New post

Rss

Ipinapakita ang mga post na may etiketa na game design. Ipakita ang lahat ng mga post
Ipinapakita ang mga post na may etiketa na game design. Ipakita ang lahat ng mga post
Huwebes, Enero 21, 2016
DE: Dreaming about Dark Eldar design

DE: Dreaming about Dark Eldar design

It's been a long time my friend.

Now bear with me folks.  This might be a tough pill to swallow, but honest to God I haven't touched my DE for almost a year now.  In fact, I haven't done much 40K in general.  This isn't because I don't like the game, or the setting, it's just because I have been doing other hobbies and time is finite.  The complete and utter destruction of WHFB also made me deeply depressed from a hobby perspective.

I think every time I look at someone else's homebrew, or want to put on my designer hat on, I know that I'll be disappointed that no matter what down the road.  GW will just disappoint again.  Not to sound completely down, but it's been that way for the 14 or so years I've played this army and it's not going to change.  As a more positive spin on things, seeing CW Eldar and Corsairs in 7th actually give me quite a bit of hope for Dark Eldar in the next book.  There is quite a bit of changes in there in terms of prices and new mechanics that makes me think the next DE book might turn out OK.

The biggest, and I mean absolute biggest riddle, is that GW can't really solve how to convey the notion that DE is supposed to be lightning fast (when there's tons of armies that move as fast), hit extremely hard (they don't really hit that hard), and die to a swift breeze (this they got right) onto the table-top.  I went to bed thinking about this last night and thought about something I might try for fun.  Keep in mind that I do have quite a bit of professional design experience, so I thought why not, what's the harm of thinking about this a little bit more?

Too bad that most of the thinking hit me at 1am in the morning while I'm lying in bed, thinking about where my DE army actually is.  As in physically, it's somewhere in the garage.  About an hour later, I decided that if I was going to do anything I was going to start from the beginning.  I wanted to capture the glass cannon army that DE actually is without changing any of the units just yet.  For me, the first couple of rules that an army book presents sets the tone for the rest of the book.  That's why the first three must define the overall character, feel and justification for having such an army in the first place.

Three special rules, that's all I'm going to talk about for now.  I want it to be consistent with GW design, but at the same time, clearly define what Dark Eldar is supposed to resemble on the table top.  This is the biggest challenge that GW has, and continuously over the  years, I have yet to see them capture this to my liking.  These three special rules are supposed to represent what the Dark Eldar are from a fantasy perspective.  By that, I mean how you envision the army in your imagination while closing your eyes, and the difficult part of this is how would you actually write rules for it on the tabletop.  These rules would represent how the army is supposed to fight, how it behaves, and how it interacts with the other army across the table.  Truth be told:  This upcoming part is a total out of body experience.  I need you to imagine what I'm seeing in my head on your minis table.  Hopefully, the next couple of hastily written paragraphs will get you there.

The first of these rules is: Power from Pain

The fantasy:  Dark Eldar are tyrannical, ruthless killers who literally feed on the souls of their victims.  As Phil Kelly presented in the 5th Ed. book, they literally become imbued with supernatural might and resilience, eventually turning into uncontrollable killing machines.  As the carnage intensifies, so does the Dark Eldar's barbarity and vitality.

The design: Battle in this game is waged through game turns.  It not only represents the flow of time, but the course the battle as well.  The GW design team has already showcased that with a chart in the current book.  I've decided to keep the current system while increasing the effects on the first and last turn.  My reasoning for this is that the game starts on Turn 1, where the bullets start flying and men start dying.  This should already be a very arousing time for most Dark City inhabitants.

T1 - FNP (6+)
T2 - FNP
T3 - FNP, Furious Charge
T4 - FNP, Furious Charge, Fearless,
T5 - FNP, Furious Charge, Fearless, Rage
T6 - FNP (4+), Furious Charge, Fearless, Rage

The second army USR is: Aerial Assault (Name WIP)

The fantasy:  The Dark Eldar value speed above all else.  They are extremely fast, opportunistic and unfair to the lesser species in the galaxy.  Dark Eldar will strike fast, strike hard, and strike from the most unseen places to inflict the maximum amount of terror and death before the harvest can begin.

