch,
favorite players, or leagues. Games with more viewers or with your friends
would be more likely recommended.</p>
<p>Spectators would be able to chat with each other, form a party to join
another game together, or bet on game outcomes. When it comes to my
interest in one particular game, betting on one player can do wonders.
There could be cosmetic rewards tied to spectating and betting.</p>
Overall, I believe this could be good for socialization, learning, and just
maintaining the interest in the game. Some days you just don't want to play,
but if you could hop in and spectate few games of your friends or with them,
then that's something different. I don't believe online streaming provides
quite the same experience, it has a barrier to entry, and not everyone can
or will stream.<br>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDSwgOILOqla6PkSGc-cM9qPGYoBzMvm2Jh0sR55lyXTL8_koYXcXFaVrfAQ9obYa7V8ipyBKhF5XPRwGKVE4ygSf208IBms_82YzaUYqQgwJyJYnucRJZK_ZtUq_9BkSz-GE56enIpvhb/s1920/spectating.jpg">
</div>
<div class="subnote">StarCraft II is great for spectating, but it's limited
to custom lobbies.</div>
<p>An interesting idea is to have a random game running directly as a
background for game menus. In a clan chat, it could be a randomly chosen
game of a clan member. This might be cool, but it would also be a big
technical challenge to make it seamless and not too resource-intensive.
Still, things like that could make the game feel more alive and social.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p>Thank you for reading. These were just a few ideas for improving the
experience outside of gameplay. Some of the ideas might fit into the game,
while others will not. The focus was on reducing barriers, learning,
improving socialization, making the game feel more meaningful, and
empowering mapmakers and the community around the game.</p>
<p>For discussion check <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/m6cov2/tr06_replays_postgame_screens_api_and_more/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread on r/FrostGiant</u></a>.</p>
<p>Previous posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
01: Setting, scale, heroes, socialization, and shareability</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission02.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
02: Player onboarding and lowering the skill floor</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/12/transmission03.html" target="_blank">Transmission
03: Divided playerbase, variety mode, victory conditions</a></u></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
04: Improving Co-op</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/03/transmission-05.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
05: Co-op events & progression</u></a></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-46922343190250501812021-03-03T15:37:00.003+01:002021-05-13T14:46:02.196+02:00Transmission 05 - Co-op events and progression<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Co-op events & progression</title>
<style>
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 40px 0px 10px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 26px
}
.post-title {display:none}
.bigimgdiv {margin-top: 45px}
.bigimgdiv img {width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="margin-top: -30px"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnKcwJzkegMTmrKNqTKI6Ne5JPjlXhBObWgHRKcK_clDqtIG6g37L_9ZyOXCSZKMoAj9Se8drQu2axDydcyO717cwyoSUoZfqP12m55_N7LfXKxtr0JKtr6W6Jy-8tYgFkAaxMQnP7sXeR/s1500/Banner5.jpg"></div>
<p>This post will again look at Co-op. While <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html"
target="_blank"><u>previously</u></a> the focus was on a few ways to
extend the mode – streaming integration, survival mode, and asymmetric 2v1
mode; this time I want to look at events and progression.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Daily Quests</p>
<p>These are quite common and have their advantages and disadvantages. A few
good things that daily quests can do:</p>
<ul>
<li>Encourage players to come back periodically</li>
<li>Guide players to try something different</li>
<li>Increase relative progression speed for players with less time</li>
<li>Finishing tasks provides closure</li>
<li>Reduce loss aversion if given enough impact</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: left;">An extreme example of the last point can be
seen in Fortnite. It has so many additional systems that winning the
battle-royale itself starts seeming like a side objective. This effect
isn't limited to daily quests.<br>
"<i>It’s not a game for the 1 winner. It’s a game for the 99 losers."</i>
–<a href="https://tevisthompson.com/its-not-coming-back/" target="_blank"><u>Tevis
Thompson</u></a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★ </p>
<p>Negative effects of daily quests:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Completing them every single day can feel like a chore.</li>
<li>It might feel like they are forcing you into something you don't want
to do.</li>
</ul>
<p>Some games partially fix the former by letting players accumulate and
complete a certain amount of daily quests later. Adding an option to
reroll the daily quest for a different one can help can help with the
latter. But overall, I'm not sure if daily quests would be beneficial. I
imagine they have a positive short-term effect on player engagement, but
the long-term effect might not be good as players start to see the game as
a chore. I would prefer a game that players want to come back to
naturally, and have new tasks with weekly or longer intervals.</p>
<p>Daily rewards as seen in StarCraft II (on the first win of the day) is
another valid approach. In StarCraft II it's mostly negligible, but it
motivates some few players to come back, while others don't feel like they
are missing out, and it doesn't force players into doing something
specific.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="events">Events</p>
<p>A different way how to break the monotony and lead to some excitement are
in-game events that randomly appear while you are playing. This idea is
solely for Co-op, think of <i>Treasure Goblins</i> in Diablo 3 that show
up randomly and break the standard gameplay. Encounters with them can be
quite exciting, and not just because of rewards, you might aggro several
elite packs while chasing a goblin – resulting in a long chase and a
battle spanning half the map. This can create very memorable moments. The
goal would be to provide a similar feeling, but with an added restriction
that the mission flow cannot be disrupted too much. That's not an issue in
an APRG like Diablo but could be in a scripted Co-op map with controlled
mission flow.</p>
<p>Few types of events that might work: </p>
<ul>
<li>Destroy an enemy army or outpost (featuring special or heroic units;
an army might patrol)</li>
<li>Catch "treasure goblins" that are traversing the map and get their
booty</li>
<li>Summon (with resources and units) enemy boss and defeat it</li>
<li>Hunt things on the map, some could be dangerous, invisible, fast or
all together</li>
<li>Repair and rebuild a structure, protect it once finished</li>
<li>Escalating events (e.g., "Destroy Baneling Nests", but once you
destroy the first one, others will start to spawn Banelings and Scourge
and place them around enemy forces).</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 100%; max-width: 960px; border: 0px solid black"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgriI0rs9JoVsjlI6FJi3PBm7Zl2miPgyk46d4rWXrgAHwFkPInU16zysbBPpmabYxBY5cmCEgdxcpT2obGGy6qLEyGhlQesxVYSOQbi2PLkfue_ohXtUWvIjVU8tI6-7E0ldR7b2Yln50j/s960/Gelatinous+Sire.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Encounters with Treasure Goblins can lead to exciting
chases</div>
<p> While events like this don't incentivize players to go back to the game
as dailies do, they could be an exciting change of pace. These events
would appear randomly every 2–4 missions, and I imagine they would be
limited to more experienced players – we don't want to add complexity to
new players that are just learning maps and commanders. Events would
probably work as additional bonus objectives in the sense that they
wouldn't make completing the main objective more difficult – preventing
unforeseen difficulty swings. Some might replace bonus objectives when
active, or require their completion first.</p>
<p>As for rewards, these events could provide experience or a currency
depending on how progression systems are structured. Some could unlock
other (greater) events as Treasure Goblins also do.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 100%; max-width: 960px; border: 0px solid black"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh_6srzGM3BxzHoqhTuBaWemNo44KK9nYr19DrByiIhqLPr_3P_Kfohq5b7BPTaq_ONU1Tzlrrmcea0EseazUUNZp6jmaUyaThKQJh40UiUnK_w4-fXTiN3IVG_t7LLv-Xd4mD4FJORT92/s1920/greed.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Greed's realm is unlocked through hunting Treasure
Goblins</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="greaterevents">Greater Events</p>
<p>There are several events in Diablo 3 that unlock different events – Rifts
unlock Greater Rifts, Treasure Goblins unlock Greed's Domain, and
Keywardens unlock the Infernal Machine. In the same way, basic random
events from normal missions could unlock "greater events". These could
include raids, curated mutations, or other challenges.</p>
<p>I imagine these would be launched while in a party through a special
queue. The party leader is choosing and unlocking the challenge for the
rest, but everyone gets rewards. This could improve socialization as
players might seek advice on how to beat a certain challenge and look for
allies. Or a player might play in the random queue completing normal
events and collecting unlocks; and then invite a friend to play greater
events once both are online. Unlocks are consumed when the game is won.</p>
<p>Unlike with normal random events, here players can strategize before the
mission, choose commanders, customize them just for the job, and try again
if they don't succeed. This could help with socialization further.</p>
<p>Rewards should be better compared to normal events; some could reward
minor sidegrade upgrades for commanders. If normal maps were reused,
different lighting, weather, or seasonal conditions could make the
atmosphere stand out (<a href="https://youtu.be/lRj-GotnNaQ?t=871" target="_blank"><u>similarly
to hero missions in Overwatch 2</u></a>).</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="weekly">Repeating weekly mutations</p>
<p>Trying to beat weekly mutations with different commanders can be fun.
Unfortunately doing that in StarCraft II provides even less experience
than normal missions. The idea here is to reward this enjoyable experience
but without encouraging grinding mutations.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 100%; max-width: 896px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9XD8Epya76sEKM96xqi7Ev7vAJ-j5WPlhV2mPBesJnWdaY5dKUdk1lKCQjvNCEuthLvMCpmp4gESoVsV39FNgaIBN1Mz2mieTIR3WdgeKtiN4FhJZAfH9KFiBOAa1ZaIHnCLqhXkJQLaN/s896/Burning+Legion.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Weekly mutation in StarCraft II with various mutators</div>
<p>The reward for the first win could be significantly higher, so players
can be satisfied with a single win and don't feel like being forced into
repeatedly beating it. Bonus XP would be provided only for few wins with
unique commanders. Something along these lines could work:</p>
<ul>
<li>100% XP – normal mission</li>
<li>125% XP – random mission (as in StarCraft II)</li>
<li>500% XP – weekly mutation the first time</li>
<li>200% XP – the next 2–3 wins with unique commanders on the weekly
mutation</li>
</ul>
<p>The math for bonus XP could get complicated when you consider different
coefficients for difficulties, and players playing on different
difficulties in various orders. But as in StarCraft II, completing on
higher difficulty later could just add the difference – making the order
irrelevant, and not punishing players for finishing it first on lower
difficulties.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="progression">Co-op Progression</p>
<p>Finally, I want to touch on progression systems in Co-op. I agree with
the comments that the system in StarCraft II was disjointed, especially
after the addition of prestiges. They are a great addition, but they make
certain masteries useless, and when players reach level 15, it's not clear
whether they should prestige or go for mastery unlocks.</p>
<ul>
<li>1–15 basic leveling <i>(high gameplay impact)</i></li>
<li>1–90 mastery <i>(low gameplay impact)</i></li>
<li>91–1000 ascension <i>(cosmetic)</i></li>
<li>1–15x3 prestiges <i>(sidegrade)</i></li>
</ul>
<p>Despite the lacking cohesion, I think that these systems scale commander
power with progression well. I don't think an unending power increase as
seen in some games would be a good fit for RTS. Challenges like weekly
mutations are more fun to discuss when players are on a similar power
level. And more dedicated players want more challenge, not less.</p>
I believe the game-wide progression system should be created first, and
long-term progression in Co-op would fit into that. Because of this, I won’t
try to propose a progression system here, and instead I will highlight some
good things about the current progression system, and look at few other
options.<span style="color: #ff9900;"><br>
</span>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Levels 1–15</span> have a the steepest
increase in power. This is good as it serves as an extended commander
tutorial and power fantasy.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Mastery </span>leveling provides a space
to experiment with the full commander kit. While masteries have a gameplay
impact, they do not fundamentally change the commander, and so players can
learn the commander's kit undisturbed. Another good thing about mastery
points is that they are shared between all commanders. Players are free to
switch commanders during this long-term progression. If the points weren't
shared, players would burn-out faster, and likely quit instead of
switching to another character without masteries.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Ascension </span>progression does not
further improve commanders and is purely cosmetic. I believe this is good;
even if the level becomes meaningless, at least you see some result of
playing. Though I don't think having a maximum level is beneficial. It
encourages grinding to it; and once you reach it, the intrinsic motivation
you might have had is weakened by taking away the extrinsic motivation.
That's generally a good way to stop a person from doing something they
intrinsically enjoyed before.</p>
<p>Ascension's cosmetic rewards were quite lacking. I did propose rewards
like different <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/12/brutal-analysis.html#Rewards"
target="_blank"><u>commander loading screens and portrait borders</u></a>,
and in-game skins are also always an option. However, I wouldn't be
opposed to having no rewards for ascension at all. It being just a single
number discourages grinding, and it's more clearly just for a show or a
statistic (which can be interesting as well).</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 100%; max-width: 588px"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuWUbzQAgs-IyVyBXGN7pL165Bn2bv9NCjXulTOWUakVm86gIa9KLjOUUWb4YMaUF6TH-FCikYFjzoqImwcVO_67ZqBOzRkUV52yH0RVVWQbgsDi-ehaaS6CI-5BHqxOiFTpGuBgOqU2QZ/s588/2021-02-17_213525.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">Unit statistics for my Raynor commander (<a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/SC2_Coop_overlay"
target="_blank"><u>overlay</u></a>)</div>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Prestiges </span>are more of a horizontal
progression (sidegrade) where you can re-level commanders to gain a new
way to play them. This sidesteps power creep, makes the game more
difficult as you will be leveling without all unlocks and masteries, and
adds more ways to play. I believe some sidegrade progression is good and
could be integrated a bit more with other systems (progression, events,
etc.). For example, some minor sidegrades could be quite rare and
obtainable only from greater events.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdl4z3ezaDVxpYN77RD7rCRyIDpCyFu3eREq_Mo4-mSbq2gepsqSjJT3od7cRPybkraiMj3RCmQAZxurjCf79Ze36GOBqS2KCrx-DpsrgcBCZRaC4A77lszeztI2OOO3tekgO02Kb-Of2E/s1920/HotS.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Sidegrade upgrades in Heart of the Swarm campaign</div>
<p>The basic progression system (levels 1–15) doesn't have to be linear. <i>Wings
of Libert</i>y campaign provides more freedom via spending credits on
units and upgrades. A similar system could replace both basic leveling and
other progression systems like masteries and prestiges. Some options could
be unlocked from the start and serve as a tutorial. As players level up,
more options would unlock and more credits gained. Players could also
choose to unspec some of these basic upgrades, and do a more specialized
build.</p>
<p>This gives more freedom for players, but it's harder to balance as you
are not giving straight choices like with Kerrigan's sidegrades. If not
balanced well, this can inadvertently lead to a dominant build and lower
diversity despite players having more options.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCl3QHYzfG0ZkLrmz91r3w_kZy-CQh3ISkjIyXEFqQxnLd7mlYLYlyPaPlDg-JODVAvPJy8KaOWDOjOffqLCn05Atzn0-q1DPJnCuQ_O0FPNu7fEJCWpJbLeFkigzvTj-CH1OH92V29ZAp/s1680/WoL.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Credits can be spent freely in the Wings of Liberty
campaign</div>
<p>Age of Empires Online (now revived through <a href="https://www.projectceleste.com/"
target="_blank"><u>Project Celeste</u></a>) is an interesting example of
several progression systems added for PvE RTS experience. This includes
unlocking tech trees, items that upgrade unit types, advisors, and things
like building your home city. Although it can be a bit confusing as some
progression systems apply differently in different game modes.</p>
<p>I'm not a big fan of incremental gear upgrades for units in this game.
The technology tree serves mostly as a basic progression and is fully
unlocked relatively quickly. Advisors seem to provide the most meaningful
customization of your civilization.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDjnGc_Q1ERMMB8rqWe8IPb89oLA905yDS6j1Z-ZwgIpSCvJPidoAWpkh-JtGfeW2ci4C57MJvZE1H1ShaKiPSBTL_SldDE9yIZ2GF9e1AKzIj7OccO7siJshNJFN-izKbC2yN4Q3Ssx_7/s0/celeste.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Gradually unlock a technology tree as you level up (Age
of Empires Online)</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJb7i8JCX04Znco-9_i22VJYvhloWtPVKNk32tVQnDHwR1LlIOknfkOjo6NS5LbdxWXngKTHhiopBy0ptMx4YeLzA7QqxqbmteWMJ5d_0Lwe13MouPntnULQSMqmQrhYUCCpo6yi-_L6WG/s0/celeste2.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Equipment for unit types (Age of Empires Online)</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOHhfDp1IcbGZNKYjaYYLcVJXMRqg4LaNiYgXvRFNdH_jKUtSPFm5QAoC9xtQQwDCVJTL9TILdJNh95PWSRMAUf5kfdRrnR-mzuKGJhSJeBM5ZnkUmemGsHQFD91ASx3NkXAIe0AAmwbQ6/s0/celeste3.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Advisors providing various bonuses in individual ages
(Age of Empires Online)</div>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p>Thank you for reading. There are a lot of ways to create progression
systems, but the best approach will depend on how the game is structured
and monetized. The co-op progression system has to fits in. I tried to
highlight some good things about the Co-op progression systems in
StarCraft II, and outline few other options.</p>
<p> I'm not sure about daily quests, but events and their bigger variants
could provide a good change of pace with additional challenge and
excitement. StarCraft II has weekly mutations, but that's only a few games
per week at most. Greater events could also improve socialization.</p>
<p>It's interesting to look at PvE experiences in various RTS games, but we
might be able to learn from games in other genres as well – for example
Diablo 3, Warhammer: Vermintide, or hero missions in Overwatch 2.</p>
<p>For discussion check <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/lwvuz2/tr05_coop_events_progression/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread on r/FrostGiant</u></a>.</p>
<p>Previous posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
01: Setting, scale, heroes, socialization, and shareability</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission02.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
02: Player onboarding and lowering the skill floor</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/12/transmission03.html" target="_blank">Transmission
03: Divided playerbase, variety mode and victory conditions</a></u></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/02/transmission04.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
04: Improving Co-op</u></a></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-72132571759978714692021-02-22T16:18:00.004+01:002021-05-13T14:46:12.565+02:00Transmisson 04 - Improving Co-op<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Improving Co-op</title>
<style>
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 40px 0px 10px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 26px
}
.post-title {display:none}
.bigimgdiv {margin-top: 45px}
.bigimgdiv img {width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="margin-top: -30px"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwuunEKdkK2bD1PVnIimbfdbQQ5KkOKVwYmr_Qy9N0rp8shWY3tudRAZd_p2wqfKtDVAXsIw-owksb3O1dMTIN79WIdFugz6CfaA4m5fpgS6J8dMxtMBl12BY_zxpxxBo9bjX6ms2XpiW2/s1500/Banner4.jpg"></div>
<p>This post will focus on the Co-op mode. It might be early to talk about
it, but it's my favorite mode, and I want to share some thoughts about it.
