While I enjoyed old skool titles like CoH, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander - I rarely play RTS anymore. Most RTS, the first 1/3 of the game is building up forces, 1/3 is actually fun, fighting, and the last 1/3 is mopping up when once side has obviously won. As a busy dad, a game that's only fun 1/3 of the time isn't really optimal use of my gaming time. My main strategy game is Steel Division (which is more about semi-realistic tactics and eschews base building) and the Total War series (Shogun II = best, fight me).
But as a dad it is my duty to educate my son (9) in gaming genres. So I chose Zero-K - a (free) mash-up of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. My initial impressions is it's a pretty well thought out game - kinda the opposite of the latest Ubi or EA shovelware. Check it out on Steam.
But as I browsed about the game, I came across a few expressions the devs use which caught my imagination. Obviously this won't apply to every genre (especially historical - it's about a sci fi RTS after all!), but their dev blogs have some interesting applications for tabletop gaming.
#1. "Buff Strengths, Nerf Weaknesses"
Units need to be balanced, but they don't need to be identical to each other. That's boring. So rather than nerf good stats until every unit is a carbon copy, they lean into the differences even more.
So if a unit is too strong, instead of nerfing it's strength (say high burst damage) they first look at weaknesses (perhaps it is low defence - can the 'weakness' be made even weaker to even more emphasize the unit's nature as a glasscannon). The unit has been nerfed, but it is even more different than its peers.
Traditional nerfing strength and buffing weaknesses (in areas such as mobility, attack and defence) tends to move units towards a single bland entity. Buffing strengths and nerfing weaknesses instead stretches and emphasizes the differences in those areas. (And, I suspect, may encourage unit variety through more distinct 'counters.')
But what is strength and what is weakness? It's relative. A tank might be fast compared to infantry, but wouldn't we be comparing it to other tanks or units of similar role?
For example in my "Delta Mars" rules I create a baseline human soldier and weapon (rifle) as "average" so I can work around that. A squad machine gunner might be slower, and only fire when stationary but have 3x the firepower dice. It may be then worth 2 normal soldiers.
Another interesting point made was the difference in roles between designer and balancer. The designer looks at the big picture, how units should 'feel' and interact - what tactics should they use? A balancer is about finer detail - manipulating numbers to make units behave the way they ought.
An interesting distinction when most wargame designers wear both hats.
Finally, sometimes balance fails. Sometimes the core design of a unit is flawed. The unit needs to be completely reworked and redesigned, not 'balanced.'
#2. Fight Your Opponent not the UI (or Rules!)
This seemed timely given my musings on rules like Killwager - in the case of Zero-K they are talking about things like the on-screen information, the game controls, how you interact with the units. The Zero-K controls were the first thing I noticed; simply selecting a clump of units, then dragging your mouse allowed you to "draw" formation - my son and I both said "cool" as we noticed it; so much simple than the usual dozen or so clicks to select and rearrange individual units.
In wargames, it is the physical interface which includes not just the rulebook - unit basing, measuring, dice, terrain etc - even the models themselves. Does anyone remember the old metal Warmachine warjacks which weighed a kilo each?
A player is "fighting the UI" when they have a clear idea of what to do, but the controls (or rules) make it hard for the player to do it.
Aim: A player's ideas should be simple to implement and execute. Remove as much clutter between the player's ideas and the game. Obviously, we can't telepathically move minis, but we shouldn't be paging through the rulebook every 5 seconds, checking a table or a list of a hundred modifiers, or making too many dice rolls to resolve a simple action - that's a sign of fighting against the rules.
For example: If you have to roll four separate dice (each with their own modifiers)
to resolve a hit, then it's 1/4th the efficiency of a single roll which
does the same job. I've also largely moved away from reaction mechanics (Infinity, Tomorrow's War used to be favourites) as I often feel like I am fighting the rules - the reactions are creating too many rules exceptions/confusion and bogging the game down).
Paraphrasing the PC-gamer phrases into wargaming speak:
Game world = units, their stats, status, position and terrain
Ability = actions a unit can take (can be basic like move or shoot, or include spells, jumping, 'special abilities')
UI (Rules/Mechanics) = how a player acts with units, interacts with game world.
In a PC game, the player relies on the UI as he cannot physically interact with the virtual game world or units. It's how he interacts with the game. In wargames, the rules are part of the UI, also defining how a player can physically interact with the units.
So I'd also include the physical models and table as part of the UI - perhaps how you base your models (2" coherency, individual skirmish, in a WFB block of troops) and even the terrain (can you fit that 60mm base model on that 1" wide Necromunda hive ledge).
Go (the boardgame) has an incredibly simple UI/rules. The pieces are easy to use (satisfying too - love that 'click' noise) and manipulate, the squares are distinct, and the rules are simple (there's only 3-4!). The pieces, board and rules fade into the background. In Go you are never fighting the 'UI' - you are fighting your opponent.
Here's some thoughts I've been having as I assemble my 33rd IKEA flat pack...
Are there some wargames where you feel units/factions are needlessly bland and samey? How do you feel about 'buff strength nerf weakness' as a design motto? Will that lead to overly paper-scissors rock gameplay and is that a bad thing? Are there units in wargames which are just broken beyond balancing and need to be completely redesigned? Do wargame designers wear both design and balance hats successfully? Or do they just spend all their time on design?
Are there times you feel like you are fighting the rules? What are indicators of this or particularly common/egregious issues? How can these be mitigated?
No comments:
Post a Comment