The design: Vehicles can shoot one more weapon than normally allowed before or after moving flat out.  Essentially, this allows the army to always move and shoot; solving the Ravager issue completely while subtly increasing the overall power of the entire army.  All of a sudden you can DS to fire for full, flat out and shoot at the same time, giving you maximum value out of a single Lance on a Raider, or attacking from an angle that would be impossible from any other race.  This increases the value of all of our heavy weapons without actually buffing them directly.  This is purposely designed this way so that Dark Eldar will never have to trade offense with defense.

The last USR is: Soul Harvest (name WIP)

The fantasy: Dark Eldar are unlike any of their Eldar brethen in terms of battlefield tactics.  CW Eldar are disciplined and flexible, Corsairs are selfish and aloof, and Dark Eldar are a mix of these traits.  The forces of the Dark Eldar desire pain and suffering from their foes above all else, and whatever means to that end is tactically appropriate.

The design: Battle Focus but with a catch:  You can run-shoot, or shoot-run, but you have to move closer to the enemy.  This plays off the bloodthirsty nature that is Dark Eldar design.  It mixes design elements of CW Eldar and Corsairs to make something meaningful for Dark Eldar.  This ability plays nicely for bringing your close combat elements closer to the enemy, as well as allowing your Rapid Fire weapons to do the most work.  The design purposely benefits both the close-ranged nature of the army, as well as the various close-combat components of the army book.

So there you have it.

It's missing the technical jargon that will form the three into actual rules, but this is where I would start.  This would make me pretty happy as a player of the army as it fulfills my criteria in having the glass cannon army transition appropriately from fantasy to table-top.  I think it would also all of the current archetypes of the army very happy, since it will benefit Kabal/Haemonculi and mixed army players equally.

UPDATE! 1/22/16
Follow the thread here.

OK.  Here's what I have as my first run-through with the Codex tonight.  Keep in mind that this is designed to play with my PfP, Aerial Assault and Soul Harvest army-wide USRs.

Once again, those rules are:
Power from Pain:
T1 - FNP (6+)
T2 - FNP
T3 - FNP, Furious Charge
T4 - FNP, Furious Charge, Fearless,
T5 - FNP, Furious Charge, Fearless, Rage
T6 - FNP (4+), Furious Charge, Fearless, Rage

Aerial Assault (UPDATED) - DE units may fire even after moving Flat Out.  In addition, they treat vehicles moving Flat Out as Cruising Speed, and moving at Cruising Speed as Combat Speed.  This allows the Ravager to move 12" and shoot all three lances, or a Raider to flat out and then shoot a lance, or a unit of Warriors from the inside shoot with full effect after the Raider moves 12".

Soul Harvest (UPDATED) - DE units can Run and then Shoot, and/or Run and then Assault.  This increases the threat range of virtually all Dark Eldar units.

If the unit is not mentioned or called out in some way in the changelog, then it remained the same.  The + represents additions whereas the arrows represent change.

General:
>Combat Drugs aligned with Eldar Corsairs
>Disallow Court to be taken without the Archon.

Armory:
Agonizer: Decereased to 20 pts
Blaster: Decreased to 10 pts
Dark Lance: Decreased to 15 pts
Webway Portal: Changed to IA11 2015, Decreased to 25 pts
Shadowfield: Decreased to 25 pts
Agonizer: Decreased to 20 pts
Blast Pistol: Decreased to 10 pts
Huskblade: +Rending
Archite Glaive: Double-handed, +2S, Single-handed, +1S
Venom Blade: +Lethal Dose
Implosion Missile: +Instant Death
Necrotoxin: +Pinning
Ossefactor: Assault D3
Phantom Grenade Launcher: +Offensive/Defensive grenades
Void Lance: S9 AP2 Lance --> S9 AP1 Lance
Void Mine: S9 AP2 Lance --> Strength D
Cruicible of Malediction: Psykers immediately suffer a Perils instead of S6
Night Shields: A vehicle with Night Shields has the Stealth special rule.  Enemy units beyond 24" counts the vehicle as Shrouded instead.