While many topics could be discussed, I will mainly focus on some ways how
to expand the mode.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Co-op</p>
<p>Co-op is a successful game mode in StarCraft II that focuses on 2-player
PvE. Players can choose from a roster of 18 commanders which can be
leveled up and customized. Every mission is highly scripted, standalone,
and grants experience to players. </p>
<p>The name <i>Co-op</i> isn't very descriptive as it can mean other things
– 2v2, 2vAI skirmish, or cooperative campaign. But for this article, I
will be using it as described above.</p>
<p>Co-op's success was unexpected when <i>Legacy of the Void</i> was
released, but now it stands as one of the most important modes alongside
campaign and competitive. The purpose of this mode isn't to help players
to move to the competitive multiplayer, but instead to provide a different
experience to the playerbase that seeks it.</p>
<p>I have explored some ways to expand this mode, and I will include
screenshots and commentary. All avenues to expand Co-op have their design
challenges – some might fit into the future game, others might not. In my
opinion, expanding Co-op from its current state would improve its
longevity, engage more players, and add value to every single commander
released.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="streamingintegration">STREAMING INTEGRATION</p>
<p>This integration can help to make streaming more engaging for both
streamers and viewers. <a href="https://www.maguro.one/p/twitch-integration.html"
target="_blank"><u>My implementation</u></a> was mainly a proof of
concept and a fun project. It works on my arcade maps when using a twitch
bot from my <a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/SC2_Coop_overlay" target="_blank"><u>overlay
app</u></a>.<br>
</p>
<p>I've added two modes from which the streamer can choose:</p>
<ul>
<li>Partial integration – gameplay is unaffected, viewers can send
messages and join as units. Kill counts are counted for viewers per
mission, in total, and are shown after the mission.</li>
<li>Full integration – viewers can affect the game by spawning units or
waves, enabling or disabling mutators, and giving resources.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiuMjDXsvfbv2Jpx0gkKh0sdfqFJFn20KDzz1L2ZJ2bRpqE_-yvma8KZrnifHsnADa1J-ptK42jpVrgq1xoz2OE1o9SsKINI_kD2Li-Nuq04X9PFi0fxqED2o0NAaNOCKu3_obAjmO1c0R/s1503/party.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Viewers joining the game (no gameplay impact)</div>
<p>I found the partial mode to be good for viewer interaction. Full
integration is harder to implement and balance properly. For that
inspiration can be taken from <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/552500/Warhammer_Vermintide_2/"
target="_blank"><u>Warhammer: Vermintide 2</u></a> which includes a <a
href="https://vermintide2.gamepedia.com/Twitch_Mode" target="_blank"><u>twitch
mode</u></a> where viewers can add buffs or items to players, spawn
enemy units or activate mutators. <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/780310/The_Riftbreaker/"
target="_blank"><u>The Riftbreaker</u></a>, an ARPG with base-building,
lets viewers join as enemy mobs, and vote on upcoming events.</p>
<p>Those are just a few examples, but I believe integration can make
streaming better for both players and viewers if done well. I don't know
if it can fit in a competitive setting, but it's well suited for modes
like Co-op.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="survivalmode">survival mode</p>
<p>Survival or horde modes can be found in almost all action genres, and so
it seems like an easy choice for Co-op. </p>
<p>I have tried creating <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/01/survival-mode.html"
target="_blank"><u>my own for one of the Co-op maps</u></a>. The purpose
was to demonstrate how a survival mode could be implemented on top of a
standard Co-op mission. In this mode, players have the option to continue
playing the mission after the regular part of the map is completed.
Additional attack waves will spawn and provide an increasingly difficult
challenge until commanders inevitably fall. This is very much like the
original campaign mission <i>Last Stand</i> where you have to lure as
many hybrids as possible before the temple on Shakuras is overloaded.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9tSx9ARTtsl4FDOyE6hVL5kurAaX7waW8GmnVAT6Qeijr8u1LLiST2z4zsTtOKfwHprF5g0qfvzLYHx23wOIH3SGfp02eXyZ4rBfpEaXoV17UTOL3FAYKq8vUPHJQAjky4oouG7eEWUBK/s1470/2019-01-23_214644+b.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">The march of Kaboomers</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn9cEoNoqh7V39jHbiBXBquoQ_pwBGpr1GRpx27UinVBG1Th8gNT11pJJ-XpTc7mYGAf35lqEWb4YWX-xZlYON95F5l79WaQ1D7KVCh6qiUye5V9fj-3J46E4H-EOQWRcfUyvl6po6USKp/s1920/2019-01-23_213612.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Motherships using recall offensively</div>
<p>There were challenges for this mode in StarCraft II. The most obvious one
is that the engine is pushed to its limits even in normal missions. While
I tried to keep the performance at playable levels, I do hope the
performance of Frost Giant's game will be better – unlocking more gameplay
options.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="2v1">Asymmetric 2v1</p>
<p>In this mode another player gains limited control over enemy units and
provides an additional challenge for commanders. I tested the waters with
my implementation on the <i>Chain of Ascension</i> mission. I thought it
was an interesting idea and was curious how it would work out.</p>
<p>An important point is that this mode doesn't have to try to target 50–50%
winrates. Trying to balance Co-op commanders in a competitive setting is
futile, too restricting to their design, and Co-op players don't want the
same type of challenge as competitive players do. Instead, the opposing
player can spice up gameplay and add only a tiny bit of the competitive
thrill. Even then I imagine this being tied to higher difficulties unless
in party or fully opt-in.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCKpKOuhOzv2hCYbN83sYSRIVj6Nzp2QgkqNvfxQ2ofsoDf9kHn1ZIbruqO_TFe36E_3Hf9Kq8Hn8ZwgowDdOrqnXnobwRV-LU23_uCSYMQ6zShaC87CBu-ku4VyxhI2S0XUI3woTn2gP0/s1200/coa2.jpg"
alt="Defense" title="Defense"></div>
<div class="subnote">Defenses can be strengthened, but pre-placed units
can't move too far from their original positions. </div>
<p>Since the winrate would be skewed toward commander players, it would be
important to carefully frame goals for the opposing player and provide a
supporting reward structure. The goal isn't to actually "defeat"
commanders, but instead to make them work for the win, and prepare nasty
surprises on the way.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMP8sVHeab7YeL7mYaN2f8ievjzyYmVDgIPwW0N3T20WLr29BkxMcW3LvfdghggxzeQwFmIffBBHrN12niTY-mjhFiuMkusCC7dRu0_fCHO00zGi3R5z9hw7KMb2DN9fGCR7bmUExDCwNX/s1200/coa1.jpg"
alt="Killstreaks" title="Killstreaks"></div>
<div class="subnote">Killstreaks underline the importance of kills</div>
<p>In my map there is no loss condition for the opposing player, instead it
gets a score based on the supply of enemy units killed, with a bonus score
for preventing commanders from completing bonus objectives. Only a small
bonus is given for actually defeating commanders.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfne5bXk9VDRPXmxze0cKs-1XVMiW5RoTujRoee-2fO3e-Rsti2cIZS-CBqhoZxymItrykLxFo9qQcyHYdi6U_U3_wuBW-BvFG0rFy3qZTD_B1Hjr__89HP413oPrgKT7PpA1gO_Qs1Zvs/s1200/coa3.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Ending screen for the opposing player. Kills are at the
forefront.</div>
<p>There are a lot of interesting design choices when shaping the gameplay
for the opposing player – related to economy, objectives, top-bar design,
unit and attack wave limitations – too many to go over here in detail.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRMlVzh-kIOOzZXlw_rRFZWXErcdMmesWXHDl_LgjTaD3daNx9XBr65pJoylyoO0Nx5nmAbX7WG-vLY9rg5hwQE9AuwJVhCQoLm1HabLK88OoKSeOeoMnTf0db4qRBcaM-8kkzcxnbFA2W/s1920/coa4.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Protecting the main shard is crucial. Smaller shards
expand the economy.</div>
<p>My map is nowhere near perfect, but a mode like this could add more
replayability, a bit of challenge, and limited competition while keeping
the standard Co-op experience and mission flow the same. It might be worth
exploring further.</p>
<p>Both this and the survival mode could be in theory added on top of
regular Co-op missions. The advantage of doing this is that maps are
reused, and player matchmaking isn't split. If a mode is popular enough,
it could get a separate matchmaking queue.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="otherideas">Other ideas</p>
<p>A few more ideas to explore in Co-op. Some might fit in the final game,
others might not.</p>
<ul>
<li>Ability to play a certain class of user-created maps with your
unlocked and leveled commanders (likely without any experience reward).
This could mean having a simple framework for mapmakers to create maps
using Co-op dependencies and automatically pull player progression from
player's profiles (bought commanders, levels, and customization).</li>
<li>The campaign could unlock and level certain commanders later playable
in Co-op. This would provide a natural transition from Campaign into
Co-op. Although power levels and commander design would either have to
fit together, or the difference would have to be explained.</li>
<li>Co-op commanders could be available in the <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/12/transmission03.html#varietymode"
target="_blank"><u>variety mode</u></a> with weekly changing rules.</li>
<li>There could be a mode that links several missions together (~<a href="https://www.maguro.one/p/beehive.html"
target="_blank"><u>beehive</u></a> or <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/04/challenge-mode.html"
target="_blank"><u>challenge mode</u></a>). However, there are some
challenges to implementing this in multiplayer. I also had a competitive
version of beehive that could work for clan wars.</li>
<li>While two players might be chosen number for Co-op, it would be good
to build foundations agnostic to the number of players. That said,
making Co-op and its maps scalable between let's say 2–4 players is a
daunting task. It would require dynamic changes to base layouts, enemy
difficulty, mission pacing, mutators, and it might even limit commander
design. On the other hand, splitting the map pool isn't the best idea
either, as it would mean either a lot more work or limited map pools.</li>
<li>A queue for player-made mutations. Authors choose a map, mutation
name, mutators, and other options. Mutations can't repeat for one
player, less popular would get phased out, new and popular ones would be
more likely to show up. There would be limitations on the creation
itself to limit difficulty. Now and then you could add your own mutation
to the pool. If you liked one you have played, give it the thumbs up and
the author will get notified.</li>
<li>More random elements in maps. Challenging bonus objectives could be a
good target for randomization as they won't mess up difficulty too much.
Random weather could play some role visually and mechanically.</li>
<li>Improved custom mode – option to play solo, select enemy race,
composition, and map pattern. There could be some achievements related
to this mode (e.g., for beating a specific mutator combination).</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p>Thank you for reading. I believe Co-op has a lot of potential, and while
it was a big success in StarCraft II, it can be improved further. I'm
looking forward to seeing how future RTS games will tackle it.</p>
<p>For discussion check <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/lprcgd/tr04_improving_coop/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread on r/FrostGiant</u></a>.</p>
<p>Previous posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
01: Setting, scale, heroes, socialization, and shareability</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission02.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
02: Player onboarding and lowering the skill floor</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/12/transmission03.html" target="_blank">Transmission
03: Divided playerbase, variety mode and victory conditions</a><br>
</u></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-67396993744810824672021-01-26T18:10:00.007+01:002021-06-12T11:01:32.025+02:00Transmission 03 - Playerbase, modes, victory conditions<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Transmission 03</title>
<style>
.smallerheading {
margin: 40px 0px -15px 0px;
color: #fff;
font-weight: 700;
font-family: arial;
}
.post-title {display:none}
.bigimgdiv {margin-top: 45px}
.bigimgdiv img {width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -30px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5fBYwJii-9YxYCLkKoVOZqHObeG9buytWZw38BWG_GbX2P1NPE-E3VaQTLwkeZQJAu8CQZUIwI34VbFGQeZR7kHZAxQBtWkDTg3-BH6uPo966cnbyLl9Jw83GHPkckgr6BGG0VKNjd-uS/s1500/Banner3.jpg"></div>
<p>Divided playerbase in RTS games and its consequences will be the focus of
the first part of this post. Then I'll look at the variety mode that could
bring the community closer together, and related to that explore pros and
cons of different victory conditions.</p>
<p class="smallheading">divided playerbase</p>
<p>StarCraft II's playerbase is highly divided between the campaign, co-op,
arcade, and competitive modes. Players seek different experiences that are
provided by unique game modes. While having divided playerbase is more
difficult for developers, it's not necessary a bad thing. The fact that
several game modes are popular means that different players can enjoy one
RTS game. There is some overlap between these communities, and they
support each other out by being parts of the same ecosystem.</p>
<p>Advantages of a diverse ecosystem:</p>
<ul>
<li>Captures players seeking different experiences.<br>
</li>
<li>Players are more likely to stick to the game if there are more ways
they enjoy it.</li>
<li>The return value of new content is improved if it's valuable to more
players.</li>
<li>Stronger community.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img style="width: 100%; border: none" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-mS0zfi-MAM-CZqaK9P1FdxqvSTSi2dKTXoG3CLjyrOZ4y29nakwDPakDsWnc2mjFHB6Na5CYFAiVvRptW4081zuNXOyv4qfSfGlQHWwFbJ9mKYxqdwwIy3kA4FIoPLh5TO47uIylboHv/s818/2021-01-03_212040.png"></div>
<p>A few things that can make the ecosystem stronger:</p>
<ul>
<li>Lower barriers to switching between modes (reduce necessary learning
and unintuitive things).</li>
<li>Encourage trying out different modes by in-game events, achievements,
cross-promotion and more.</li>
<li>Rewards affecting multiple modes (e.g. cosmetics).</li>
<li>Promote content creators that showcase multiple game modes.</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading">Playing & watching</p>
<p> There is a self-reinforcing connection between playing a game and
engaging with its content on Twitch or YouTube. The more you play, the
more interesting it's to watch and vice versa. </p>
<p>The issue with StarCraft II and its divided playerbase is that
competitive games make up most of the video content despite the majority
of players playing other modes. These modes have often different rules and
units which weakens the self-reinforcing connection. Watching a great game
will not motivate you to play to the same degree. You will learn less from
the stream as the new information will be less applicable to the mode you
play. While this is true for other games as well, it's more pronounced in
StarCraft II with its wide variety of game modes. Few things that might
help:</p>
<p class="smallerheading">1. Making the campaign and Co-op better for
content creation</p>
<p>For a campaign this could mean including interesting challenges and
achievements, higher difficulties, being speed-running friendly, or an
option to play with friends. Similar things can apply to Co-op, and I will
go over some other avenues in the next transmission.</p>
<p class="smallerheading">2. Reducing differences between modes</p>
<p>This is a tricky approach. If taken too far, it would significantly limit
the design space of other modes. Still, I think differences should be
reduced when possible or clearly distinguish things that work differently.</p>
<p>For example, I think it was a good choice to leave enemy waves in
StarCraft II Co-op to be mostly vanilla units that work the same as in
multiplayer. This eases the transition between modes, and you might relive
moments similar to a game you have watched albeit in a different setting.
As for things to avoid, I believe at one point Battlecruisers worked
differently in Campaign, Versus and Co-op, which is not ideal.</p>
<p class="smallerheading">3. Modes closer to competitive but better for a
wider audience</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">This can mean higher focus on team games or
having a new unique mode. For example <a href="https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/ARAM"
target="_blank"><u>ARAM</u></a> (all-random-all-mid) is a popular mode
in MOBAs, and while there are differences in the rules, the core
experience and relations are still very similar to the competitive mode.
Another option is to have a "variety" mode and more on that right next.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS2xJInZIHAfO8i1QzksH06pmNVpw9JsQC5iWCbi7WV8UFbNfhF3E7qbn2vpPWLtk5HHsE9unOaQi_OUiJ7YM8d36boNHcwQCPUXmjc8oTVrc1b3ByWSBOpZJrfI15G-xnU-JjGDE_ERpb/s1495/howlingabyss.jpg"
alt="Howling Abyss" title="Howling Abyss"></div>
<div class="subnote">ARAM pushes all players into a single lane (Howling
Abyss; League of Legends)</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="varietymode">Variety mode</p>
<p>The idea behind this mode is to have different rules every week or two.
It would have its own matchmaking queue, and popular entries could be
repeated. It could be a good change of pace, less competitive than typical
1v1 or 2v2, more approachable for wider audience, and a reason to come
back periodically. </p>
<p>If there is a game-wide progression system, there could be some rewards
for participating in it. I imagine this would be more team focused, but
including 1v1 version could also work. Few classical examples of rule
modifications that could be tried: </p>
<ul>
<li>Zombies spawn on the battlefield (± bounty for killing them)</li>
<li>Campaign/Co-op units</li>
<li>Company of Heroes-style economy</li>
<li>Double resources & mining</li>
<li>Monobattles</li>
<li>All units have triple health and shields</li>
<li>And other variations on Co-op mutators</li>
</ul>
<p>Different victory conditions could be interesting as well, so let's look
at them more closely.</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="victoryconditions">Victory conditions</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Annihilation </span>victory condition is
the classic one where players have to eliminate all enemy structures. It's
the most likely to be used given <em>StarCraft</em>, <em>Warcraft
</em>and <em>Age of Empires</em> also use it. However, it might be
interesting to look at other victory conditions – be it for the variety or
other modes. They have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. For
detailed list of advantages and disadvantages see <u><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/nxnb4t/discussion_topic_20216_win_condition/h1gc8b3/"
target="_blank">this post</a></u> of mine.</p>
<p>Another common victory condition is <span style="color: #ff9900;">domination
</span>where players have to control points on the map that generate
victory points (<em>Company of Heroes</em>, <em>Dawn of War II</em>).
Players win when they have enough victory points.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Elimination </span>is a victory condition
where destroying one special unit or structure is enough to win the game (<em>Supreme
Commander</em>, <em>SpellForce 3</em>, or a regicide mode in <em>Age
of Empires</em>). It's very similar to annihilation but with a potential
to end games more quickly. This can be an advantage – avoiding prolonged
games – but some endings can feel cheap and anticlimactic.</p>
<p> There also exist hybrid victory conditions, for example <i>Dawn of War
III</i> has a mix between domination and elimination.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAIBeautzOwTGyDCCDTrbzi2gTbeZHbrw4uQzICflO7ziLUxhWuBPEjqq2ez00YdYW1UwzfcNQWokBCUmaNpYpG5BuAVTJvc6WCizwvlPFrGVlNC5xPcx54IpmKmmfLXoC2FaYVaYVmvkr/s0/DoWII.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Victory Points decide matches in Dawn of War II</div>
<p>Advantages of trying out different victory conditions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Something different.</li>
<li>New strategies emerge, factions show different strengths and
weaknesses.</li>
<li>Potentially increases player agency and reduce loss aversion.</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
In typical annihilation victory the game rarely ends with actually
destroying the last structure. Instead, a player is trying to remove all
agency from its opponent. That, of course, doesn't feel good for the
losing player. In more objective-focused victory conditions, there can be
a stronger defender's advantage, the losing players can retain its agency
for longer, and have a better comeback potential. The winning player might
focus on gaining a favorable position and securing the objective, instead
of pushing and destroying some part of the enemy – reducing player's
ability to influence the game.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 100%;max-width: 496px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig7gcT28APX4q8-NyYapUd5BytYzqvvyWm35tdhgh2R3-SidK9ZH3y_Wit5MMsxWX8rP4fB5d_zk416pEmsAujiQ4k0hv_RbMFGi63mC94dxH_-Fq2Mam_0HutGnnEHysbCFxJJIOtXQ7-/s0/CoH2.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Victory Points in Company of Heroes are the way to the
victory</div>
<p>In Company of Heroes both victory conditions and economy are very
different from games like StarCraft or Age of Empires. Here they naturally
encourage splitting, multitasking, and area control from the very start.