Archon:
Increased to 70 pts
+Clone Field
+Labynthine Cunning: The Dark Eldar player can re-roll the dice when they attempt to Seize the Initaitive, determine if the Night Fighting rules are in effect, and when they make Reserve Rolls.
+Hellion Skyboard: +10 pts
+Reaver Jetbike: +15 pts

Succubus:
Increased to 80 pts
+Rending
+Quicksilver Dodge: Fight sub-phase --> Assault Phase
+Hellion Skyboard: +10 pts
+Reaver Jetbike: +15 pts

Lelith:
Decreased to 140 pts
+Rending
A League Apart: Re-rolls all hits and wounds

Wyches:
+Rending
Bloodbride: WS4 --> WS5
Dodge: Fight sub-phase --> Assault Phase

Incubi:
54 pts, 18ppm

Mandrakes:
36 pts, 12ppm

Raider:
Decreased to 50 pts
Replace Dark Lance: Free

Venom:
Decreased to 50 pts

Reavers:
May include up to 9 --> 6 additional Reavers (9 total)
Every three --> Every model may replace

Hellions:
Decreased to 60 pts, 12ppm

Razorwing:
+Strafing Run
+Vector Dancer
Replace Dark Lances: Free

Talos:
Wounds: 3 --> 4

Cronos:
Wounds: 3 --> 4

Ravager:
Unit Composition: 1-3
Replace Dark Lances: Free
+Special Rule: Shadow Hunters
If a Ravager squadron contains three models, all mdoels in the squadron gain the Tank Hunters special rule.

Voidraven Bomber:
+Strafing Run
+Vector Dancer
+Special Rule: Chasing Shadows
The opposing player cannot use the Interceptor special rule when the Voidraven Bomber enters the battlefield.

I have not touched the majority of these garbage Artefacts of Cruelty yet, as most books tend to suck pretty bad so it's consistent.

Overall, there are some very minor point adjustments (to align them with CWE and Corsairs), but just more teeth throughout the entire army.  I've basically taken the DE design direction that GW have already set out, but just made the army more lethal while increasing their threat range, presence and devilry (Rending and Instant Death).

The "big" changes:
>More prominent heavy weapons and AP2 throughout the entire army
>Every Archon now has Labyrinthine Cunning, so let that soak in for a second
>PGL to give back Offensive and Defensive Grenades on top of Soulfright
>Void Lance is now S9 AP1, Void Mine is now Strength D
>A few new special rules added for Voidraven Bomber, Ravagers and the Archon
>Wyches now do Rending, Bloodbrides WS5, Dodge in Assault Phase
>Reavers can now be upgraded with heavy weapons on every model, unit comp changed
>Night Shields have Stealth, but provide Shrouded if enemy is more than 24" away

I plan on showing off some formations tomorrow, but a taste of what to come is a re-vamped Realspace Raiders formation (not detachment).  This formation will allow you to play the army exactly as you imagine it does in the fluff.
Martes, Hulyo 7, 2015
Designing a ruleset for Age of Sigmar

Designing a ruleset for Age of Sigmar

Random DE poster from way back when.

OK here we go:

I noticed there are 4 distinct categories for units in the game. Since there are no points in the game, I still think it COULD be possible to lightly balance the game with some very minor work. Instead of re-writing point values for every unit, we might be able to pull something off by limiting certain models based on numbers.

Just so you guys can follow me, here are 4 categories that I've noticed for units:
  • 1w models - Most infantry, or rather, Core (or rather, what was core before) in the game 
  • 2-4w models - Some Cavalry in the game, most Ogres or Monstrous Infantry
  • 5+w models - Most Heroes in the game, or beefy elite units that we would consider "Special/Rare" before
  • 10w+ models - Most Monsters in the game, some other weird stuff like the Bell and what not

So instead of writing points up for these guys, I've chose to do this. For now, I'm just going to call it Core, Special, Rare and Elite for sanity sakes.

The categories here are: Hero, Core, Special, Rare, Elite. This is defined as:
  • Hero - Max of 1 model
  • Core - Max of 20 models if small base (unless warscroll says you can take bigger), max of 10 anything bigger
  • Special - Max of 10 if small base, max of 5 anything larger
  • Rare - Max of 5 if small base, max of 3 anything larger
  • Elite - Max of 1 model