Player bases are only rarely attacked which protects player agency and
reduces loss aversion.</p>
<p>Downside of this particular style is that the game can seem to lack
development. In a game like StarCraft the focus can switch more between
locations, and player strategies like turtling or rushing can emerge
stronger. Here it's a tug-or-war from the very start to the very end. Plus
a counter reaching zero might be an anticlimactic end.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>C&C Rivals' (mobile game) victory condition is similar but with some
advantages. The player has to control the middle when a nuclear missile is
prepared to launch against the enemy HQ. Launching two nuclear missiles
will destroy the enemy HQ. This leads to a more exciting finale that ends
with a boom. Plus there is higher comeback potential as you only have to
control the middle when the missile launches.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkn-zj2gGcqH2WQZG4iZxfiEiE8tdBIRVoCyqtB_rF21J86IyER6hso3y3Qm3BbPwM-dtDWndxwCU7P5puUCk4X6K8AtDtKi5pLpgQlkWehz3gvyEJKkWTOzncljlpabdHiPVmlGyYEcei/s0/rivals.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">In C&C Rivals players are trying to control a
nuclear missile launch site</div>
<p><i>Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak</i> has a primary victory condition,
eliminate the enemy carrier, and an alternative one – artifact victory
condition. Players can win by collection artifacts on the map and
delivering them to a usually exposed extraction point. It enables players
to put pressure on the enemy and get ahead if the enemy loses maps
control, but without actually snowballing.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhChRt2AJgry2Ng9L96e9xAhSJzslHZ6OthEEtq-_M6G_trxs1NxmJhFMdGeoKVo_Bc3l2nuAYTTn4aPWcnxCQKJXhayT-HpEPADDaVPxJSi-qj0Lw19tMeW6TmUXZdrDgP8z0NClzVZUJm/s0/DoK.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Deserts of Kharak has an alternative victory condition
through gathering artifacts</div>
<p>Those all were symmetric objectives. Asymmetric victory conditions aren't
common in RTS games. One team can be tasked with defending an objective
while the other team attacks, or one team is escorting while the other
delays. Asymmetric objectives can be a lot of fun but also hard to
balance. In other genres they are often balanced through teams alternating
roles and comparing progress. For RTS games that could draw matches for
too long. But asymmetric objectives could be very exciting if done right –
especially in less serious game modes.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Some of Age of Empires' victory conditions:</p>
<ul>
<li>(Symmetric) Annihilation, also called conquest here</li>
<li>(Symmetric) Collect all relics and defend for 16 minutes</li>
<li>(Symmetric) Build a wonder and defend for 16 minutes</li>
<li>(Asymmetric) <i>Defend the Wonder</i> game mode – one team defending
the Wonder (structure) with pre-placed walls and typically fewer players
(e.g. 3v5)</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQFvgcsZlBTw8-Ma-MJKuVoOIwx5ZpZAahmjZ5bhaQOywD29IzkrF2VJPmJCQRvHXoS4_h1RnCrsReVRaNoBZtVS3j6tKntxvUPMKdldLEbxFSJD74HkSxiwgfR7GN0kxdYSBFo_I03oBO/s0/DtW.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Defend the Wonder game mode in Age of Empires II with
asymmetric teams.<br>
Attackers throwing their armies at defenders' walls.</div>
<p>Those were some examples from various RTS games. In all cases victory
conditions should facilitate conflict and interaction between players
throughout the game, provide players good sense of how are they doing, and
lead to an exciting finale. Annihilation will be likely the victory
condition used in the competitive mode, but it would be interesting to try
these and others in the variety mode:</p>
<ul>
<li>Domination</li>
<li>Escort</li>
<li>Capture the flag / Artifact hunt</li>
<li>Defeat AI boss/base (and maybe hold the location for some time)</li>
<li>Protect your AI boss/base (outside your base) and destroy the enemy
one</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p>Thank you for reading. I believe some kind of a variety mode could be a
good addition to the game, and bring players from different modes
together. There are interesting things to try in it – be it different
victory conditions or other modifications.</p>
<p>For discussion check <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/l5iyoq/transmission_03_divided_playerbase_variety_mode/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread on r/FrostGiant</u></a>.</p>
<p>Previous posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
01: Setting, scale, heroes, socialization, and shareability</u></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission02.html" target="_blank"><u>Transmission
02: Player onboarding and lowering the skill floor</u></a></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-49696452733327788602021-01-22T16:37:00.000+01:002021-01-22T16:37:17.110+01:00Supply & limits<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Supply & Limits</title>
<style>
.smallerheading {
margin: 50px 0px -10px 0px;
color: #eee;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
}
.post-title {display:none}
.bigimgdiv {margin-top: 45px}
.bigimgdiv img {width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;}
.postheader {
margin-top: -30px;
width: 100%;
text-align: center;
position: relative;
}
.postheader img {
width: 100%;
}
.postheader div {
font-size: 42px;
color: white;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
text-shadow: 0 0 2px black, 0 0 10px black;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
left: 50%;
width: 100%;
transform: translate(-50%, -50%);
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="postheader"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNbQVoHhN8vGVJR2B2q3TlOKd30doicubQh2yE07coXkHe5rFUPVYitQ4kDL6uh2PR1UiL53inE4zYxPb74HX6U7FaSWtACMvX_o_AuygQ8-vd6ZvDALiwLFxqGXhiDXzrXq6M48mpWEfL/s0/banner.jpg">
<div class="mposttitle"> Supply & limits </div>
</div>
<p>Various limits on the number of units are remarkably common in RTS games,
we can find them in games like StarCraft, WarCraft, or Age of Empires. I
want to look at various types of these limits and what their effects and
functions are.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Supply mechanic vs unit cap</p>
<p>First let's make a distinction for this post. <span style="color: #ff9900;">Supply
mechanic</span> is the need to build or purchase something to increase
the <i>current </i>population limit (e.g. the need to build Pylons). On
the other side, <span style="color: #ff9900;">unit cap</span> is the <i>maximum
</i>limit to which the population size can be increased (e.g. 200
limit). These two things are connected but also distinct, and have
different roles.</p>
<p class="smallheading">unit cap</p>
<p>"Unit" or "population" cap is very common. It's a hard limit on the
maximum population. It can serve in several functions:</p>
<ul>
<li>It limits how far ahead can one player get. In this way it serves as
anti-snowball mechanic, and encourages the winning player to be more
aggressive to not lose the advantage.</li>
<li>Reaching the unit cap changes the balance between units:</li>
<ul>
<li>This can be used to balance units. For example Roaches in StarCraft
II have high supply cost, which makes them a lot more useful early,
but encourages players to transition out of them. Supply cost is a
parameter that's particularly important in later stages of the game.</li>
<li>Different unit compositions are made viable in different stages of
the game because of this.<span> Early you might prefer better value
per resource cost but later per supply cost.<br>
<br>
</span></li>
</ul>
<li>Reaching the unit cap also provides a meaningful choice between the
economy size and army size. Additionally, it can make some resource
gathering strategies more optimal similarly as with army compositions.</li>
<li>There are technical reasons – there can be only so many units before
any game engine will crumble.</li>
<li>And stylistic reasons – for example Warcraft III is focused on heroes
leading a small group of supporting units. A unit cap is the simplest
way to prevent players from breaking this fantasy.</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilkMafjsjwJk9-i3dddgeMSaKGb92ZKC-MoV2mThZuvW3e3dGC_vJHAaUxM16wIpgvEoPqXhz2HL5S1P1x4jzfz4WoOoTkkRFHCFap9tOZ5Y3jKu5nwX9DQXgFDo0bihxnWYLeHSJRnVDi/s0/wc3.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">The fantasy of Warcraft III is a small army led by
heroes</div>
<p>Some games will do without supply. For example C&C3 is fine without
it. Hard counters, strong support powers, aggressive gameplay and limited
economy keep players from amassing huge armies. </p>
<p>Typically RTS games with more exponential economic growth have some kind
of cap. Even Supreme Commander has one, although it's high as the game is
made for huge armies.</p>
<p class="smallheading">limit for specific Unit types</p>
<p>This is a special case where certain unit types have their maximum number
limited regardless of how big the army is. Examples of such limit would be
any heroes (Dawn of War, Warcraft III), epic units (C&C3) or other
units (Mothership or Brutalisks in StarCraft II).</p>
<p>For heroes, epic or experimental units this makes sense, but for others
it might feel inelegant, especially if the limit is higher than one. The
limit provides freedom for developers to make this unit type strong
without causing players to amass just this unit. However, if the unit is
that good, it's less of a choice to build it or not.</p>
<p>Overall, such limits can be helpful, but I believe we should always try
to do without them. Nova in StarCraft II has instead a soft cap due to
high cooldown on spawning each unit type. This soft cap can be stretched
with certain commander synergies (Karax) or effectively broken with her
prestige variant. Non-stackable effects and well-defined unit niches can
also lead to something like a soft cap. A Zerg player in Brood War doesn't
want just Defilers in the army.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Supply mechanic</p>
<p>Games have their own ways to increase the current population limit. A few
common ones are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Supply provided primarily by non-production structures and units (Age
of Empires, StarCraft, Warcraft)</li>
<li>Mainly by production structures (Iron Harvest, Immortal)</li>
<li>By upgrades (Ashes of the Singularity)</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxy0cTpwM1biZHRQLY_lbFhAv4PDky5igKCMDKOAQdwTh7PqpU5qO-FluCR6iuVgpaipNJmLkVjXO-hW7TQEyG7awnY3PEK3CQL0F-Qa_iXiEiEWSUrgSADiKuprbYNdMpseoV-hk3bM-/s0/supply.jpg"></div>
<p>Role of the supply mechanic in games:</p>
<ul>
<li>Slows army boom in all stages of the game.</li>
<li>Anti-snowball effect – lets a player rebuild easier after taking
losses compared to adding more units to an already standing army. </li>
<li>Unit and structures can serve as a target for harassment that only
slows production down and costs a bit.</li>
<li>Supply structures give a stronger impression of building a base.</li>
<li>Often serves as a mechanical skill check that rewards good
multitasking with smooth production.</li>
<li>Simple periodic actions like this can feel satisfying and lead to the
flow state.</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The anti-snowball effect is particularly interesting. I want to list a
few other mechanics that make rebuilding units easier than building more
units on top of an army:</p>
<ul>
<li>Squad retreat & reinforce (~50% cost in Company of Heroes 2)</li>
<li>Unit repair (25% cost in StarCraft II)</li>
<li>Ammo/energy/fuel cost to maintain units (energy consumed by firing in
Supreme Commander, munition in Company of Heroes for abilities)</li>
<li>Upkeep (Warcraft III, Company of Heroes) – fewer units mean higher
income</li>
<li>Killed units provide some bonus on death that feeds back to production
(e.g. Stetmann's/Horners's scrap, Mengsk's weapons, and Fenix's AI
Champions in StarCraft II)</li>
<li>Scrap/wreck mechanic is similar but with a good chance of the enemy
getting the bonus (C&C3, Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes)</li>
<li>Direct cost refund when a unit is lost (World in Conflict)</li>
<li>Tug-of-war games can be seen as an extreme case where units cost
nothing but time to rebuild, and only production structures cost
resources.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj02gTd-tWWRhbKMACJ-yLKWe1Jpk6VVdbtzXW14iPPmCZyL0oUP3fnK0gV8XEsfgHz4iYMxZUF7o3FRGGrrmyXTou7LCLYnLKjhNVwfdWh2UfWCgOeOo-3N10lFCgHfVO2ZwqhsN_K9tqI/s0/cnc3.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Power plants in C&C3</div>
<p>Somewhat similar mechanic to supply is power in Command & Conquer
games. Instead of units it affects structures. Few of its functions from
my <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2021/01/cnc3.html" target="_blank"><u>article
about C&C3</u></a>:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Off-loading some cost to power plants makes replacing static defense
cheaper, and make big tech switches easier (you already have power).
That supports the core gameplay well.</li>
<li>Power plants are often a target of harassment to cause power outage or
force building new ones.</li>
<li>Power management adds depth to build orders and provides some micro
potential when manually unpowering buildings.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Is there a way to make the supply mechanic more interesting than just
periodically building houses? Attaching more utility to structures or
units is one way. Good examples can be found in StarCraft II where
Overlords will increase supply but also can scout, transport units, spread
creep or morph into Overseers to provide detection. Orc Burrows in
Warcraft III can serve as bunkers, and Night Elf's Moon Wells will refill
mana to casters.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2ecoDGj0RruY38KUP9Kwa_jRWwxiFlJILm0ouK3amWKVWYwIjBoYPcQOvU-SNHkj4agcQLpckz-qjih_JVAXC182uKYEMjSJlPMeW-OjitJSkdaXQZoEmd4z2gC26DdZDzdhgO0GKI2B1/s0/joke.jpg"></div>
<p>One issue is that casual players might spend a disproportionate amount of
time on "building houses" without enjoying it. There is nothing worse than
to watch a casual player building twenty Pylons without using the
shift-key or hotkeys. An experienced player might spend a few seconds on
it, but this casual player was spending minutes on it each game. That
can't be a pleasant experience.</p>
<p>I believe that Age of Empires gets a pass on this, as building your base
is inherently enjoyable in that game for all players. However, it's
different for a combat focused game like StarCraft.</p>
<p>One option is of course to make fewer of these buildings necessary (~6 in
WarCraft III compared to ~20 in StarCraft II). That can alleviate this
significantly. Tying it to production structures is another way, or
creating not-quite optimal AI or mechanic that will build supply
structures automatically but leave space for more dedicated players to
optimize and multitask.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOMaeGKEzu48f__REObyNjWyNBHgkD3CodCo1GYLJfiaPfsNjfPwY_AhpPOCVb4F6v8a5KdHHRt2D8G-0HH0M-YZGYkv3a74RBkt2YUOU51nt_TYpSk09jLUGHbqcfbyb4EoaDTbHibgpr/s0/morepylons.jpg"></div>
<p>Ashes of the Singularity has an interesting approach that ties
supply increase to upgrades. These cost a special resource (Quanta) that
is also used for research and support powers. This provides a meaningful
choice between army size, research and support powers.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Conclusion</p>
<p>Both supply mechanic and unit cap have their place in RTS design. I hope
I made some of their roles a bit more clear, and showed examples how they
are handled. Here are few links to check out:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://waywardstrategy.com/2020/10/02/the-strange-flexibility-of-boundaries-population-and-other-limits-in-strategy-games/"
target="_blank"><u>https://waywardstrategy.com/2020/10/02/the-strange-flexibility-of-boundaries-population-and-other-limits-in-strategy-games/</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/10/closer-look-at-upkeep.html"
target="_blank">https://www.maguro.one/2020/10/closer-look-at-upkeep.html</a><br>
</u></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-19123028336128418752021-01-14T20:50:00.005+01:002021-01-17T20:56:08.878+01:00Command and Conquer 3<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>C&C3</title>
<style>
.post-title {display:none}
.bigimgdiv {margin-top: 45px; text-align: center;}
.bigimgdiv img {width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -25px"><img style="width: 100%;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheat5xv_JG3_pon4-Bss4jXUburhdXLsI5eNXBQP69GpXb9yUtHiNvQ4EHfDnWEz6FDZ_lcJHA76cJvftgGzCncD7BX-RQ0avQuO7uOf_N8tqCncbY3DYBlwkjZiqNgfQqS1ttI2q-hu-w/s1131/Banner.jpg"></div>
<p>Command & Conquer 3 is a fast-paced RTS that manages to distill many
RTS mechanics into their essence. It's one of my favorite games, and there
are things to learn from it. I don't claim to have deep knowledge of this
game, but I enjoy to occasionally replay its campaigns and watch
competitive streams. This is less of a review and more a look on various
game elements and how they affect the game.</p>
<p>I recommend trying the game out, it often goes for $5 <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/24790/Command__Conquer_3_Tiberium_Wars/"
target="_blank"><u>base game (Tiberium Wars)</u></a> and $5 <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/24810/Command__Conquer_3_Kanes_Wrath"
target="_blank"><u>expansion (Kane's Wrath)</u></a> on Steam or <a href="https://www.origin.com/irl/en-us/store/command-and-conquer/command-and-conquer-3"
target="_blank"><u>Origin</u></a>. In my opinion that's worth just for
campaigns.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Setting & art</p>
<p>The game is set in a near future with advanced weapons such as lasers or
railguns available as upgrades. The visual style is more gritty and
grounded, especially when compared to later released Red Alert 3 which is
a lot more cartoony and silly. The style and graphics stood the test of
time considering the game was released in 2007. There are a lot of shader
effects that look great even now.</p>
<p>Visual clarity in combat could be better. Unit models change when
damaged, and when destroyed they leave a temporary wreck that looks quite
similar to damaged units. This makes it harder to gauge how many units are
alive on the field. But otherwise units are easily distinguishable.</p>
<p>I can't complain about in-game UI, only menus are a bit dated and
excessively use delays on transitions which is very annoying.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRgpjeyIyoNDrbMThN0slNoGv0DTBPzdS6JYNsJkHHNIpoj909WCTkaZSiz4_xWfr6Lcjr-p2gIkR38ttqupK5IODaLriCngFBB6VicxGJheFtoXrFDYJJeUSL0OsLMrWsstOil3xtx5eD/s1728/ss_c145ede0f5f36d0f01b9e1126c44cb406084d6c3.1920x1080.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Nod vs GDI skirmish</div>
<p class="smallheading">Gameplay Style</p>
<p>The gameplay is fast-paced due to:</p>
<ul>
<li>High lethality</li>
<li>Fast units</li>
<li>Strong counters</li>
<li>Strong support powers</li>
<li>Quick production</li>
<li>Quick economy boom and fall-off</li>
<li>Low barrier to tech switches (lacking incremental upgrades, structures
can be sold, power system, quick production). This enables quick and
frequent tech switches which is encouraged by strong counters.</li>
</ul>
<p>I will go more into details, but it's good to see that everything
supports this type of gameplay.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>I would say there is a higher likelihood of comebacks due to these
effects as well. Support powers can be a level equalizer if used right.