When applied to High Elves, it looks something like..
Tyrion - Hero
Teclis - Hero
Eltharion on stormwing - Hero, Elite
Prince Imrik, Dragonlord - Hero, Elite
Prince Althran - Hero
High Elf Prince - Hero
High Elf Prince on Griffon - Hero, Elite
High Elf Prince on Dragon - Hero, Elite
High Elf Archmage on Dragon - Hero, Elite
High Elf Mage - Hero
Dragon Mage - Hero, Elite
High Elf Spearmen - Core
High Elf Archers - Core
Silver Helms - Core
Ellyrian Reavers - Core
Dragon Princes of Caledor - Special
Tiranoc Chariots - Special
High Elf RBT - Special
Great Eagles - Rare
Alith Anar, the Shadow King - Hero
Shadow Warriors - Special
Alarielle the Radiant - Hero
Handmaiden of the Everqueen - Hero
Sisters of Avelorn - Special
Caradryan - Hero
Anointed of Asuryan - Hero
Phoenix Guard - Special
Flamespyre Phoenix - Elite
Frostheart Phoenix - Elite
Loremaster of Hoeth - Hero
High Elf Swordmasters - Special
Korhil - Hero
White Lions of Chrace - Special
White Lion Chariots - Special
Lothern Sea Helm - Hero
Lothern Sea Helm on Skycutter - Hero, Special
Lothern Sea Guard - Core
Lothern Skycutters - Special

So using the above classification, if we're going to play a test game, it will look something like this:
1-2 Heroes
1-3 Core
0-2 Specials
0-1 Rare
0-1 Elite

Sample list:
Heroes: Archmage on Foot, Prince on Dragon
Core: 20 Archers, 20 Spearmen, 10 Silver Helms
Special: 5 Dragon Princes, 10 Phoenix Guard
Rare: 3 Eagles
Elite: (the Prince on Dragon counts as Elite, see above)

The original framework was done using categories to separate the unit by wounds. However, the problem with that is that you run into situations where a unit might have 5 wounds, which would technically classify them as Rare, but they're not good enough to be limited to 0-1 in most cases (e.g. Tiranoc Chariot). Then you have situations where you have Chaos Warriors, which were core in the last edition of Warhammer and what people are used to now, but are actually the elite of Chaos. That's why I don't see a super huge deal if Special is appropriate for them (max of 10 models, takes a Special slot), but like you said, putting them in Core as well is also appropriate. The same applies for Ogres. These are the times where exceptions have to be made, and the only way these exceptions make sense is if they are applied army by army, unit by unit. Otherwise, there's just no way to balance wounds without point costs.

This might not be perfect, but its a clear way to lightly balance the game around some generic modifications to army restrictions proportional to army size, without actually putting point costs in it.  You're essentially limiting the powerful stuff that you can take, reducing the amount of ridiculous presence on the field, while still being able to freestyle for the majority of the lists.

For example, let's just call the above a small game.  For a medium-sized game, you add +1 Hero, Core, Special, Rare, but keep the Elite at 0-1.  For a larger game, you do 1-4 Heroes, 1-4 Core, 0-4 Special, 0-3 Rare, 0-2 Elite.

While we're doing that, let's add some other generic rules for quality of life reasons:
  • LoS works the same as 7th Ed. 40K (including characters joining units, large models cannot)
  • Infantry-sized heroes can get LoS on 2+
  • Cavalry or MI heroes can get LoS on 4+
  • Soft cover is -1, Hard cover is -2 to shooting
  • Shooting units cannot shoot if they're in melee
  • All melee is base to base
  • All stupid ass rules that make you cluck or do something else equally retarded resolve as if you preformed the required action

What do you think?  I'm looking for feedback first and foremost, and I need expert opinions on people with army specific knowledge.  I am pretty fluid in everything except for Brets, Beastsman, Warriors, Lizards, Orcs, and Tomb Kings.  If you can make a list of units from the Age of Sigmar books following my restrictions, please post them in the comments so we can discuss.
Biyernes, Hunyo 26, 2015
Battlefleet Gothic: Armada gameplay analysis

Battlefleet Gothic: Armada gameplay analysis

Super excited to play this game!

Check this out guys, here's the latest gameplay on Battlefleet Gothic: Armada.  I must have watched the video a hundred times, but I only did it because I'm really interested in seeing how this company is going to translate this vaulted table-top into a computer game.  Oh, one more minor video here, but you have to squint really hard to see anything.  Just listen in for the most part.