Strong counters mean that if you are rebuilding an army, it will contain a
lot of strong counters against the previous enemy army – reducing the main
source of snowballing. Although there is no equivalent of the supply
mechanic, which would reduce snowballing even further.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Economy</p>
<p>C&C3 manages to do with only one resource (credits). Harvesters are
the primary way of income. They harvest Tiberium fields and store the
harvested Tiberium in Refineries.</p>
<p>Tiberium fields are exhausted quicker than StarCraft II's bases and there
are fewer of them. While the fields do slowly regenerate, players will
harvest most of the Tiberium on the map relatively quickly. This makes the
whole game faster and leads to an economy curve unlike to that of other
popular RTS. Together with tech progression this makes each phase of the
game feel unique.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg_8ab4KuIuy00y02TGiVpI3AXpd-oiLEdiQCoxgWmFP9JhfrwUuuojUxvrKOhGGZbkkljCjeJggtir3ukqWZlmb37WVAjyUDMd9FlKTM_OKEQFFFhs4vq703BNyOjtWBP8vhKRpLJHwxT/s1200/Harvesting.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Harvesters and Refineries are the primary source of
income</div>
<p>The starting Tiberium field is big enough to allow aggression before
expanding, but players are generally pushed to expand and move to the
middle of the map. This supports the fast and aggressive gameplay. The
degree to which a player commits to economy depends on how aggressively
the player expands, and how many Refineries and additional Harvesters he
makes.</p>
<p>Apart from common green Tiberium, there is also blue Tiberium which is
rarer, valuable and typically found in more exposed locations. It can be
an interesting map feature – providing high risk-reward option, and
rewarding map control.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Additional income can be gained from capturing Tiberium spikes with
Engineers. These create new points of interest on maps, encourage early
conflict and build diversification. They provide a steady and unlimited
income but can be captured or destroyed by the enemy.</p>
<p>Another nice thing about Tiberium spikes is that the economy situation
can be more easily evaluated counting them. A player controlling two
spikes more has a significant long-term advantage – information like this
is easy to digest. That's likely the same reason why Tiberium field sizes
have been standardized. In previous games fields came in various shapes
and sizes. In C&C3 they are of fixed sizes – making it easier to
evaluate the game state.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj44MST1v0j5gFXM6KnKMtD_eSFQRLDnBp1OYdcgg_JJUGbIPCi3-a-NTuYPOS0-EfVieAajwnr04FNMafmGegLS1pG-QNr1Khq8zYuor1wFR-TqTQz5j2Ei0tqyPPB_2MXpZxVJ4ECx4AD/s1200/Spike.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Tiberium spikes provide additional income
when captured</div>
<p> </p>
<p class="smallheading">base building </p>
<p>Compared to games like Age of Empires or StarCraft the base building is
simpler and isn't such APM sink. However, it's still very satisfying,
enables player expression and has a decently high skill ceiling. All but
the important choices were removed.</p>
<p>Things that increase skill ceiling:</p>
<ul>
<li>Blocking pathing or line-of-fire with structures</li>
<li>Selling structures</li>
<li>Manually unpowering and repowering structures to conserve power</li>
<li>Manual repair</li>
<li>Moving MCV to expand</li>
<li>Aggressively pushing with structures in contested areas</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>The whole tech tree can be reached relatively quickly which makes
switching compositions easier. This is further supported by the option to
sell structures.</p>
<p>Structures require power to function at full capacity. Without it static
defenses are disabled and production slowed. Power mechanic has few roles:</p>
<ul>
<li>Power plants are often a target of harassment to cause power outage or
force building new ones</li>
<li>Off-loading some cost to power plants makes replacing static defense
cheaper, and make big tech switches easier (you already have power).</li>
<li>Power management adds depth to build orders and provides some micro
potential when manually unpowering buildings</li>
</ul>
<p>New structures can be built around Construction Yard or other structures
that provide build radius. This is a simple solution and plays a role when
expanding or aggressively pushing with MCV.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6xV0gesTBj0KNURcq2zLxI0QOKXUNNRg8S2ipqdJC8Te7WRxLAElx8XWQYfnLU8Xsz-YceZwE9ar-VKrfNm4VYFfVaXzFieMkTP3V0yEfYrSS9AWMyRZ4lQ0mJ0ygl_AkIHp6UeM_-Pn4/s2048/TiberiumWarsTechTree.jpg"
target="_blank"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWoAv5r9XcUiptjJNtD8oDwpA1JuAZKeCsmFwZvla4l1xOMjQC1cyOsYs8NM0bQdVfYBuU7U_96va9FD0uv_i7N56QlLqDaHcq9RxOZVvcd6aCNanu5ZNfU2hChj5WklWkH_8qEGrtXfPC/s1200/TiberiumWarsTechTree_SD.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Tech trees in Tiberium Wars</div>
<p class="smallheading">Production </p>
<p>Both unit and structure production is quite fast, that supports
fast-paced gameplay and enables to switch compositions quickly. The
omnipresent sidebar makes managing production easy from anywhere. It can
be fully controlled with hotkeys, reduces the need to set up control
groups for production and APM spent on it. The player has to go back to
the base only to build new buildings, sell old ones, purchase upgrades or
set rally points.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img style="max-width: 369px; width: auto" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZwqE58BILg266pT7z2hyqFZiramA4RdjKY5lzRElvnp4gXVG8YAT4kagaqPCrsK_AwI1VkFkxh6H3i1OpKB0H2NKK22GOu3Bo9KGcfLI-veRhtMzair-ezHiSyB8HVKJTbCpdSzggjG74/s783/sidebar.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Production sidebar with minimap</div>
<p class="smallheading">Upgrades </p>
<p>There are no incremental upgrades (+1/+2/+3) and that suits the game. The
game is less about economy management, and more about fast-pace gameplay
and choosing the right composition against the enemy. Incremental upgrades
would only get in the way to this. Most of the available upgrades have
significant impact on the gameplay, and many come with visual changes to
affected units (bigger guns, glowing models, shields, lasers or railguns).</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXxSzy9j8VBIAb-7geGDTxiLuuMdGPiavx-CU0XwzXotB2zV7rHyyORohmGgorAXZFfpoS9iJcN8kKa8zYDs-f7cla6GL1W41oKEd9eMDefInot-UXhzZafKke3EW-fxqHgoQJkz50V6Fn/s1200/railgun.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Railguns in action</div>
<p class="smallheading">Maps</p>
<p>The map pool is diverse and showcasing various environments. The main
defining parameters of the map are terrain, Tiberium fields and Tiberium
spikes. The game is nowhere as asymmetric as StarCraft II, and how much
maps are open isn't as restricted. Some maps are essentially flat, but
they can have other points of interest:</p>
<ul>
<li>Defensive Tower – provides defense (after being captured by Engineers)</li>
<li>EMP control center – unlocks EMP support power (after being captured
by Engineers)</li>
<li>Garrison-able structures – infantry can fire from them</li>
<li>Subway entrance – lets infantry move quickly around the map</li>
<li>Mutant hovel – enables players to recruit Mutant Marauders (after
being captured by Engineers)</li>
<li>Expansion Point – provides build radius (after being captured by
Engineers)</li>
</ul>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM9-nMurxlEoNdy3JEl3kdZ10CqsqR-KJmJB2WgF5fD1oVXB-_DMxcHR6iu1u_dQ1RSSJmf-qk5CdZZf48WQHJS-7jGsim9rZ1icBZ0fZ5Jgdlo3EwCGz9MDF7sdaf9vBNg_Gjr9VT7ndX/s1200/EMP+Station.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">EMP control center provides a support power after being
captured</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJGVjK_006NgO6a-ifpvSmQ0yb5GhtnuoVC12cFu3R0_Ii0rXlr4DlPqFTBDioXVxrxsSmxkBybIkdGglIiIss9R4vJjA2wXSYdL_ZLkzkvIDajZDXCdVtZneifdT73dhhrKkIaa1RbNzh/s1200/turrets.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Defensive Towers (usually not quite this conveniently
positioned)</div>
<p class="smallheading">Combat </p>
<p>The skill ceiling isn't as high and visually flashy as in StarCraft
games, but there are still plenty of opportunities for micro-management,
and deciding when to push or retreat. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>There are more hard-counters than in StarCraft games, for example
infantry machine guns will only tickle tanks, and tank shells aren't very
good against infantry. This leads to mixing composition or often switching
them in competitive matches. In single-player it makes choosing the right
units for the job even more rewarding.</p>
<p>Turtling is discouraged by hard counters, strong support powers and
economy limited by Tiberium fields.</p>
<div s="" class="bigimgdiv" style="margin-bottom: 40px"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTIUB796WtwyUvaGYjvGb3DKTGgZfcKychLp0NpOhgo4sJojx7MbYuecWnemEd0yilhAbQrkZzVomhcR4YcMEhJ4z8sXdAXix27WgirAuy6PPo9kvUjntHzejhrWIWllD2clyyPzEKfBKp/s1600/ss_4366252ceabf0fd99f745db5872b59589caf60e4.1920x1080.jpg"></div>
<p></p>
<p>There are no traditional spellcasters, however, many units have one
ability. Abilities are limited by cooldowns, and some consume credits or
other allied units. Overall, this is nicely simplified and works quite
well. I imagine the limit of one ability per unit was done in order to
make it work well on consoles, but the game is no worse for it. A lot of
micro is about movement and focus-firing. Vehicles take more damage from
sides and rear.</p>
<p>T3 units like Juggernauts, Tripods or Avatars leave a wreck when
destroyed. The wreck can be captured by Engineers to restore the unit
albeit damaged, or it can be target-fired and destroyed. This adds more
depth to lategame fights. It doesn't have a strictly snowball or
anti-snowball effect as it depends on the situation.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbK3Tp7LGIA7RJ_Njh4z4UmY4qXUmdqNsf3yvSOtHMSMq4irGl9riqK6BHlo7Rv8pXR-21cNCKnNabWrNlR-WYpqiDoV8ICiSy2lDZTrljFiWFNH1xfAUZFj-FdwETa1RlX6xdSi4gOJ7H/s1735/ss_5304d5c575cee1f16a6a3226773145dbea9418dc.1920x1080.jpg"></div>
<p class="smallheading">Veterancy</p>
<p>Combat units can gain veterancy through kills and damage. Promoted units
have increased damage, speed, armor and rate of fire. Heroic units
self-heal, have increased weapon damage and range, and their attack
visually changes. It's hard to get to the heroic rank due to very lethal
combat and frequent composition switching. However, if you reach heroic
rank with a unit, the unit becomes much more useful and easier to keep
alive. </p>
<p>I believe that while veterancy doesn't play a significant role here, it
spices ups the gameplay and encourages unit retention without causing
snowballing.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Support powers</p>
<p>C&C3 is an interesting example of an RTS game where relatively strong
support powers work well in a competitive setting – something that's not
easy to do right.</p>
<p>Support powers are unlocked by building prerequisite structures. They are
limited by cooldowns and cost credits to use. In combat players often
expect support powers, try to bait them and counteract them with their own
support powers. Strong support powers discourage deathballs as some can be
quite effective against clumped enemies.</p>
<p>There are many types of support powers in C&C3. Few examples: spawn
permanent units, deal damage or slow all units in selected area, structure
fortification, scan area, spawn Tiberium, cloak units in area or create
illusions, jam enemy radar, drop mines, temporal invulnerability,
teleport, and more.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Super-weapons are a special type of support powers. They require a
specific expensive building to charge. They have a long coolup and
cooldown and deal massive area damage. There is a small ramp-up to build
up tension and provide a small opportunity to save a few units.</p>
<p>The existence of super-weapons is visible to all players which provides
an option for counterplay by pushing or destroying the controlling
structure.</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgctxYeD17H3vIbLZEA9c_C_L9ZxdP7WSBc3eClkbyDAlRDZLGiJ3_d_Vw_7vI5oxinVmTvPkzAOZbd5h5L7tN0PRuZ9_ay3jxlDDaITGds5-LzPm6K8nNd8tMkS0u9264QsXlJHacU_QdZ/s1200/superweapon.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Ion Cannon firing<br>
In the top left icon and timer are visible to all players</div>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p style="margin-top: 19px;">C&C3 is very unlike popular RTS like
StarCraft of Age of Empires. It leaves out all the finicky parts in
economy, upgrades and base building and leaves only the important parts.
The game manages to reduce mechanical requirements to reasonable levels
while having a high skill ceiling. It works quite well even on consoles.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 19px;">There are plenty of interesting mechanics and
unit designs, and the visuals are pretty even today. The game itself did
well, but it could have done even better if it received support it needed
– especially balance patches.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 19px;">Another issue was the split playerbase of
C&C games – between Red Alert 2, Generals and C&C3. Plus releasing
Red Alert 3 the same year as C&C3's expansion Kane's Wrath undermined
the game's longevity:</p>
<ul>
<li> 2007 - Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars</li>
<li>2008 - Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath</li>
<li>2008 - Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3</li>
<li>2009 - Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 – Uprising</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thank you for reading. And as the last thing, here are few recommended
channels with C&C3 content:</p>
<ul>
<li>Masterleaf (<a href="https://www.twitch.tv/masterleafcnc" target="_blank"><u>Twitch</u></a>,
<a href="https://youtube.com/c/masterleafcnc" target="_blank"><u>YouTube</u></a>)</li>
<li>Sybert (<a href="https://www.twitch.tv/sybert" target="_blank"><u>Twitch</u></a>,
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPgGuw7BZ6_SzDmsEG40uGQ" target="_blank"><u>Youtube</u></a>)</li>
<li>CharlesWarmonk (<a href="https://www.twitch.tv/charleswarmonk" target="_blank"><u>Twitch</u></a>)<br>
</li>
<li>Bikerush (<a href="https://www.twitch.tv/bikerush" target="_blank"><u>Twitch</u></a>,
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/toshiba660" target="_blank"><u>YouTube</u></a>)<br>
</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-85730342015242854642020-12-15T18:53:00.007+01:002021-01-18T20:44:44.852+01:00Mastery Exploit<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Mastery Exploit</title>
<style>
.post-title {display:none}
.bigimgdiv {margin-top: 45px}
.bigimgdiv img {
width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -30px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit6S-vwiW5MwOChaqtxxLntzvjJLAF4OAjsSWpj7PXaAGGEHIgj0cyg85wHntUCEHAbHZzP8QuZcHF3L-kSKm8bKXHIdYewc0C1uw1cxFj0KHVdj7rgt4vsdJ_P0_0p_ylIjya3kvvwo6R/s1500/banner.jpg"></div>
<p>There is an easy trick to increase maximum mastery points in StarCraft II
Co-op from 90 to 180. I will explain how to do it using a map I created,
and explore its cause and consequences.</p>
<p class="smallheading">How to do this?</p>
<div class="bigimgdiv" style="float: right; margin-top: -70px; margin-right: 16px;"><img
style="width: auto; max-width: 100%; border: 0px solid black" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPJaXdYERiKv4f1sJuZPJ0NzXbUkRrM53M_AElznR4gq9k8TYL6c_R-JY0SN_abdEQOMJAJvzRnjuwz7P3eCk1aty1WK4WWQ8eQ9JqWBYbw0dUyhv1JGEv_zQIV8LHtxFEZHhLRRFBy9q9/s0/Map.jpg"></div>
<ol>
<li>Load "<i>Maguro's Max Mastery Map</i>" on arcade</li>
<li>Quit the map after it starts</li>
<li>Change masteries to your liking</li>
<li>This works only for one game. After a game you will need to load the
map again and set your masteries.</li>
</ol>
<p> <span style="color: red;"> Use at your own risk!</span></p>
<ol>
</ol>
<p> </p>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img style="width: auto; margin-top: 30px; max-width: 100%"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP8Zb9mbYu9DN8DH8ipXplUO50l6_e48tZYOqG9pO5AdFCS5F5QWPRCtBQ8Ar5VlEXXn4Nro0PrlCEO0cAQoPrtrLRwL1KE1NiqkABgm_XfTArW_HMaJJLqi-XBgi6xmcxMd9bR8eVklbC/s794/Masteries.jpg"
alt="Howling Abyss" title="Howling Abyss"></div>
<div class="subnote">Full 180 mastery points for Kerrigan</div>
<p class="smallheading">What happens?</p>
<div>Basic commander data is stored in Liberty mod instead of the Co-op mod.
This is so there are data to be shown in UI without loading the full Co-op
mod. However, this can be overridden when you load any map that has a mod
with custom <i>commanderdata.xml</i>. A simple map overriding the data
won't work, but a mod will stick for one game before it's overridden by
the Co-op mod.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the most part this will affect only visual elements in menus,
however, there is no limit for the maximum mastery points spent.</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img style="width: auto; max-width: 100%" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzegyj3zIke8ognW6txC5MvC6AxmIHweC1e0NyxenAv3zUmDiIqcmGGX-84r_BqzjU_00lu5dDkXotbjg9CyxI9D-0F7lyXf8FcaQ2XynalVtYLdAZg0-NROlUddLH0a_Gw0w0dOc0BaII/s1920/Ingame.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Masteries are applied correctly in-game (my <a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/SC2_Coop_overlay"
target="_blank"><u>overlay</u></a> & <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/10/replay-interface.html"
target="_blank"><u>interface</u></a>)</div>
<p class="smallheading">What Can it potentially do?</p>
<ol>
<li>What works in-game:</li>
<ul>
<li>Increasing maximum mastery points to spend (available on this map)</li>
<li>Default player color visible in-game to ally only</li>
</ul>
<li>Menu visuals only:</li>
<ul>
<li>Unit roster change</li>
<li>Upgrade change</li>
<li>Prestige change</li>
<li>Unlocking commanders</li>
<li>Max points per mastery are limited in-game for most (all?) masteries</li>
<li>And more...</li>
</ul>
<li>I'm unsure these affect the game:</li>
<ul>
<li>Swapping masteries</li>
</ul>
</ol>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7yFiZ1IRu1XVCsaQaHpELpBwWm_XJeFvWcfUn56Lv5-SmOLY2wQNPqAFaMTB2xk2rplocDwFIhggshCJZxKzVlh-9ux1S-dNzLE98_kDXm4aBx1NzeIKKNLuNjd_SVVHRmoo51yICVMxE/s913/Units.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Liberators for Kerrigan (visual change affecting only
menus)</div>
<div class="bigimgdiv"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghftG_hZDCbFrUg-vScIEHTcszoomwUkVT8bBWvFUcJmzeCOttm1NS9b0IHhYfgrOxR1UxABiUe5qfUQHf-Mx6mlxOom0-v2wTVy5hEeUMJlyCn2UtHUZTQDlA162xPKUB89y8HbEqynB9/s860/Upgrades.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Guardian Shell for Kerrigan (visual change affecting
only menus)</div>
<p>Thank you for reading. I can't say whether this will be fixed or if it's
safe to use, but it's an interesting bug for sure. I do hope this will get
fixed, as it's very easy for any map maker to intentionally or
unintentionally break things in menus. It doesn't require any trick – only
changing things that are also used in menus.</p>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-50256565161740606072020-11-10T21:26:00.004+01:002021-05-13T14:47:00.119+02:00Transmission 02 - Player onboarding and lowering the skill floor<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Transmission 02</title>
<style>
.smallerheading {
font-weight: bold;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
margin: 40px 0px 10px 0px;
color: white;
font-size: 26px
}
.post-title {display:none}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -30px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ7KDkIn_4NoARc86-f-jnyE8yziWn9vpP-QDNwR3ZrRvZ13wvjWJZVWjgksiiTFuNQKUDiSg48aDJ8oR71swJ_Pcyplkz2j6CPJi3NdN44NlhSaYG05DmzkfgXHXYznZrxJAh0YwKmumI/s1500/Banner2.jpg"></div>
<p>In the previous post I wrote about <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2020/11/transmission01.html"
target="_blank"><u>settings, scale, heroes, social aspect, shareability</u></a>.
This post will focus on lowering the skill floor and player onboarding.
Together with player socialization I see these as the most important areas
where a new RTS can improve.</p>
<p>This is a good opportunity to organize my thoughts. Following ideas might
or might not fit a particular RTS game, but perhaps some will be useful or
shape further discussions.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="OnboardingAndSkillFloor">Onboarding & skill
floor</p>
<p>RTS games are typically hard to get into and have a steep learning curve.