Here's a brief analysis from what I can see from a gameplay perspective:

  • It looks like some special orders translates seemingly into RTS.  For example, it looks like All Ahead Full! is just a boost to speed at the expense of firing weapons maybe.  Or maybe it's just a minor decrease to weapons such as +25% speed for -25% rate of fire.  Likewise, Brace for Impact! might be a +25% damage reduction for -25% damage.
  • The stats of the ship look pretty straight forward when translated onto an RTS platform.  Shields just look like a raw value that acts like an overheal, so its essentially extra health until shields go down.  Once shields go down, the damage is then applied to the ship's hull, which acts as health points.  When this value reaches 0, the ship explodes.  We're unsure if there's going to be different factors in play here when the ship explodes.  Does it have a chance to Warp Drive Implosion when the ship goes down?   We don't know.
  • To expand on this a little further, it looks like there is going to be battle damage when damage is being applied to the ship.  The designers themselves said that there are going to be ways to damage weapon components and that immediately reminds me of Homeworld.  If players are able to disable a ship's engines to make them slower or completely crippled, then that can add huge dimensions to gameplay because of all the things you can do to an enemy ship.  You can clearly see chunks of the ship flying off as it takes heavy damage, but I'm unsure if these pieces continue to do damage to other ships that bump into them.
  • Speaking of bumping into stuff, I don't think I see any Blast marker mechanics from the gameplay videoes so far.  Blast might have a side-effect to show that a ship is taking damage in general and that it moves slower once in combat, but that's all just guess work right now.
  • From what I've seen from the combat system, it seems like most of the attacks are hitting the enemy ship when they're being fired with the exception of a few things like Torpedoes.  I think this means that they're making the torps fire like skillshots from a MOBA, and having them go on cooldown after being fired, which makes a fair amount of sense.  The big thing here to note is that if most of the attacks are hitting, but not all of them, then that means there's a hit modifier right?  If that's the case, then that makes Eldar Holo-fields really easy to do.  Attacks will simply miss more against ships utilizing Holo-fields, which is both consistent with the fluff and translates easily into the engine.  Whether or not this is actually good for gameplay is another issue.  If something like hit chance is in the game, what about criticals?  What if the RNG gods are cruel and you lose a Void Stalker based on bad RNG?  Surely that's bound to happen to everyone once in a while, but as long as its done tastefully and not consistently frustrating then it's OK.
  • Right now, we are unsure how the damage formula for the ships are.  I'm assuming that ship weapons systems are doing set damage values every X amount of seconds (multiplied by hit chance) vs. Y amount of health using Z% of damage reduction due to armor.  This means that the damage system is a very easy to understand DPS vs. damage reduction formula being used with Torpedoes every 60 seconds or until the Reload Order is being used or something.
  • Speaking of Orders, I'm not sure if there's going to be all the Orders in BFG, but there will be some well-known ones.  I think I saw All Ahead Full and Brace for Impact, but I don't know if any others exist.  From what I can see from the UI, it looks like every ship, or at least the important capital ships will have special abilities that maybe the captain will do.  For example, you might be able to select certain abilties on your captain as he levels up, and he will be able to apply that to any ship that he rides in.
  • Going off of that, it seems that you will be able to upgrade various parts of the ship as you progress in the game.  The designers specifically mentioned that you will be able upgrade nearly everything, from the weapons to the officers, to the engines, you know it.  I'm curious to see if this is only going to be a single-player mechanic, or is it going to be in multiplayer as well where you can purchase more worthwhile upgrades, but it will add a cost to your ship.
  • Before we go any further on this, I just wanted to say that no information has been released about how fighters/bombers are going to work.  Right now, we can only assume that there will be turret/defense interactions and fighters/bombers will be treated as mini units that can be launched from their carriers from a special action.  Once they unload, or fight, or what have you, they might need to reload back at their carriers before a Reload action is called so they can be sent out again.  This is all guesswork, but that's what I would do in an RTS game so why not?
  • This leads me to my last part of this brief analysis, and that's the cost association with the ships.  Since I only really care about multiplayer, it looks like you'll be able to set a game up with a certain amount of points kind of like Total War, and then buy ships as long as you have enough points.  After that, you start the game, deploy in a line, setup whatever formation you want and go to town.  Makes sense, and looks really straight forward.

Needless to say, I'm really excited about the game.  Just by looking at this brief gameplay video, it looks like the developers over there know what they're doing.  I feel a little better now.
Huwebes, Marso 12, 2015
40K: Designing a rules package

40K: Designing a rules package

Let's do this thing.

Updated: 3/12/15
Now looking for ways to break Imperial Guard! (or AM)

Can everyone access this?
https://drive.google.com/drive/#folders/0B7_TofINQVJafmRjQTI2SkFTaTRZREo2eHVHRjFBUXUwMFV1R3VYWkVoeUh2TUhiQzNfbkE

Hey guys,

I want to reach out to you on a community project.  Are you familiar with how ETC is done for Warhammer Fantasy? It's a very intuitive rules packet that aims to promote game balance while still allowing players to take powerful options in their book.