There are a lot of things to learn and master before players can "<i>play
the real game</i>", "<i>engage in the core experience</i>" or however
you want to call that. In first-person-shooters you move and click
enemies, in MOBAs you start with a single unit and gradually unlock
abilities. That's a lot easier than making sense of UI and learning how
basic economy, tech tree, production, and unit control works.</p>
<p>Even advanced players might not truly engage with the core experience
until higher ranks. In StarCraft games macro-mechanics are so important
that improving them might be your best way to advance to the next league
instead of actively scouting, learning proper responses or controlling
your army better.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiph8zf__Mm7hpZNb0hBJPMO3iFTNb_GH5ZFTLjUUEtUE3-ZOmMmXaxW5cyMyK0ryODN-3Hw7O1XlreAZ5Xz-StaTdWjEIw91-Lg4sGB13_JAs5d9VEpc-Zoy5bkBuzXLCuP_ShuYkCyZI2/s1200/T.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Even the basic base management is hard in Brood War</div>
<p>This has led many games to oversimplify either micro or macro mechanics
or both. However, I think that with good design it's possible to make a
good game for a wide variety of players. Solutions will have to come from
all angles – UI, UX, game design, art & sound design. It's important
to consider players of skill levels when making any change. What exactly
are players doing, and how engaging is the core gameplay loop? If we
automate something, does the game become shallow or less engaging for
them? Does the change reduce skill ceiling where we don't want it to?</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="8020">80–20%</p>
<p>This concept was mentioned on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As2tPggQaZc"
target="_blank"><u>Pylon Show</u></a>. It refers to the idea that an
army should be somewhat effective even without too much micro involved
(80% effectiveness). The actual numbers might be a nod to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle"
target="_blank"><u>pareto principle</u></a>, but they are not important.
In some cases additional effort expended will lead to smaller improvements
(95–5), and sometimes to much larger ones (50–50). The core idea is to
lower the skill floor of controlling an army.</p>
<p>An example that was mentioned is Nova in StarCraft II Co-op. She has a
solid army that does "ok" when simply a-moved. This is not uncommon in
Co-op. The great part is how much more it can do if you control it
properly – siege Liberators and tanks, use Raven's abilities, lay mines,
micro Nova, EMP with Ghosts, place defensive drones and use airstrikes.
This broad range of options provides tactical choices and rewards micro. A
new player might be satisfied with simply a-moving and using an airstrike,
more advanced players will try to do as many things and as good as they
can.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCpw9jZO60XrbSYM2vKOC4tHd8uHgsPsTT7eXEAzDLXm3HY4TRQYt1GrFc8Hhl19kYlyM1OoTRiQClr1Hai270GNb5JR6XqRVSzaq2_KUOKQhsyEhfz119SV3b4Ruk53kQ4UT9yJ38pnXL/s957/Nova+army.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">Nova's wide variety of units</div>
<p>Another good part is that many abilities can be "pre-cast". What I mean
is that a players can siege Tanks and Liberators, place Auto-Turrets,
Defensive Drones, and lay Spider Mines in anticipation of the engagement.
This lets slower players to engage with these abilities even if they
couldn't use them when the combat begins.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="Autocast">Autocast</p>
<p>One of the approaches mentioned was a more common use of autocast on
abilities. The idea is that slower players will leave them on autocast,
while faster players might disable autocast and/or use them manually and
more effectively. Results are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Lower skill floor</li>
<li>Fights on lower levels look more like those on top levels</li>
<li>Players encounter autocasted abilities more at lower skill levels</li>
</ul>
<p>There are some potential disadvantages as well:</p>
<ul>
<li>Autocasted ability is significantly less rewarding than manually
casted.</li>
<li>Too many autocasted abilities might result in unnecessary visual
clutter.</li>
<li>If the autocast is too smart, the player won't engage in
decision-making where and when to use the ability until the player can
outperform autocast and overcome the opportunity cost of spending
actions somewhere else.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>I've looked for some good examples in StarCraft II Co-op. Ambusher's
Blink might be the best one. Ambushers autocast blink to escape enemy
fire, but players are encouraged to use Blink more aggressively as it
provides significant DPS boost. This works very well because the manual
cast is used differently than the autocast (defensive vs offensive usage).</p>
<p>Avatar of Essence's Devolution Wave is not as good example. It's an
autocasted area-of-effect debuff. Manually casting it has exactly the same
use, but you can affect more enemies if you use it at the right time. I
would guess that more than 99% of playerbase has never casted it manually.
Vorazuns's Corsairs, Zeratul's Shieldguards and Abrogators are in a
similar position. Their abilities have the same use whether autocasted or
not, and are mostly not rewarding enough to use them manually.</p>
<p>Swarm Host-like units are a better example. They do spawn Locust-like
units automatically, but with manual cast you can send them to hit targets
outside their autocast range, or you can spawn them in anticipation of the
enemy attack. This option to pre-cast and different manual use case are
what makes this interesting and rewarding, even if most players will not
actually use it.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhscq6EdseOmK26ZklmxMHX4l4zXv6uIw4dNBWsdMpnu6tAlXbCTlSMbpcTlCEqTLn3ZFkOCF0_je-8ZZ5XkQ28U_gVHj3W1aKhtm738vibekQZ9wIgOu6qleC5T55CIjYIoaSMReAEfCv/s1200/Z.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Ambusher's Blink can be used both defensively and
offensively</div>
<p>I think autocast on abilities work particularly well when the use case
for manual casting is sufficiently different from the autocasted ability –
as is it with Ambushers and Swarm Hosts-like units. Warcraft 3 has good
examples as well, namely Sorceress' Slow and Dryad's Abolish Magic. With
these abilities you are not trying to compete with autocast AI, instead
you might use them when the autocast wouldn't trigger at all (e.g.,
against summons or when chasing the enemy), or target the high-priority
units first.</p>
<p>Disabling and enabling autocast to preserve energy is a skill in itself.
However, if players are encouraged to change the autocast state too often,
it can quickly become a chore.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>Two more thoughts about autocast:</p>
<p>Using abilities in fights is engaging, and players should be encouraged
to do it manually. It might be a good idea to first look at macro
mechanics to lower the load on new players, then try to improve the user
experience when controlling armies. For example having all abilities in
one command card for Tychus does reduce the mechanical barrier to using
active abilities. Only after that it might make sense to look at how many
autocasted abilities are actually needed.</p>
<p>There was an idea that autocasted abilities would have different
statistics. This seems highly unintuitive and inelegant. I don't want to
see a fight where some Psionic Storms deal 80 damage and others 50 damage.
It's better to make the autocast AI less good – doesn't react immediately,
stacks unstackable effects a bit, requires certain game state, doesn't hit
the most targets with one spell or the most important targets, etc.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="SimpleUnitControl">Simple unit control</p>
<p>This returns back to the 80–20 principle, but instead of increasing
effectiveness through manually casting abilities, the effectiveness can be
increased incrementally with focus on simple control based around moving
and attacking. My thinking here is that you can more naturally improve
your army control if it's based around simple concepts like moving,
attacking or target firing.</p>
<p>This has few advantages:</p>
<ul>
<li>Effectiveness is improved more incrementally.</li>
<li>Resulting battles are easier to parse – fewer effects, no knowledge of
abilities required.</li>
</ul>
<p>More focus is put on kiting, and army positioning – arcs and surrounds.
Brood War did a good job by distinguishing units and interaction based on
movement alone. Vultures or Mutalisks can shine with just movement micro.
Warcraft 3 also heavily focuses on army movement and positioning.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkpM-Vt_yNTOjrLx_c0-X4-o3KUSz-eVXSRfgiIAUcdBJzj6IhZ2ev1qFWdyei0gWu9CKFmq-YPgIG1Zgh-jmEUlzwTlsZeyg3y832FBHOggCyAEhnY_RUFX9UiFg83fRf1b7gNatBsARM/s1596/wc3.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Unit positioning is extremely important in Warcraft 3</div>
<p>These simple unit controls could include positional units like Lurkers,
Siege Tanks, Liberators or heavy machine guns or cannons in Company of
Heroes with their limited firing arc and setup time. All these can be very
interesting and scale well with player skill.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="Macro">Macro mechanics</p>
<p>The 80–20 concept could be the most useful with macro mechanics (economy,
basebuilding and production). Most of new players will want only very few
tech and economy decisions before going to play with the army. But I think
that for experienced and competitive players there should be enough room
to improve macro through high APM and multitasking.</p>
<p>In the previous post I mentioned that it's hard for me to return to
competitive 1v1 due to not being satisfied with my mechanics. I believe
applying this 80–20 concept could help with that. It wouldn't be helpful
to just new players but also to anyone returning to the game.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>How to do this correctly is a very difficult problem and will require a
lot of prototyping and testing. StarCraft II's Chronoboost, MULE and Larva
Inject work, but they can feel a bit forced. They do provide some room for
decisions, and the inject raises skill ceiling as well.</p>
<p>Few other examples how to introduce some optional complexity to macro:
adjacency bonuses in Supreme Commander, more efficient manual reseeding of
farms in Age of Empires, transferring workers, overbuilding workers before
transferring them to an expansion, collecting scattered resources or
wrecks from previous battles, creep spread, switching add-ons in StarCraft
II, updating resource drop-off points, workers returning to work, and
more.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij31QOMEIXRh8X3WJfl4lC72y0SjKvlnL4hSUNgKCca_0BXdjfBw1O4NnOQZbergyjm5JpWCVhszPwk51h6r5-L8tskVG46oljTt4qUTu4DMVu8Dcui79cI0NwjM717rUfS7JSJcja0QDP/s800/Adjacency.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">In Supreme Commander adjacency bonuses reduce operating
cost</div>
<p>It would help casual players a lot if repeating tasks were reduced, and
macro was limited only to important decisions. There is nothing worse than
watching a casual player making 20 Pylons without using the shift key.
This could include limited auto-queues for workers, auto-hotkey for some
production, etc. Repeating tasks can be reintroduced for more serious
players, and as a player progresses through ranks these tasks would become
more important. This is of course more easily said than done.</p>
<p></p>
<p class="smallheading" id="More">More things to help<code><br>
</code></p>
<p>Now for some other things that might help with lowering the skill floor
and onboarding. They might or might not fit into a particular game. </p>
<ul>
<li>Already mentioned ghost mode would be great. However, it should not
become a crutch for overly complex buildorders.</li>
<li>Hotkeys for select all army / all units onscreen / all army units not
in control groups.</li>
<li>Global build UI similar to found in C&C games or Spellforce.</li>
<li>Shared ability command card similar to what Tychus have (no need to
switch between units when using different abilities).</li>
<li>Easier default commanders in Co-op compared to StarCraft II where
default commanders are not very casual friendly – especially Raynor.</li>
<li>Better after game feedback. In RTS games it's often difficult to see
what you did wrong. It would be even more difficult to find this
algorithmically, but perhaps some machine learning model could manage it
decently.</li>
<li>Reducing the number of cheeses and rushes in lower leagues. Possible
options could include a different take on stealth than in StarCraft
games, free scout like in Age of Empire games, or something like Orc
Burrow mechanic in Warcraft 3. It wouldn't completely prevent
aggression, but the damage would be limited to not mining. Something
like that could keep early aggression viable but not game ending unless
one player messes up.</li>
<li>Good and engaging tutorials. They could be combined with a challenge
providing bonus experience, other rewards and even leaderboards. They
could focus on a variety of skills from basics to those aimed at the
competitive mode.</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p>I mentioned a lot of things, but I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas
that could improve the experience for new and returning players. It's a
difficult problem and solutions will have to touch and affect many aspects
of the game. Thank you for reading. For discussion check <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/FrostGiant/comments/jrt1ks/transmission_02_player_onboarding_skill_floor/"
target="_blank"><u>this thread</u></a> on r/FrostGiant.</p>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-65850299370975393212020-11-03T19:20:00.008+01:002021-09-06T22:14:55.595+02:00Transmission 01 - Setting, scale, heroes, socialization<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Transmission 01</title>
<style>
.post-title {display:none}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -30px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQdPEJkQon3StDswo4groYJIOMAY-qILvxbJj90C4On5odcR6OO5TlI1z3dyjiSBEVkIMhQqBMDwNcJ1hR2k8DBUbf7sZ7Nos8KJ3irB7cqX0OfwDT9FdlOztoxtFbL9ZpH-f1qbPYjvaq/s1500/Banner1.jpg"></div>
<div class="smallheading">PREAMBLE</div>
<p>Real-time strategy has always been my favorite genre. I do some modding
in StarCraft II and occasionally write about game design. In the last few
years I have been playing StarCraft II's Co-op. I think I contributed at
least a little bit to making this game mode better through <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/01/bug-hunt.html"
target="_blank"><u>a series of ten posts</u></a> looking at bugs, and by
providing feedback to now u/Frost_monk. I'm happy that I could do my small
part. I have a lot to say about Co-op, but more on that in another post.</p>
<p>Let's start with some subjective feedback about RTS. Then I will comment
on setting, scale, heroes, socialization and shareability.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="likes">Few things I like in RTS</p>
<ul>
<li>Action with crisp and responsive controls</li>
<li>Basebuilding (~StarCraft, Stronghold, C&C3)</li>
<li>Rewarding multitasking that leads to the flow state</li>
</ul>
<p>And more... Many things have been already mentioned, and others we take
for granted and don't realize how much work was put into them to make the
game feel just right.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="dislikes">Few things I dislike in SC2</p>
<p>This is again completely subjective, and I will focus on two things that
are keeping me from competitive 1v1 despite reaching masters several
times. First, 1v1 can feel lonely. That's it.</p>
<p>Second, returning to competitive 1v1 feels hard after weeks or months. I
can't enjoy games until I'm somewhat satisfied with my mechanics. Only
then I can play "actual" game where games aren't decided solely by macro
slipping or forgetting to scout.</p>
<p>It feels better in team and Co-op games. There is more freedom for
strategic thinking, scouting is either easier or not required at all, and
it doesn't feel like the game's outcome is on a knife's edge.</p>
<p>MMR adjustment compensates for lower skill after longer time of not
playing. However, I often found it being too aggressive with lowering my
MMR. When I finally decide to come back to 1v1, I would get several games
when I stomp my enemy, which is not fun for either side.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="setting">SETTING</p>
<p>Let's move on to the visual style, and more precisely to light vs dark
theme. Lighter theme is more welcoming, and it's easier to spend more time
in a game with it. Including some nature and cute things helps as well,
even if they are not the main focus.</p>
It's also important how relatable the environment and characters are. A
setting too distant to anything in player's experience will be hard to
connect to. This can be a problem for sci-fi settings. And that's why
StarCraft is basically Terran version of wild-west with Protoss wizards and
Zerg swarmy monsters. It makes it more relatable, you can connect to
characters and their stories easier.
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdRT-zLsvBTUj_JKQVT3h9maOwLvX_CUhYexKvFW_yMKak4Cynv2CQbHGyQTw26WqliMMZNSl5LQmrRf_DgydQ9xt74wTdWnhw6fwAg7TuYGMGO8OsiNn8SmeeiH0fXncVwmu4RUgmSDs5/s810/TQ_GD.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Titan Quest – Grim Dawn</div>
<p>One of the best things about <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/475150/Titan_Quest_Anniversary_Edition/"
target="_blank"><u>Titan Quest</u></a> was that it takes you through
ancient mythological Greece, Egypt, China and Underworld. These
environments are very diverse and colorful. It's almost worth playing just
to see how they are portrayed in the game.</p>
<p><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/219990/Grim_Dawn/" target="_blank"><u>Grim
Dawn</u></a> is Titan Quest's successor built on the same engine. I
imagine it improved a lot since I last played it, but as its name
suggests, the environments were very grim, dark and also blander. Another
downside is the lack of wide variety of popular mythological enemies like
Minotaurs. You already know these monsters from stories, and it makes them
more relatable. These two things made Grim Dawn a harder sell, despite it
being a better game in other aspects.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPaAm8_ASW4_65aOrKeKLBjHThg83j1IiwIhxINMfwMNBow6_C-ee8gLfMAgXGGEnXd8AxAHfQAFOGAHgd1E-0KHXUZZ0Fel3rNbG-HW2NPYt9GUnVLKgl2TjzxIRygGsPLz7wB4mRB4iN/s810/SC_AOTS.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Supreme Commander – Ashes of the Singularity</div>
<p><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/9420/Supreme_Commander_Forged_Alliance/"
target="_blank"><u>Supreme Commander</u></a> has a lot of colorful and
beautiful environments that contrast with the crushing war that is being
waged between factions. Lush nature and crumbling cities emphasize the
scale of armies. <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/507490/Ashes_of_the_Singularity_Escalation/"
target="_blank"><u>Ashes of the Singularity</u></a>'s environments are
less interesting, and lacking features that would highlight the scale of
your forces. This again makes Ashes of the Singularity a harder sell.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghIoAlofxg-IRvVCdeOrk1sPUXrufBxAnYsTIZKuDogcLv6qtXinLTYgVB0X0Xhv0PFMAE-eayvCsGLysPT2hKTdMpMABibjj2LZg2OHUETWW_rEyilhqSxSkN7sOTo9BWILWGiKZYdukv/s1920/Neuroslicers.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Neuroslicers</div>
<p><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/420040/NeuroSlicers/" target="_blank"><u>Neuroslicers</u></a>
is an interesting strategy game with a good visual design. However, its
post-cyberpunk setting isn't very welcoming. This isn't an issue for a
small game trying to distinguish itself from competition. But I think
there are both short and long term downsides to it.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil0emimTvK_s0ZOJd9I-e2MFNrmkBBt-2q5fMjrRuAQj7IKQvyUHr67mBJCu3c36WaNN9W2G7Ps6hSDVXlQpjT0LQipY4t7NO4Xwb5FD74Jn2CD-0HiWeU3u_3yS8bwdmQpbNg41I91JWt/s1920/Taur.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Taur</div>
<p><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1227780/Taur/" target="_blank"><u>Taur</u></a>
is an action tower-defense game. I'm including it here because of its
simple, clean and colorful visual design. It's an example of a light
visual style done right.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>How does StarCraft stand? It's rather dark, lacking portrayed nature and
cute things. I already mentioned its setting, which is closer to wild-west
and fantasy which makes it more relatable. WarCraft 3 is more welcoming
with colorful nature, medieval villages, castles and various cute animals.</p>
<div style="text-align: left;">I would prefer to start with a lighter, more
colorful theme that has some nature and possibly cute things in it. From
there you can always add darker parts to the universe. And the contrast
will make those darker parts even more impactful. Also, you can always
write dark stories no matter what setting or visual style is used.</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="scale">SCALE</p>
<p>WarCraft 3 low unit scale makes sense for how strongly it's focused on
heroes. Supreme Commander's scale is great for strategic and macro focus
it has, but it doesn't fit the style of action with crisp unit control
that is present in games like StarCraft 2 and WarCraft 3.</p>
<p>I would prefer something in the middle. StarCraft 2 seems like a good
target for unit numbers, but that might be just my bias. Brood War could
be even a better target. It can go as high as StarCraft 2 in unit numbers,
but due to its economy scaling and army control limitations you will
typically see fewer units.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigx__031OGPGF7FS-vIqgxeZEYBUFD_047579lI4R0XzF9YT1Zs-FhQkajj1dS8Nn6WGhldAn0a9BzCjKP3tfc3yPScfHvVYMLmCj_g48k8sSbRZw1gVV6SZqDFAjqNWaJyNST3xYZkg39/s1024/1471380043-3506424101.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Supreme Commander</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="heroes">Heroes</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeUp4NDq5vfJU59iv3ZUAIspR99YroSmnkmeV5tFOxMpICzvj2cRaatEtpksL8eoncSeA3EH_gS_3uzlqM-X27PYY9lAL75KHFUDJlvIkd6kMEFzBHkxd0grU8ZmRpJHoYFQb2ZhIgnDq8/s810/Heroes.jpg"></div>
<p>There are a lot of ways to add heroes into the game. And there has been a
lot of discussion about whether to add them or not – providing good
arguments on both sides.</p>
<p>Heroes do fit in Co-op and Campaigns, no questions there. I'm leaning
against heroes in competitive modes, but there are some good arguments for
them, and what would be the best way of adding them is an interesting
design problem.</p>
<p>Few reasons for heroes:</p>
<ul>
<li>Players can more easily connect to them</li>
<li>Heroes can encourage action on the map</li>
<li>They are a good vector for adding more content to the game (new heroes
& skins)</li>
</ul>
<p>Selling a skin for a hero makes a lot more sense than for a Zergling.