I've been developing something similar for 40K (geared for 1v1, championship format), in the attempt to get better quality games in instead of playing the rock-paper-scissors style of play in tournaments. I am already in touch with several community leaders with large connections to the competitive blogosphere and I would like to turn this rules package into something that's designed for the competitive gamer. I have already reached out to Reece from Frontline Gaming, Kirby from 3++, Larry on BoLS, and several contacts managing Adepticon and east coast majors that I have been involved in in the past.

You might not know my gaming history, but I've been playing GW games for 14 years. I have a ton of competitive tourney experience, including competing in majors on the east coast, and now work in the computer game industry. I'm a competitive RTS player, ex-pro CS player, former balance designer (for said RTS games), and enjoy doing multiplayer balance-related projects on the side.

Just some food for thought before you begin on this journey with me. The design goals for this document is as follows:
  • You can still take the good stuff, but in moderation.
  • We're out to limit powerful armies and combos, but not outright ban them.
  • The idea here is to promote equality among all armies in the game.

You might think this is impossible to do because 40K has a billion supplements, data sheets, formations and whatnot, but this is a fallacy.  Warhammer 40K might be more expansive than WHFB, but it is not more complex.  Its rules are much simpler, the units are more streamlined, the combos are more defined, and most importantly, is less random.  I think we should give it a shot, I know I need all the help I can get because there's just so much out there!

Anyways, this project is supposed to be something fun, as well as challenging and I would like to get your input. Let me know what you think, and please, break it as much as you can. This is just a preliminary draft to showcase what the rules package is designed to do.  Maybe at the end of this all, this won't be a competitive rules package and will be instead, a fairplay one.
Sabado, Pebrero 14, 2015
GDS: A good RTS game

GDS: A good RTS game

Creating a good RTS is difficult.

I'm really feeling this deep emptiness inside that is the lack of a good RTS games. I just feel there's so many out there these days that have been a disappointment one way or another. Let me use this time to vent, and express what I'm looking for in a modern-day RTS. I believe that in order for an RTS game to be successful, it needs to be built with the modern-day business model in mind. What does this mean? This means you take the best from all the games you've played in the past, highlight it and bring it to light. Then, and only then, you innovate and take it to the next level. I believe that that is the recipe to creating a modern-day RTS that can accommodate the needs of the modern gamer (which frankly, has ADD).

  1. Focus on the action, the fight, the grand strategy, tactics, and execution of said tactics. What does this mean? Limited base building. The focus should be on the combat. E.g. WiC, CoH/DoW2, Ground Control, Wargame, MOBAs.
  2. Depth. This would also mean that there's depth in the actual units that you're using. Everything should feel unique and have its own purpose, or why else are you taking it? The games that I enjoy the most are the games where you're able to get mileage out of the units that you're purchasing, either through superior positioning, micro or unorthodox use. This is one of the things that StarCraft does especially well, and one of the reasons why certain units that should lose on paper, win through skill and placement. E.g. StarCraft, CNC Generals/RA3, CoH/DoW2, MOBAs.
  3. Map control for resources. My favorite model of map control for resources for me is CoH/DoW2. You have multiple resources (as a game should have, luxury resources), but you fight for control of it by going out and acquiring land, capturing this land, and holding this land. The fact that you can cut off enemy resources depicts the cutting off of supply, which not only captures the fantasy that is WW2 warfare, but adds another layer of strategy for the player.
  4. Build your own army, army customization. What makes players really excited? Player options. I'm talking about player decks. Can you see two competitive players argue for hours about what is the best options to take? Sure, me and Tri do it all the time in ALB and in Red Dragon. I used to argue with Parfait for hours in AoE3. Player decks that allow a player to customize his army the way he wants is one of the most fun and infinitely challenging things about any game. It stems from DND and table-top games in general, and it works really well because it sings soundly to the OCD competitive player. There's nothing that compliments the feeling that you are truly in control than designing your own army. E.g. DND, Warhammer, Wargame, Total War, Age of Empires 3.
  5. Get in the fight, now. You have X amount of starting resources and this should be enough to get you into the game fighting, participating and having fun right away. I'm not talking about 6 SCVs here, I'm not talking about building starting buildings and more workers, I'm talking about the fact you have enough resources to start fighting, controlling territory and capturing ground. Then, you capture more land, gain more resources, and share in the momentum that is truly warfare. War is about momentum, and only the winners know it. E.g. Ground Control, DoW2, Wargame, all MOBAs.
  6. Lastly, the game should be built with spectators in mind. It needs to be exciting, energetic and explosive. Visually, it needs to be impressive and interesting in a way that's easy to understand, even if you have never played the game before. This is how you capture interest. In terms of gameplay, it needs to be easy to understand, but difficult to master. That is the hallmark to a successful game and the lifeblood to future success. eSports is free marketing in today's social media-driven environment. More people will buy and play your game if they're exposed to it, and they will only be exposed to it if people play it, stream it, and share it. E.g. SC, Hearthstone, LoL.

This is my list for now guys, thanks for reading. I'm not in the position to start my own gaming company, but you can bet your ass in hell that if I did, I will make an RTS game and take it to the next level.
Miyerkules, Oktubre 8, 2014
The importance of theory and experience

The importance of theory and experience

The tree of knowledge is infinitely tall.

I found a discussion the other day about something that has come up time and time again.  Just recently, I wrote an review on Dark Eldar that got a ton of flak.  In fact, after 5 years of running this blog, this was the first time I received hate mail!  I was literally labeled "Betrayer of the Dark Kin" after what I wrote about the new book.

By now, you folks know that I dislike the new book, a lot.  But at the same time, tons of people posting all over the net has made one audible remark: "How do you even know?  You haven't played any games with it yet?"

This, my dear friends and readers, is called theory.  Theory, its hypothesis and predictions are exactly what it sounds like:  A well-educated guess.  After 14 years of playing 40K, WHFB and several other game systems in both a competitive and casual setting, I feel pretty comfortable with my state of knowledge and experience.  I might not play as much as I used to, but I'm very up to date with the meta and the new army books.  This is evident in the fact that I have many friends that play in the tournament circuit, I purchase and thoroughly read every new book that comes out, and I sometimes write a review for them.  At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself who you're reading the article from before questioning the predictions.  After all, you wouldn't go to a car salesman for financial advice would you?

Here is the discussion I'm referring to.  It's by AbusePuppy on 3++ and I don't usually agree with what he says.  However, he was criticized for making a review on the new Dark Eldar just like I was, and he was forced to justify his assumptions.  I quote:

Commentator: And to address Abusepuppy directly: Though I'm not the hugest fan of your attitude, I like your articles and appreciate the candor to a certain degree. I recognize that you're an intelligent player and come from a long background of competitive play and respect your opinion even when I don't agree. This comment is more stemming from the fact that there's been a steady increase online to rush and declare a codex weak and stupid and garbage before players even have a chance to play it. The least that authors can do is be straightforward at the beginning of the article and note that it's all speculation and theory.

Commenter: Its not hard to tell if a unit is good or shit at first glance most the time. especialy when youve played the game alot and are aware of the power level of other options. if you had to pay 20 pts for a guardsmen statline with a 5+ but he has ws 5 and ini 4 you wouldnt need to play test it to know he is shit

AbusePuppy: No, you just don't understand- those theoretical models are theoretically very skill-based. You can't just dismiss them because they are terrible, you have to lose game after game with them before you are allowed to have an opinion, just like you can only tell whether or not you like doing anything by actually doing it. This is why I placed my hand inside the garbage disposal and turned it on yesterday- I didn't know whether it would be enjoyable or not.

(It turns out that it is not very enjoyable, and neither is the emergency room. But that was only my left hand, so I'm gonna give ol' Righty Righty a shot tomorrow and see if it's any different, so wish me luck!)

Commenter: It's not about "being allowed to have an opinion." Obviously people can have opinions and can express them however they like, but that opinion should at least be put in the proper context. Making the definitive declaration that the DE are "really, really shitty" without ever having actually rolled a dice just feels premature and a little defeatist to me, especially since the rest of your article does a good job of identifying the strengths in the codex.

What it comes down to though, is that these articles and other similar ones are actually beginning to brand these armies before people have actually played them. Like I said above, there may be something in there that people aren't seeing because it isn't obvious until it plays out on the tabletop, but less people will be eager to search it out if they feel that there's no point since their army is just awful and that's the way it is. To make wide reaching blanket statements without at least some scientific evidence or testing doesn't sit well with me personally, so I'm expressing my opinion on it.