More focus is on heroes, and a skin on a hero won't affect the game
clarity as much as on other units. Adding a new hero doesn't bloat the
game the same way as adding more units would to already working factions.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p>It could be interesting to see only some factions having heroes. But that
might prove to be too restrictive to hero design. </p>
<p>Significantly weaker heroes compared to WarCraft 3 could be interesting
as well, especially if heroes worked better outside the main army. This
would discourage death-balling and encourage splitting forces. Weaker hero
units could have additional effects similar to choosing a faction,
however, that it would be better if it's tied to the choice of a hero and
not the unit itself.</p>
<p>Some important questions for hero design:</p>
<ul>
<li>Do you have them from early game (WarCraft 3) or later (Supreme
Commander)?</li>
<li>Is there a limited number of heroes?</li>
<li>Do they gain experience and get stronger?</li>
<li>What is their relative strength compared to the army?</li>
<li>Do they respawn?</li>
<li>Are there items for them?</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="socialaspect">Social aspect</p>
<p>The socialization between players is very important whether it's for
growing the community or engaging already preset players. There is room to
improve compared to StarCraft II, but it's a difficult problem for a game
with likely strong focus on competitive 1v1. Which is where player
socialization is the weakest.</p>
Few ideas that could be looked at. Some are already present in StarCraft II.<br>
<ul>
<li>Better ingame chat channels. Brood War and WarCraft 3 put the chat to
the forefront.</li>
<li>Somehow improve clans and make them more meaningful. Anyone has good
ideas? Specific clan page, clan wars and clan ranking. Shared
progression towards some goodies?</li>
<li>Better support for team games (balance, design, maps, supporting
creators and tournaments).</li>
<li>Reduce barriers for sharing and getting into the game</li>
<ul>
<li>Easy to share game/lobby/map/profile/party/spectating links. The
game starts if you click the link and redirects you.</li>
<li>Easy to share after-game stats.</li>
<li>Web based front-end for ingame chat, searching arcade, joining
lobbies, and more.</li>
<li>In both cases the goal is to reduce the time between deciding
playing a game and being in a game.</li>
<li>A side effect is that custom games could be much easier to get into.
You wouldn't need to open the game, search and join lobbies. One click
in the web-based front or on a link a friend sent you, and it will put
you into a lobby and/or party.</li>
</ul>
<li>Promote discord, subreddit and other communities.</li>
<li>Promote content creators, arcade maps and tournaments anywhere
possible. Rotate who is promoted.</li>
<li id="spectating">In-game spectating.<br>
<br>
There has already been some talk about this and Ryan gave some
responses. I want to list a few options where it could be useful. I
don't think Discord or Twitch streaming are quite there to make this
redundant. Discord isn't so great for this, and Twitch isn't trivial to
set up. Either requires good internet connection on both ends.</li>
<ul>
<li>Spectate friend's ladder game. This could be good for socializing
and learning. The vision would be limited to your friend, and ideally
no or minimal delay added.</li>
<li>Spectating selected or random player in a chosen league and matchup.
This would be good for learning, and socializing if more spectators
are there. Spectators have full vision and can chat with each other.
There is a delay added to prevent abuse.</li>
<li>The same thing but for clan wars and tournaments.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">On the ladder a player should have an option
to disable spectating of his vision. Players should be able to easily
share a link to spectate gameplay of a player or a spectator.</div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">If lock-step architecture is used, this
spectating would have to be different from StarCraft II's spectating to
add delay and prevent observers to cause any lag for players. The server
might have to stream data to spectators separately.</div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">I think it has a potential to improve
socialization, but it's hard to gauge how much. For big tournaments and
streamers Twitch and YouTube will be preferable, but this could be good on
smaller scale – for few friends or on the level of clan wars and smaller
tournaments.</div>
<ul>
<li>I would love to hear more ideas to improve socialization.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: center;">★ ★ ★</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" id="postgame">The last thing I want to mention
is designing score screens to be more shareable. For example, I made my
post-game score screens knowing that players will want to share them. My
overlay app for Co-op has even its own screenshot button. This is a small
thing, but it counts.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhax6IjIFFoMdOXdEYAN11tKfrqy_UIfT3rX3kk_gOibWOnGOv6jVOv80QHL7nJ8zTC-aDITPJQ5M0Dzx9VjgxbqkKeNtTam5eGfhRidGQZt2m2kozjnvd_k24dzhSJN333ighMeplgQQOW/s1920/mm+score.jpg"></div>
<div class="subnote">Custom map score screen – everything in one screenshot</div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 50%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvq-xq17FzOJepNrbcqp6we7WQ2-M03OkRNs0EA9eeWoxEjViOMeWu7qgoPqX_Np8z1Sxs2PMZX4YypIm3dYcpxGntlqz46-VncjR686mPlsY4L91bLQfSD5W_gWSrZNNE-u3__LJ8tbFD/s959/Overlay_141522.png"></div>
<div class="subnote">Post game stats from my overlay for StarCraft II Co-op
(<a href="https://github.com/FluffyMaguro/SC2_Coop_overlay" target="_blank"><u>GitHub</u></a>)</div>
<p class="smallheading">Closing</p>
<p>I'm excited about Frost Giant's RTS. But we are in early stages, and it's
a long way to get there. Perhaps something I wrote can help or shape
further discussions.</p>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-51007240157339345222020-10-27T15:21:00.006+01:002021-04-02T18:10:27.471+02:00Unit Design<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title>Look at some unit design in StarCraft</title>
<style>
.smallheading {margin-top: 70px;}
.qsub {margin: auto; font-style: italic;}
.aicon {float: left; margin-top: 0 px; }
.bctable {width: 100%; padding: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px}
.post-title {display:none}
.semiheading {
font-size: 28px;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 900;
font-family: arial;
line-height: 1em;
color:#eee;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -40px; margin-bottom: -30px"><img
style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQiUNF1gHYReDrk1RKO4_YLNY7BwkJmcUl6_6fbKvw70rcf8fAa0EBFxNm4HCdi4MKJkfCyVssDZZhjS4EXGfkERHjov2lT-8hznPdITSY0bltBSj4FpEPAMAznE_favbneVq2QNEaspwm/s1600/bannner.jpg"></div>
<div class="smallheading">Intro</div>
<p>The goal of this post is to look at few unit designs and unit mechanics
that aren't working perfectly and learn from them. This is not meant to be
a critique. We can learn a lot from StarCraft II, whether it is from its
successes or failures. The ability to directly compare to Brood War, which
shares a lot of characteristics, is very valuable as well.</p>
<p>StarCraft II isn't perfect. There is design baggage carrier over from
Brood War, and not all new things worked out perfectly. That said,
StarCraft II development team did a lot of great work to improve things
since <em>Wings of Liberty</em> was released, leading to arguably the
best game state StarCraft II has ever been in.</p>
<p>Force Fields, while originally very problematic, are in a good state
today. Death-balling has been greatly reduced compared to <em>Wings of
Liberty</em> and <em>Heart of the Swarm </em>due to economy changes
and good unit design. Similar thing has been done to the strength of air
unit compositions. The economy model received improvements in <em>Legacy
of the Void</em>, even if it's still in some ways inferior compared to
certain double harvest models and Brood War economy model.</p>
<p>I'm including these units not because their design is bad altogether. I'm
including them because despite some parts of their design aren't good,
these units work surprisingly well in other aspects, and often lead to
good interactions and fun game dynamics. This contrast makes them more
interesting. I'm mentioning only units I found particularly interesting.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Widow Mine</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLutJc-hBl5-ycd_wkyeNwEMb75JB09-uTqk9KQl0OECoX02vMWlYeuPSdU0cTFnh_WesjRdOu3qIsQ-Q7n9ecD29jbMUJdyYBBeCJ0vG6azksWD8CFJKA77oW5sFACZhKJP8Y97aAcfpl/s2048/wm.jpg"></div>
<p>Widow Mines are great when micro is involved. Splitting, target firing,
target switching, Stalker Blink micro, Mutalisk micro, all those are fun
to execute as a player or watch as a viewer. I would even say the
randomness tied to Widow Mines is good for spectating. "<i>4M vs
Muta-Ling-Bling</i>" is one of the best parts of StarCraft II. </p>
<p>However, especially in TvZ you often see the most impactful damage to be
done when neither player is paying attention or microing with or against
Widow Mines. Nobody wants a potentially game deciding thing to be a random
Widow Mine that one player didn't see and the other forgot about. This is
likely even more frustrating for casual players that will not micro and
forget detection.</p>
<p>Another thing is that the most execution burden falls on the defending
player. That's not inherently a bad thing, and it's good that there are
counterplay options. But if the execution is mostly on the defending
player, the mechanic will <i>feel </i>more punishing and kills by Widow
Mines will <i>seem </i>more undeserved. Note that I'm not saying they
are undeserved, only that it will <i>seem </i>more that way.</p>
<p>If the execution is more on the player using a unit, the result will <i>feel
</i>more deserved. However, there still should be some counterplay
through skill on the defending side. It's all about the right balance. In
this case execution a bit too focused on the defending player, and
randomness a bit too high.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Nukes</p>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjefHdz6KXf8FNLIvacPxOhvTUrrnAwob6_pHnH6id8CVC9fJfSzVkvHOFYRW8rR0ra3TGI-LpuMqlB2gJ5vxBtKxe0EelzEjqbLlx2DdkGgsc0-EEr5gnKqZzcDqdmrVXo9UT9ZMKPXV6b/s2048/nuke.jpg"></div>
<p>From today's perspective and general recognition of the importance of
accessibility in games, adding a game mechanic that is based around
looking for a red dot somewhere on the map would sound a bit crazy. But
seeing it as a legacy mechanic from Brood War makes it at least
understandable. If you aimed to make nukes more mainstream, you would have
to make changes this mechanic.</p>
<p>It's even worse if we consider color blindness, which affects <a href="https://www.color-blindness.com/2006/04/28/colorblind-population/"
target="_blank"><u>roughly 8% of men</u></a>. As you can see the red dot
is significantly less visible, and that's placed against a dark
background. Putting the dot directly on the Nexus would make it close to
invisible. StarCraft II has built-in color-blind mode, but its effect is
very limited.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 100%;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWxw3o3o_x94R9HhwIgkOIvCZAwNXWnjJ8HSExw0ckwIcOKsTzbOoG-OLEzhlOwlm6z5fXc-C9ZU1bX2JQ2bf0U-6J183xxtdA-hGmxZ_49c50al7wPM8epSAXRsw59dRJ_gEEfSRQZT6K/s1707/colors+copy.jpg"></div>
<dl style="text-align: right;">
<dt><i><a href="https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/"
target="_blank"><u>Images simulated here</u></a></i></dt>
</dl>
<p>Cloak and burrow mechanic are in a similar situation. Units should be
either visible or not. Whether you will spot a cloaked or burrowed unit is
too reliant on your vision and game settings. Neither of them should be a
deciding factor in a competitive setting.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Swarm host</p>
<div style="text-align: center;; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVwgnhY0DPVG2fBQSJePclHyeBqhR4zusCylNcF5A9sytGBICO0D5-7ii35gfhGOVUpLxCrCHG9JRN2llU9PMAw-eT3O5PxBLJyHHNQ3lFFIqDi_TVL-JTrJS3mhomKhzyTRA9QIPrxiJp/s2048/sh.jpg"></div>
<p>People often complain about "free units", but difficulties with Swarm
Hosts will apply to any unit that can deal almost guaranteed damage while
being safe. If you as player are taking damage and can't do anything about
it, it will always feel frustrating even if the game is balanced. </p>
<p>Moreover, the balancing itself will be more difficult with units like
these as a situation can snowball very quickly. With Swarm Hosts often the
first two waves are the most important.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</p>
<p>From the historical perspective the Swarm Host redesign patch was quite
interesting. It came very late to <i>Hearth of the Swarm</i> when <i>Legacy
of the Void</i> beta has already started. Previously Swarm Hosts served
as a core unit that enabled Zerg to fight Terran and Protoss lategame
armies. And while many players didn't enjoy games with Swarm Hosts, game
balance was decided by individual maps.</p>
<p>The patch changed this core unit into a harass unit with a high supply
cost. They do fit into <i>Legacy of the Void</i> now, but at that time
this change left a gaping hole in the design of Zerg race. However, one
could argue that given the already running beta of <i>Legacy of the Void</i>,
and how close the release was, making such change was reasonable, and the
meta didn't have a time to reach a degenerate state.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="bc">Battlecruiser</p>
<div style="text-align: center;; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAmqB8-moupAZEegQO0CfVNczJQ-D78mgHEpTRv5-xIG9THTLPl3tGcwfcHis6cjv8kmC8t96flsFia5w7cKnw-Q7CmyVb94YFsxDk3YG6PdHguDi7pTrHNgIsWc0v34w25unCWfPjzmY9/s2048/hyp.jpg"></div>
<p>Battlecruiser might be the most interesting unit to look at. There are
design issues with the unit and its abilities. However, it's also arguably
the most interesting capital ship in StarCraft II and the closest to its
Brood War counterpart. Let's first look at the abilities.</p>
<table class="bctable" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:84px"><img class="aicon" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIsBk2KBNW18lFMT_nhb_9WEdcOVqhSeGWdwg5z1oW1p1m84kxKHbxgHLf7yqLyUtlQUcHPQXz933kN_ZdbvzDeqRgFmqEZ_m5F8SHYAPr0kQCCSnITRVCvXYaXdJAG-7Q-8j_yZkMWQNR/s1600/btn-ability-terran-warpjump.png">
</td>
<td>
<p class="smallerheading">Tactical Jump </p>
<p> 71s cooldown / 4s casting time</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The main issue with Tactical Jump was the lack of counterplay.
Fortunately, this was significantly improved after Battlecruisers had
become more used, and the casting time was increased. Before that a
professional player should have never lost a Battlecruiser on the
opponents side of the map with Tactical Jump off cooldown.</p>
<p>Other than this delay, only Infestors with Neural Parasite or Fungal
Growth can help to stop Battlecruisers from escaping. I wouldn't consider
this ability a big issue anymore, but it's tied with high front-loaded
damage of Yamato Cannon, which puts this closer to the Swarm Host issue
where the damage is guaranteed and comes with a minimal risk.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</p>
<table class="bctable" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:84px"><img class="aicon" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVtoaZERcM5QOD4FwFgb_K86RodcBn9ePqgjTaZLJO6eYiG1YX6Q5qQhJwo1UEGlNJkSVSpVVubnSAtKOEiOQX3FogFTi324TGu3zMf2ryDa1I7pAUPVrHjdbpKwTSK6o4G4dArNBQOTyO/s1600/btn-ability-terran-yamatogun-color.png">
</td>
<td>
<p class="smallerheading">Yamato Cannon </p>
<p>71s cooldown / 240 damage / 2s casting time / 10 initial casting
range</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>This ability has again very limited counterplay and doesn't have high
skill ceiling. In MOBAs we see a lot of skill shots as they provide much
better opportunity on both sides to show off skill. Guaranteed damage and
minimal risk isn't it. However, this is again understandable as design
baggage carrier over from Brood War, and an intention to preserve this
iconic ability.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~ <br>
</p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>So why do Battlecruisers still work well in StarCraft II? There are few
reasons for it. Even if there are issues with those abilities, they
still
have higher skill ceiling and provide options for decision-making than for
example Carriers. Those abilities also enable Battlecruisers to be
effective early and in few numbers, and not just as a part of death-balls.
</p>
<p>This is closer to Brood War, where for example in TvZ few Battlecruisers
are used to put the Zerg off balance. The Zerg player has to balance
anti-air and anti-ground more, and is likely to take worse fights because
of that. This is similar to early game Battlecruisers in StarCraft II's
TvZ which again test the Zerg player in balancing proper response
against both air and ground threats.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Queen</p>
<div style="text-align: center;; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJzETvGaCuxvPuTezcRak8bsH92Je9iel44bW2w7zEaXurjWjBts5bNtx6faPqJECS1qqCjsgdhRk4_e4k1-95OJo4JfP0Bt49znys71o1SppmB_8qRFwgQyGqWF3OSHDFG1eV27yOQ9-7/s1644/Queen.jpg"></div>
<p>I'm including the Queen here mainly to show the contrast between local
design issues and global ones. With Battlecruisers the local design of its
abilities has issues, but the unit fits well into the global game design.
</p>
<p>Here we have a Queen, a unit which many players will argue is too
well-rounded for defense. However, it's not due to any design of the
Queen, instead the unit was slowly forced into this role over the years by
the lack of other Zerg units that could come early enough and defend
against enemy threats. So the problem is not directly with Queens, and
solutions would have to come from looking at other Zerg units and tech
progression.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Carrier</p>
<div style="text-align: center;; margin-top: -20px"><img style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #222; border-radius: 3px;"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7fStZ95otf3fs3dAxOvlS8sU4J9kTlEYLvrEZU5A2F7MuGPDc8HFaPVYfmqL8FV_vwTJoMYcw4bj54BPjAdUWmnN93graKE-OPeTMtQh-F69rsW1VVoboM4-qtIw8CPSveXLsfrEtBOBE/s2048/Carrier.jpg"></div>
<p>There is nothing inherently bad about Carrier's design but nothing great
either. The unit had difficult time finding its place in the grand scheme
of things despite it being such iconic Protoss unit.</p>
<p>This is partly because of lacking micro potential compared to Brood War's
Carrier, partly because of Protoss tendency to death-ball in StarCraft II,
and partly because of lacking interactions it had with Brood War's
Goliath. </p>
<p>As with Battlecruisers, Carriers in Brood War forced the opponent in PvT
to carefully balance its anti-air and anti-ground. Plus their main counter
being a ground unit added more depth to the game as they had to take
advantage of terrain. StarCraft II moved a lot of anti-air to air units
(Vikings, Corruptors, Void Rays, Tempest, Battlecruisers, Liberators) and
this dance between air and ground units is less common. And so Carriers in
StarCraft II were left in a position with fewer interesting interactions,
and a place that's more difficult to balance.</p>
<p class="smallheading">Conclusion</p>
<p>StarCraft II isn't perfect, and we should learn from it.</p>
<ul>
<li>Widow Mines show the effect of execution on how the result is
perceived.</li>
<li>Nukes remind us that accessibility shouldn't be overlooked.</li>
<li>Swarm Hosts present the difficulties of units with close to guaranteed
damage and minimal risk.</li>
<li>Battlecruisers highlight the importance of counterplay, and that
despite local design issues the unit can still work well.</li>
<li>Queen is an example of how global design can affect one unit.</li>
<li>Carrier is a unit seeking its place after having lost its interesting
interaction.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-310652781961774142020-10-15T13:13:00.003+02:002022-06-30T19:13:27.522+02:00Upkeep<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<title>Upkeep</title>
<style>
.smallheading {margin-top: 70px;}
.post-title {display:none}
.viddiv {margin-top: 30px;}
.dimg img {border: 0px solid black;}
</style>
<div style="margin-top: -30px"><img style="width: 100%;border: 1px solid #555"
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqmBnAY9OuYsfzKfJNesi4dbr0gbncV9Ezy0AWH2NS6zk_tfdqSavKLERoKQieTF_d11OmBuTQ-HkWOa4K5XGU0SNHW7bADGJ_gf4mTKfKMVn6pSVljYLd_OBoW0lvNVvzoxYF9tD9hyphenhyphenBw/s1000/Upkeep+banner.jpg"></div>
<p>In the recently remastered WarCraft III (WC3) we can find the upkeep
mechanic. It's often perceived negatively. In this post I'll try to
explore it as game-design element, see how it affects various game
dynamics, and whether it could be in theory replaced by other mechanics.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">How it works</p>
<ul>
<li>If your supply is high, you gain only a certain fraction from the
collected primary resource (gold)</li>
<ul>
<li>0–50 supply: 10 gold per worker trip</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>51–80 supply: 7 gold per worker trip</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>81–100 supply: 4 gold per worker trip</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<p> </p>
</ul>
<li>Gold mines always lose 10 gold per worker trip even if you are getting
less gold</li>
<li>Gold from other sources is reduced as well (despite it not being
indicated)</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">FRAMEWORK</p>
<p>I'll be looking at this through <a href="https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/%7Ehunicke/MDA.pdf"
target="_blank"><u>MDA framework</u></a>. To simplify what this
framework is about: mechanics are for example rules of the game and
something game-designers can change directly. Dynamics are how games play
out. And aesthetics are emotional responses evoked in players. The causal
chain will usually look like this:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Mechanics (M) → Dynamics (D) →
Aesthetics (A)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Rules lead to gameplay, and the gameplay evokes some feelings in players.
However, in the case of upkeep and in the next example, there is also a
direct effect of mechanics on aesthetics, which makes this an interesting
problem to explore.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Mechanics → Aesthetics</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">Experience in World of Warcraft</p>
<p>In World of Warcraft (WoW), the experience gain for players was
originally halved after some time. This was received very poorly in user
testing. Eventually, the system was changed to include "rest experience"
instead, which provided limited bonus experience, and was seen much better
by players.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="background-color: #111; border: 1px solid #444; border-radius: 10px">
<blockquote>
<p><i>"From a purely numerical standpoint, it didn't really affect how
fast you were leveling, but it had a huge psychological effect on
how people thought about the system,"</i></p>
<p><i> "As a game designer it was a great learning experience for me and
I made it actually one of the game design values of the studio: Make
it a bonus. Whenever you're trying to prevent players from doing
something in your game, ask the question 'Is there a way to create a
bonus to do the opposite behavior?'"</i></p>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<p style="text-align: right;">– Rob Pardo <br>
Game designer on both WoW and WC3</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This example shows that there can exist distinct mechanics that lead to
the same dynamics while also having vastly different outcomes on
aesthetics.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">M<sub>1</sub> → D<sub>0</sub> → A<sub>0</sub>
| M<sub>1</sub> → A<sub>1</sub></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">M<sub>2</sub> → D<sub>0</sub> → A<sub>0</sub>
| M<sub>2</sub> → A<sub>2</sub></p>
<p>In this case A<sub>0</sub> is base reaction on having diminishing returns
on gameplay length; A<sub>1</sub> is a negative reception of perceived
experience loss; and A<sub>2</sub> a positive reception of perceived
experience gain. This is a result of irrational workings of human mind –
namely <a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion"><u>loss
aversion</u></a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_%28psychology%29"><u>framing</u></a>
that can make humans perceive numerically identical situations in very
different ways.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for WC3, the quote is regarding WoW development which came
few years after WC3 development and the upkeep mechanic was already in
place. WC3 was released in 2002 and WoW in 2004.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">Approach</p>
<p>The situation with upkeep is similar to that with the experience in World
of Warcraft. There is some dynamic that we want, but the mechanic itself
has a direct negative impact on aesthetics (A<sub>1</sub>). In WoW the
solution was as simple as reversing the mechanic, which led to an
identical dynamic but with a positive direct effect on aesthetics (A<sub>2</sub>).</p>
<p>In theory, you could do something similar in the case of upkeep – giving
players more resources if they have fewer units. However, that wouldn't
make sense for most RTS games. Instead, I'll try to go over all dynamics
that the upkeep affects, and see if there are other mechanics that can
replace it in each situation.</p>
<p>To keep this simple I will stay close to WC3 design and fantasy when
considering options, even if the design space for all RTS games is bigger
than that.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Issues with upkeep:</p>
<ul>
<li><span class="imp">It feels punishing due to loss aversion.<br>
</span></li>
<li>Arbitrary cutoffs (50, 80, 5, 7) are unintuitive and immersion
breaking. At one moment you have full income, and suddenly you are
losing 30% of it.</li>
<li>The same can be said about not having to "pay your army" as long as
you are not mining anything. This also sends mixed signals to players
and encourages them to stop workers from mining gold.</li>
<li> Numbers from selling items are not correctly shown when they are
reduced by upkeep.</li>
</ul>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p>Upkeep's effects following game dynamics:</p>
<ol>
<li>Snowballing</li>
<li>Expanding</li>
<li>Soft cap</li>
<li>Past and future cost</li>
<li>Depth</li>
<li>Economic tension</li>
</ol>
<p><br>
With each dynamic I'll look at how the upkeep mechanic affects it and go
over some possible mechanics that could have a similar effect ingame.</p>
<ol>
</ol>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">1. Effect on snowballing</p>
<p></p>
<p>Upkeep reduces snowballing – it serves as a negative feedback loop. A
player with lower supply will have easier time to catch up. For example a
player on one base gets additional 180 gold each minute with no upkeep
compared to being on low upkeep. That can result in around one additional
unit every minute as long as the player is on one upkeep tier lower.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</p>
<p>This might be the best argument for upkeep as there is not a simple and
fitting mechanic with the exactly same result. <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/01/feedback-loops-in-starcraft.html"
target="_blank"><u>I have written about feedback loops in StarCraft II</u></a>,
and in WC3 you could introduce new or empower already existing negative
feedback loops to step in upkeep's role:</p>
<ul>
<li>Bonus experience / bounty when having fewer units</li>
<li>Various forms of defender's advantage</li>
<li>Worse scaling with unit numbers, e.g.:</li>
<ul>
<li>Melee units don't scale well with numbers</li>
<li>Offensive area-of-effect abilities scale with enemy numbers</li>
</ul>
<li>Farms – investment into increasing supply makes it easier to catch up
and harder to gain supply advantage. For example in StarCraft II
rebuilding a lost Zealot costs 100 minerals, but building a new one with
the supply cost added is 125 minerals.</li>
<li>Mechanical difficulty of controlling armies in itself makes bigger
armies less effective. This is especially pronounced in Brood War with
its strict unit and structure selection limit, no smart cast and
non-optimal pathing.</li>
<li>Other options that wouldn't easily fit WC3:</li>
<ul>
<li>Partial refund for lost units. This might fit Undead but not all
factions. </li>
<li>Other buffs gained from losing units.</li>
<li>Changing unit cost depending on the number of currently living or
lost units.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p>High-skill ceiling and diverse unit roles can to some degree work in a
similar way by letting fewer units be still effective – it's not just a
game of numbers and doesn't necessary snowball because of having few units
more.</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">2. Effect on Expanding</p>
<p>Upkeep disincentives expanding as with more workers you are likely to
reach higher upkeep tiers faster. However, that doesn't mean expanding is
never a good choice, with an additional base and 5 more workers, the
player gets +40% gold income even when on one upkeep tier higher. Further
expanding on three and more bases is heavily discouraged.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</p>
<p>Tweaking expansion investment cost, safety, and return rate plus
additional supply cap tweaks could lead to the same dynamics here.
Although expanding isn't as important and common as in other RTS games
like StarCraft I & II.</p>
<p>The fact that 10 gold is lost from the Gold mines per worker trip no
matter what means the main gold mine will mine out at the same time for
both players. This will be around 19 minutes in normal games. Upkeep has
no effect on this. From what I found average length of solo game is around
<a href="https://warcraft3.info/articles/177/battlenet-statistics-part-1-how-many-active-players-are-there-in-2018"
target="_blank"><u>15.8 minutes</u></a>, but still a decent number of
games will go over 19 minute mark.</p>
<div class="dimg" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBTb_cSsfNrDGF1-O3OGNTCQHOhYRSxOTBsvJZmYhs4Lk7Uuk7pOsTDx55gQqp44k6G_DULfEWSbcByE2oeBtHT2FbvYybfq4UOze14wnaVRjHTiiEOsSrCUieKI9MrV0mAzTL2VZX0irf/s1600/Game+length.png"><img
style="width: 100%" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBTb_cSsfNrDGF1-O3OGNTCQHOhYRSxOTBsvJZmYhs4Lk7Uuk7pOsTDx55gQqp44k6G_DULfEWSbcByE2oeBtHT2FbvYybfq4UOze14wnaVRjHTiiEOsSrCUieKI9MrV0mAzTL2VZX0irf/s1600/Game+length.png"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Distribution of games by their lengths [minutes] (<a href="https://warcraft3.info/articles/177/battlenet-statistics-part-1-how-many-active-players-are-there-in-2018"
target="_top"><u>source</u></a>)</div>
<ul>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">3. SOFT CAP </p>
<p>Upkeep serves as a soft supply cap by providing diminishing returns on
army resource investment. This adds strategic decisions to the game,
something that would be not there with just lower supply cap. There is a
choice how far will you push this soft cap. It can sharpen timings and
strategies. Fixed supply limit cannot be pushed.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</p>
<ul>
<li>Optional global or unit upgrades can provide the same diminishing
returns on resource investments.</li>
<li>More temporary power-ups or upgrades that cost resources can help to
sharpen timings and strategies as well. Purchasable scrolls and other
consumables work in this way.</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">4. Past and future cost</p>
<p>One difference between upkeep and the previous examples is where the cost
lies. If you bought a unit, item or a consumable the cost is in the past,
and now it's time to make use of it. In case of upkeep the cost starts to
take effect when you step over an upkeep threshold and lasts until a
battle.</p>
<p>That cost in future mining is sharpening your current offensive timing.
It will add a bit more strength to your push, but the long term play will
suffer for it. This is similar to not expanding behind your push in
StarCraft II, but upkeep enables to have something like that despite both
players being on one base.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</div>
<p>Possible replacements with a similar effect:</p>
<ul>
<li>Pulling workers to bigger push</li>
<li>More options for mid and long-term progression – upgrades and tech</li>
<li>More ways how to invest into the economy – expansions, workers, mining
upgrades</li>
<li>Some sacrifice mechanic for workers or resources to gain a temporary
power bonus. That's equivalent to worker pulling only the implementation
is different.</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">5. Depth</p>
<p>Depth isn't a game dynamic, but you could say it's a property of game
dynamics. Upkeep definitely adds some depth to the game, and managing
upkeep is a skill and a strategic play on its own.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">But it's not a question whether to have depth
or not, it's where and how you add depth to a game. In the case of upkeep,
I would argue that its cost in aesthetics is too high. If you want to just
add depth to the economic part of the game you will likely find better
options than upkeep.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">6. Economic tension</p>
<p>The reason given by Rob Pardo on <a href="https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/rob-pardo-part-1"
target="_blank"><u>Designer Notes</u></a> (~1h:44m).</p>
<div style="background-color: #111; border: 1px solid #444; border-radius: 10px">
<blockquote>
<p><i>"When upkeep wasn't in there, then all you really had to control
the players was a population cap. But what would happen... what was
always happening in playtests is people would get up to their pop
cap, and you know they would have a big army, and then they would
just stockpile the gold, they would have a ton of gold. And then
what would happen is, we would end up in combat with each other, and
if it did end up not resolving the war, you know, both of us could
basically instantly rebuild our army. There was just no economic
tension."<br>
</i></p>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<p style="text-align: right;">– Rob Pardo <br>
Game designer on both WoW and WC3</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</p>
<p>I was surprised this was the argument he gave. In my opinion the
anti-snowballing argument (1) is a more compelling one. What he is
describing is a lategame crisis which many RTS games have to deal with,
and have done so in many ways. WC3 also has some unique options to force
player being active on the map – namely commander experience, loot, and
control neutral shops and other points of interest.</p>
<p>In my view focusing on having a healthy and long mid-game is always
better than coming up with bandaid solutions for lategame. Economy should
be important, engagement should happen often, units should be lost.
Players shouldn't often max-out while stockpiling enough resource to
max-out again. If the mid-game is still too short, then look at the
economy and tech progression. Force players to be active on the map
through rewards (XP, loot, points of interest) and economy (expanding,
collecting). I won't go into details here, as this is the core of the
game, what motivates players, what is the structure of goals ingame. This
will be different between games.</p>
<p>Now let's say the game's early and mid-game are working great, and 70-80%
games end there. And they should end there. If you characterize lategame
as having enough money to reach your desired unit composition while also
having enough resources to rebuild it "instantly", then that's inherently
less interesting state than such where you have to think where you invest
your resources. Thus staying in "mid-game" is better, and you should have
only a smaller fraction of games in this type of lategame to spice up the
diversity of games. This is something to consider when thinking about
changes targeting lategame.</p>
<p>Again, early and mid-game are good, what about lategame? There are
various options to deal with the issue of quick remaxing and lacking
tension.</p>
<ul>
<li>Remaxing takes time, especially for better units. In the meantime you
might lose your expansions, strategic positions or even the game. </li>
<li>Units reliant on energy/mana take time to reach their full strength
and can be crucial for lategame.</li>
<li>Remaxing takes a lot of resources – especially for good units.
Consumables might be limited or costly, the same for units purchased
from neutral shops.</li>
<li>Restricted economy and more options for other resource sinks – static,
consumables, etc.</li>
<li>In all previous examples asymmetric faction design can add even more
tension. Zerg in StarCraft might remax more quickly, but its expansions
are also less defended, Zerg probably lost more and traded less
efficiently whole game. This introduces more timings with tension where
players have advantages over each other.</li>
<li>Games like C&C3 sidesteps lategame issues due to how the economy
scales – reaching maximum economy quickly and from there the income
decreases.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: center;">~ ~ ~</p>
<p>Overall in this particular argument the upkeep is a bandaid solution for
lategame. In my opinion a broader look at game design of all stages of the
game (early, mid and lategame) would be better.</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">Company of heroes</p>
<p>This post is mostly about WC3, but I have to mention <i>Company of
Heroes</i> as it's another game with upkeep. Its implementation is
different and works rather well. That's partly because the economy system
is very different compared to games like WarCraft or StarCraft.<br>
<br>
To simplify:</p>
<ul>
<li> In <i>Company of Heroes</i> resources are generated constantly and
automatically</li>
<li>Every unit costs some resources to deploy, and then reduces the main
resource income (manpower) by a small amount.</li>
</ul>
<p> In this case the income isn't decreased by arbitrary percents at
arbitrary breakpoints, instead each unit reduces the income by a fixed
amount. It's more intuitive and usually doesn't send mixed signals to
players.</p>
<p>Overall this implementation works a lot better when it to comes to the
effect on aesthetics. The effect on game dynamics would be hard to compare
as they are were different games.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">my take on upkeep</p>
<p>I wanted to look at it because it's a very interesting design problem.
Upkeep has some things going for it, and its effect on certain game
dynamics is very positive. That said, I don't think using upkeep in WC3's
implementation was a good choice then, and it would be even worse decision
today. And yet other implementations of upkeep as seen in <i>Company of
Heroes</i> can work quite well.</p>
<p>There isn't a good full replacement for its anti-snowball effect, where
you can get few more units if you are behind on army supply. However other
games managed to lean on other negative feedback loops. Other games might
not be as hero-centric, but hero focus can both dampen or empower
snowballing depending on its implementation.</p>
<p>Other than snowballing, there are mechanics that can be used instead of
upkeep to accomplish similar results. Either one of them might or might
not fit a particular game well.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> ~ ~ ~</p>
<p>Thank you for reading this post. It has been a bit more difficult to
write this one. I didn't want to sound overly negative, and I hope it's
been interesting even if you do not share the same opinion as me.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">Links to check out</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/rob-pardo-part-1"
target="_blank"><u>https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/rob-pardo-part-1</u></a>
<br>
(WarCraft III's upkeep mentioned at 1h:44m)</li>
<li><a href="https://youtu.be/CGRGHpJpm_0" target="_blank"><u>Grubby's
video on upkeep (some nice arguments for it)</u></a></li>
<li><u><a href="https://www.usgamer.net/articles/how-world-of-warcraft-was-made-the-inside-story">https://www.usgamer.net/articles/how-world-of-warcraft-was-made-the-inside-story</a></u></li>
<u> </u>
<li><u><a href="https://warcraft3.info/articles/177/battlenet-statistics-part-1-how-many-active-players-are-there-in-2018">https://warcraft3.info/articles/177/battlenet-statistics-part-1-how-many-active-players-are-there-in-2018</a></u></li>
<u> </u>
<li><u><a href="https://warcraft3.info/articles/238/new-to-warcraft-upkeep-taxes">https://warcraft3.info/articles/238/new-to-warcraft-upkeep-taxes</a></u></li>
<u> </u>
<li><u><a href="https://waywardstrategy.com/2020/07/06/anti-snowball-design/"
target="_blank">https://waywardstrategy.com/2020/07/06/anti-snowball-design/</a></u></li>
<li><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/01/feedback-loops-in-starcraft.html"
target="_blank"><u>https://www.maguro.one/2019/01/feedback-loops-in-starcraft</u></a></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7661244440036332900.post-51785563413054913672020-04-21T20:24:00.000+02:002020-04-21T20:57:11.569+02:00Bug Hunt X<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title>Bug Hunt IX</title>
<style>
.post-title {display:none}
.viddiv {margin-top: 30px;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="margin-top: -30px; "><img style="width: 100%;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhteZ1uU6QVj5j-MBEtpOvgZtBfM6oTqE0HDWsl6IGtBfNkYbPPWUqMNVAlbfk4Ve0Wjij3paNK9p48_b0IJifOPL7Vk5u0mybiKObG5vsJPcVAN7Td9XYt-G4UJok9pUJEFIcMZiAmGuMD/s1600/Banner.jpg"></div>
<p>This is the 10th bug hunt with 10 more bugs from StarCraft II Co-op.