AbusePuppy: And what I'm saying is that _not all propositions need to be tested_. Even if you're being wholly rational and scientific about things, you don't have to sit down and test literally every possibility on the off-chance that it is true; in fact, that is an idiotic method of understanding things. Instead, you typically take a look at your new data point (in this case a codex or unit) and compare it to existing ones, taking note of the differences and similarities and extrapolating your expectations of what it will be like based on your previous theoretical models of the phenomena.

Yes, at some point you do want to put rubber to road and make sure your predictions are right. But in many cases this is essentially a formality, if it's even done at all- scientists don't need to test how 11.1kg of uranium decays as compared to 11.7kg because our models tell us that the difference between the two should be inconsequential. Likewise, I can look at a unit like Wyches and say "this unit is bad because it is fragile, ineffective, and not cheap enough" and be reasonably sure that my conclusion is correct because I can base it on other, similar units.

Commenter: You don't really go in depth into the synergies the units provide with each other or with the army wide special rules

AbusePuppy: I don't think it's realistic to expect every article to cover every possible consideration, point of importance, or angle. You're right, I don't talk about those things because this is an _overview_ of the codex. If I talked about how every other unit interacted with all the army's special rules and strategies I'd have hundreds of thousands of words of text and most of it would just boil down to "this unit isn't good enough to be worth it." I did that with the Tau codex, breaking it up into many smaller parts (that were each 2000-6000 words long, not exactly brief) because most of the units in that codex are good enough to consider using. That isn't the case for Dark Eldar- Wyches simply aren't worth my time to write about.

Commenter: I simply can't believe that the community as a whole should completely write off an entire codex the day before it's even released

AbusePuppy: Do you think people aren't going to play with Dark Eldar? I don't like the GK book, but I still used it to see how it worked. There were a few little interesting twists on things, but for the most part it came out just about how I expected from reading it initially. An initial verdict does not forever commit one's opinion to that stance and yes, playing with a book will give you a more in-depth understanding of things. But you consistently seem to think that there is NO legitimacy to assessing a book before having... well, I dunno, how much experience do you need before forming a valid opinion? If I play with the book for a week, couldn't you just say that I need a month to "truly" assess it? If I play for a month, couldn't you say it takes a year? Etc.

Playtesting and experience should inform your opinions, to be sure- but you need a theoretical framework to hang your experience on or it's not going to do you a lot of good. When a new book comes out, using that theoretical framework to point out the aspects of the book that are most worthy of notice- unit A looks like it has a lot of potential, unit B is going to struggle with these problems, unit C has a very useful niche in the current metagame, and so on- is important. Collating many different points of view and understandings of the book and particular insights is very critical to making a good judgement of things, and that's why I do my best to read and discuss things with people every time a new codex is released because there's inevitably things I miss, or misjudge, or flat-out read incorrectly. That's why I try to be active in the comments section and discuss things with people, because I realize that my own particular assessment of the codex is hardly going to be all-encompassing. But I can't compare my assessments with those of other people if I- or they- don't say what those assessments are, and that's why I do these articles.

So please, if you have a difference of opinion on the book by all means speak up and explain why and about what. We've got half a week with the new book in circulation now, so if your experiences with it contradict some of my thinking, then certainly write a response- or even a whole post, as I know Kirby is generally happy to accept guest posts if they are reasonably well-composed and intelligent- and explain how you see things differently. But if the only issue you have is that I am putting my opinions out for others to discuss and debate, then I'm afraid there's not really any way I'm going to give ground in that respect, because doing so is the very reason I bother to write these sorts of things.

+++++

As you can see guys, at the end of the day, I don't tell you you have to read my material and agree with it.  Just know that what you're reading is backed by over a decade of experience and is coming from a guy who generally knows what he's talking about.  If you disagree, I implore you to discuss it with me and together, we can figure out some loophole that I might have missed.  I have made very accurate predictions about the impact of army books in the past and I encourage you guys to check out those reviews as well.  Having worked in professional game design (multiplayer/balance) in the past, and actively working in the gaming industry has given me fresh perspectives to all games.  I don't think I need to say that I really think things through before writing it on the internet.

In fact, I loathe people who post garbage just to get views.  Hence why I don't post unless I have something to say.
Copyright © 2016 - Design by Thiet Nguyen