Previous bug hunts are here: <u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/01/bug-hunt.html"
target="_blank">#1</a></u>, <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/03/bug-hunt-2.html"
target="_blank"><u>#2</u></a>, <u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/03/bug-hunt-3.html"
target="_blank">#3</a></u>, <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/04/bug-hunt-4.html"
target="_blank"><u>#4</u></a>, <u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/06/bug-hunt-5.html"
target="_blank">#5</a></u>, <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/06/bug-hunt-6.html"
target="_blank"><u>#6</u></a>, <u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/09/bug-hunt-7.html"
target="_blank">#7</a></u>, <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/10/bug-hunt-8.html"
target="_blank"><u>#8</u></a>, <a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/11/bug-hunt-9.html"
target="_blank"><u>#9</u></a>. I would like to thank everyone who either
messaged me about bugs or reported them on the <a href="https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/sc2/c/bug-report"
target="_blank"><u>official bug report forum</u></a>. Today's list is: </p>
<ul style="margin-top: 40px; margin-left: 230px; margin-bottom: 60px;">
<li><a href="#VegaEmergencyRecall"><u>Vega & Emergency Recall</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#PlasmaBlast"><u>Plasma blast</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#B+Weekly"><u>Brutal+ vs Weekly mutation</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#VolatileForceField"><u>Volatile Infested vs Force Fields</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#TychusOutlawPurchase"><u>Tychus outlaw purchase</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#ZagaraRoachAchievement"><u>Zagara Roach Achievement</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#JustDieToxicNests"><u>Just Die! vs Toxic Nests</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#FlameTroopers"><u>Flame Troopers</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#MengsksHologram"><u>Mengsk's Hologram</u></a></li>
<u> </u>
<li><a href="#TempleVsMutators"><u>Temple vs Mutators</u></a><br>
</li>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="VegaEmergencyRecall">Vega & Emergency Recall</p>
<p class="bugd">Vega's Dominate in combination with Vorazun's Emergency
Recall will cause Vega to take damage when a dominated invisible or
burrowed unit triggers its Emergency Recall. <br>
<br>
In certain circumstances the dominated unit won't teleport back and will
be immune to any further damage.</p>
When a unit triggers the Emergency Recall, its life is reduced to one and
it's teleported to one of player's main structures (Nexus, Command Center,
Hatchery, etc.). However, if there isn't a good point for teleport, the unit
will be effectively immune to normal damage.<br>
<p class="viddiv" style="text-align: center;"><video controls="controls" loop=""
muted="muted" playsinline="" autoplay="autoplay" style="width: 100%;"> <source
src="https://giant.gfycat.com/AgonizingDecisiveIchthyostega.webm" type="video/webm">
</video> </p>
<div class="subnote" style="margin-bottom: 50px; margin-top: -10px;">Dominated
invulnerable Dark Templar squad</div>
<ul>
</ul>
<span style="color: #ff9900;">How to take advantage of this?</span>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>First you need a Vorazun on your team for Emergency Recall passive
ability. Failing to teleport can happen randomly if your main base is
close to an unpathable location (e.g., locks on Malwarfare). It's possible
that with other commanders you can find a perfect spot to trigger this
consistently, but Tychus has a better way. </p>
<p>Lift your Command Center (CC), and move it to a location close to the
battle and with enough unpathable space around it. You can replace the CC
afterwards and happily mine resources. This CC needs to be the closest to
battle. Also, not every CC will be a target for respawn, so it's better to
take your main and replace it.</p>
<div class="dimg" style="margin:auto;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwldZWn8N2H51YyzTm2z5OCagVIUChX0MUSTdjyeapEUEXrumBifQd3d6nDMGGkxxefURvfmQN5eVH1VB7UGAk62o-vqpbdvbrQArbRDBm3G4yucgNzA3BELznus-yvLWlBEaMBiQMzei8/s1600/respawn.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwldZWn8N2H51YyzTm2z5OCagVIUChX0MUSTdjyeapEUEXrumBifQd3d6nDMGGkxxefURvfmQN5eVH1VB7UGAk62o-vqpbdvbrQArbRDBm3G4yucgNzA3BELznus-yvLWlBEaMBiQMzei8/s1600/respawn.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Some Command Centers will have the respawn behavior
(red) depending on when they were built</div>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Why does Vega take damage?</span></p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>The effect sets the life of "caster" to one. Typically the "caster" of
Emergency Recall behavior is the main unit that is dying. However, Vega's
Dominate ability applies this behavior to the dominated unit – making Vega
count as caster as well.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Other notes</span></p>
<p>This invulnerability doesn't help against Propagators.</p>
<p>Emergency Recall has built in functionality to remove all dot, slow and
stun behaviors. This doesn't work on Black Death mutator because the Black
Death behavior isn't classified as "Damage Over Time" (dot) despite it
being exactly that.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="PlasmaBlast">Plasma Blast</p>
<p class="bugd">Hybrid Dominator can kill units inside Medivac pickup with
its Plasma Blast.</p>
<p>It can feel bad if you try to dodge the attack with Medivac – only to
find out that they will kill your outlaws anyway. This can happen in any
situation where a unit would otherwise survive thanks to being
invulnerable or hidden (Guardian Shell, transports, etc.).</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Why is it happening?</span></p>
<p>It seems that the damage effect first deals full damage to the targeted
unit without any regards for the targeted unit being hidden or
invulnerable. Only after that it does splash damage excluding the targeted
unit and filtering invulnerable units.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Solutions?</span></p>
<p>A solution I like the most is targeting the location of the targeted
unit, instead of the unit itself. And then deal splash damage at that
point without excluding the targeted unit. Another option is for example
adding checks to the missile, but that would destroy the missile early.
This way it hits the ground under the Medivac as expected. Adding a
separate search effect is yet another option.</p>
<br>
<div class="dimg" style="margin:auto;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDOkWAY_ReOI7uAc5YPkQOr8mhqkulmAVqcgrVTowdeP1a2gntJ_CKlC4YiCWU49z9W0uRzLsa0vdj7c6ZGzYcw8ooaIyouoouU5YO0bdz55QogkTCvi6SPSwtbF52bijagL1Jyik9_EyT/s1600/tychus+dmgh.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDOkWAY_ReOI7uAc5YPkQOr8mhqkulmAVqcgrVTowdeP1a2gntJ_CKlC4YiCWU49z9W0uRzLsa0vdj7c6ZGzYcw8ooaIyouoouU5YO0bdz55QogkTCvi6SPSwtbF52bijagL1Jyik9_EyT/s1600/tychus+dmgh.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Visualized damage with Tychus in the Medivac</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="B+Weekly">Brutal+ vs Weekly mutation</p>
<p class="bugd">You can play any weekly mutation with just Brutal+ mutators
and still get all experience and bounties.</p>
<p>Ready button for mutation is disabled if you select one of Brutal+
difficulties. However, if you first select Brutal+ in normal mission tab
and then switch to the mutation tab, you can play weekly mutation with its
mutators replaced by a random combination of from the selected Brutal+
difficulty.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="dimg" style="max-width: 538px; text-align: center; margin:auto;"><a
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSykKmQS15AIT1Vim_DuaWATKUT_TxLNOEBV0QCpswPkrpXRfLbCZDFbctpaYURpZCTCZwoe9qXt0rKZ3JOEv_9xckCRVfVyCcjJFJ5nYe7psM8NVFsyVKIXmOzaNf76Na_y5wfJYnA1sq/s1600/B%252B.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSykKmQS15AIT1Vim_DuaWATKUT_TxLNOEBV0QCpswPkrpXRfLbCZDFbctpaYURpZCTCZwoe9qXt0rKZ3JOEv_9xckCRVfVyCcjJFJ5nYe7psM8NVFsyVKIXmOzaNf76Na_y5wfJYnA1sq/s1600/B%252B.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">First select Brutal+ in mission tab</div>
<p>You will still get all bonus experience and bounties. It's shame this was
left in the game, as it devalues the challenge of weekly mutations,
especially if we have a mutation as difficult as this week. It can also
happen by accident, and can be annoying.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="dimg" style="max-width: 600px; text-align: center; margin:auto;"><a
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOL66zAjQCQMrClVUS3AslFcLOb7wL6R0mSG0B1Qo2CSI8u-kMp3Mj_KfqCNnllNGzT8Y5soxZGyxtD6lf2NaAHuilcGcYdp4XLysYBZlbSMbICzzxjf2DIO1pKrwP8xYsYhODWo1z7lFJ/s1600/mutation.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOL66zAjQCQMrClVUS3AslFcLOb7wL6R0mSG0B1Qo2CSI8u-kMp3Mj_KfqCNnllNGzT8Y5soxZGyxtD6lf2NaAHuilcGcYdp4XLysYBZlbSMbICzzxjf2DIO1pKrwP8xYsYhODWo1z7lFJ/s1600/mutation.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Switch to the mutation tab and play with Brutal+
mutators</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="VolatileForceField">Volatile Infested vs Force
Fields</p>
<p class="bugd">Amon's Volatile Infested (<em>InfestedExploder</em>) don't
collide with Force Fields.</p>
<p>These Volatile Infested are used on Dead of Night and Miner Evacuation.</p>
<div class="dimg"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghYJMHyPy2qHGioDP03ZDODOP4pi_fa4-IsYqCiD707Hb1b7DHZyoHiiPXC72R53Bwzob9263OhmMDzkR_fjDKMj3tMl4-8pC2WYANVSRrgdyJQ6u8JzEM3sqxy33kXDOjF8kgUo4KzUMg/s1600/Infested+March.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghYJMHyPy2qHGioDP03ZDODOP4pi_fa4-IsYqCiD707Hb1b7DHZyoHiiPXC72R53Bwzob9263OhmMDzkR_fjDKMj3tMl4-8pC2WYANVSRrgdyJQ6u8JzEM3sqxy33kXDOjF8kgUo4KzUMg/s1600/Infested+March.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Nothing can stop us!</div>
<div class="dimg" style="max-width: 538px; text-align: center; margin:auto;"><a
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXz7ys4PWxdCj2_8fGOhU9DsQE9AGGCPiFLcXQjbyoGKbMIQA-RQ0EBN5pk41ehRnScnOOJNckzc7Zk5q7IbdrevQITNm2Vwix5TEJ2KX8rzhA6ut8afZVwQ1S15ZWmL1Dtx4jCNdQ_Ted/s1600/volatile+infested.png"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXz7ys4PWxdCj2_8fGOhU9DsQE9AGGCPiFLcXQjbyoGKbMIQA-RQ0EBN5pk41ehRnScnOOJNckzc7Zk5q7IbdrevQITNm2Vwix5TEJ2KX8rzhA6ut8afZVwQ1S15ZWmL1Dtx4jCNdQ_Ted/s1600/volatile+infested.png"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Comparison of collisions between Stukov's Volatile
Infested and Amon's</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="TychusOutlawPurchase">Tychus outlaw purchase</p>
<p class="bugd">Sometimes you can lock yourself out of outlaws if you queue
outlaw purchase and cancel it.</p>
<p>This is an easy mistake to make. If an outlaw dies and is reviving, you
can queue purchase of another outlaw. If you change your mind and cancel
that action, there is a chance your maximum number of outlaws will be
reduced. You will be stuck with fewer outlaws for the rest of the game.</p>
<div class="dimg" style="max-width:541px;margin: auto"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqRLY3CUx-Cy2F6iR4DR8X8utfH92BGDmqn-ZmL4raRr_a1maA2bTW8mmNtG4KOUvYODG6OJRt6-qpKufVBWV718F6hwVOFk7sVcoIc-tA09GgP7aO89ir-cAPXccSyWvV7FL1g7kHieEk/s1600/J+Bar.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqRLY3CUx-Cy2F6iR4DR8X8utfH92BGDmqn-ZmL4raRr_a1maA2bTW8mmNtG4KOUvYODG6OJRt6-qpKufVBWV718F6hwVOFk7sVcoIc-tA09GgP7aO89ir-cAPXccSyWvV7FL1g7kHieEk/s1600/J+Bar.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">It will be just three outlaws this game</div>
<p>It's possibly a result of fixing a previous bug when you could generate
charges similarly by queuing and canceling. (<u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/10/bug-hunt-8.html#UnlockingOutlaws">https://www.maguro.one/2019/10/bug-hunt-8.html#UnlockingOutlaws)</a></u><br>
</p>
<ul style="margin-top: 40px; margin-left: 230px; margin-bottom: 60px;">
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="ZagaraRoachAchievement">Zagara Roach Achievement</p>
<p class="bugd">Roach Rampage counts only kills done by the initial drop
pods, and not Roach ranged or melee weapons.<br>
<br>
<i>(Roach Rampage = Kill 100 enemy units using Zagara's Infested Drop in a
single mission on Hard difficulty)</i></p>
<p>The achievement is made to count both drop-pod impact damage
(ZagaraVoidCoopMassRoachDropCP) and Roach ranged attack (AcidSalivaLM).
However, the Zagara's Roach weapons are actually switched to her special
variant (using ZagaraAcidSalivaLM). And Roach melee attacks aren't counted
either.</p>
<div class="dimg" style="max-width:541px;margin: auto"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqNjfCZlHLmBz_e3kT0Vnz75MfRUPbbPbEd6X5IZAPJZlL6HY_riM2BpGNKxo8lkZZCH0xmeuPus2Wok-Q4KbF3zqqeeuLFiJ2X3MDmXVcO5qXLMdMWbckxRDQZZA5Knd12Q_wzMHgBdAh/s1600/2020-04-20_014524.png"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqNjfCZlHLmBz_e3kT0Vnz75MfRUPbbPbEd6X5IZAPJZlL6HY_riM2BpGNKxo8lkZZCH0xmeuPus2Wok-Q4KbF3zqqeeuLFiJ2X3MDmXVcO5qXLMdMWbckxRDQZZA5Knd12Q_wzMHgBdAh/s1600/2020-04-20_014524.png"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Weapons are swapped</div>
<p></p>
<p class="smallheading" id="JustDieToxicNests">Just Die! vs Toxic Nests</p>
<p class="bugd">Protoss warping units can be killed by Toxic Nests before
Just Die! mutator takes effect.</p>
<p>The mutator needs to apply the behavior through triggers first, but Toxic
Nests kill the units so fast, that from the trigger point of view, the
units are spawned already dead.</p>
<p class="viddiv" style="text-align: center;"><video controls="controls" loop=""
muted="muted" playsinline="" autoplay="autoplay" style="width: 100%;"> <source
src="https://giant.gfycat.com/AfraidAdolescentFlatfish.webm" type="video/webm">
</video> </p>
<div class="subnote" style="margin-bottom: 50px; margin-top: -10px;">Toxic
Nests bypassing Just Die! mutator</div>
<p>A fix could be to add a split second invulnerability during units warping
in, so the mutator has a chance to take effect. Zerg and Terran waves
don't have this issue since they are created invulnerable and hidden in
drop pods.</p>
<p class="smallheading" id="FlameTroopers">Flame Troopers</p>
<p class="bugd">When Flame Troopers kill an enemy unit, they draw aggro in
wide area. This is the most striking when playing against Mag-nificent
mutator.</p>
<p>For some reason using a marker on the "<em>CPO-7 Salamander Flamethrower</em>"
weapon causes this issue. When a unit is killed by this weapon, all
enemies in a decent-sized area will draw aggro – even Magnetic Mines that
normally trigger only on units in 5 radius.</p>
<div class="dimg"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC5KdcNziWObZ6qrjYXH76JUZKXFzVLPAD9VZx1D2_KN-oPidYEWAbhp9MrGld2qIHBj65x-q7LjteObCUwXPQjRc7KFvtsL6Lp6rSjIbioSdOj9Nv_Ek8a-SjWLhkroz_hbmmDPdD_NS5/s1600/Mines.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC5KdcNziWObZ6qrjYXH76JUZKXFzVLPAD9VZx1D2_KN-oPidYEWAbhp9MrGld2qIHBj65x-q7LjteObCUwXPQjRc7KFvtsL6Lp6rSjIbioSdOj9Nv_Ek8a-SjWLhkroz_hbmmDPdD_NS5/s1600/Mines.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Fire fire fire!</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="MengsksHologram">Mengsk's Hologram</p>
<p class="bugd">Mengsk's hologram on Imperial Witness sometimes does its own
thing.</p>
<p class="viddiv" style="text-align: center;"><video controls="controls" loop=""
muted="muted" playsinline="" autoplay="autoplay" style="width: 100%;"> <source
src="https://giant.gfycat.com/ImmediateDistortedHadrosaurus.webm" type="video/webm">
</video> </p>
<div class="subnote" style="margin-bottom: 50px; margin-top: -10px;">Helmsman,
signal the fleet, and take us out of orbit.</div>
<p class="smallheading" id="TempleVsMutators">Temple vs Mutators</p>
<p class="bugd">Temple in <em>Temple of the Past</em> mission can often
take damage from mutators in a way you cannot prevent.</p>
<p>Mutators are typically made to not damage mission objectives directly,
because you cannot do much about that. This is not the case for some
mutators and the Temple – which makes certain combinations (close to)
impossible.</p>
<div class="dimg" style="margin: auto"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoAFv1NDVEh8A4K6lU1yoFpPOAJOC6SydeOJhQe74ohD5IUC82Yz8SDymLVLmCzehClMkwfpJTE1irCb04ZJOvBftTZpighOE5-TagCvVlSR0C8IgeHf1fOVKz_TyAa-KR7iH6Jvk0PZDw/s1600/unf+spawn.jpg"><img
src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoAFv1NDVEh8A4K6lU1yoFpPOAJOC6SydeOJhQe74ohD5IUC82Yz8SDymLVLmCzehClMkwfpJTE1irCb04ZJOvBftTZpighOE5-TagCvVlSR0C8IgeHf1fOVKz_TyAa-KR7iH6Jvk0PZDw/s1600/unf+spawn.jpg"></a></div>
<div class="subnote">Bad start</div>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Mutators dealing direct damage to the
temple:</span></p>
<ul>
<li>Mag-nificent</li>
<li>Orbital Strike (only if your units are close)</li>
<li>Splash from Nuke from Missile Command (only if your structures are
close)</li>
</ul>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Mutators NOT dealing damage to the temple:</span></p>
<ul>
<li>Going Nuclear</li>
<li>Minesweeper</li>
<li>Lava Burst</li>
<li>Blizzard</li>
<li>Purifier Beam</li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Mutators providing vision to Amon's Laser
Drill:</span></p>
<ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<li>Minesweeper</li>
<li>Mag-nificent</li>
<li>Going Nuclear</li>
<li>Temporal Field (direct hit on temple)</li>
<ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p>Mutators NOT providing vision: Twister, Blizzard, Lava Burst, Time Warp,
Purifier Beam </p>
<p>So the main issues are with Mag-nificent mutator that can significantly
reduce Temple starting life, and Laser Drill in combination with
Minesweeper, Mag-nificent or Going Nuclear.</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p class="smallheading" id="xxx">Final Notes</p>
<p>This concludes the tenth edition of bug hunt. Previous posts can be found
here: <u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/01/bug-hunt.html" target="_blank">#1</a></u>,
<a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/03/bug-hunt-2.html" target="_blank"><u>#2</u></a>,
<u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/03/bug-hunt-3.html" target="_blank">#3</a></u>,
<a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/04/bug-hunt-4.html" target="_blank"><u>#4</u></a>,
<u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/06/bug-hunt-5.html" target="_blank">#5</a></u>,
<a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/06/bug-hunt-6.html" target="_blank"><u>#6</u></a>,
<u><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/09/bug-hunt-7.html" target="_blank">#7</a></u>,<a
href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/10/bug-hunt-8.html" target="_blank"><u>
#8</u></a><a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/10/bug-hunt-8.html" target="_blank"><u></u></a>,
<a href="https://www.maguro.one/2019/11/bug-hunt-9.html" target="_blank"><u>#9</u></a>.
As always, if you encounter any bugs yourself, report them on the <u><a href="https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/sc2/c/bug-report"
target="_blank">official bug report forum.</a></u></p>
</body>
</html>
Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11116307359434186418noreply@blogger.com