|
There has been talk of this thing called the skill ceiling and how games gets n00bified. I believe the entire line of argument about skill ceiling is an mistake when applied to real games in the RTS genre. What kills competitive play is a boring games at the competitive level, not lack of skill.
Index
1. Why it is not merely "skill"
2. What is fun
3. How Starcraft succeeded
4. Suggestion for future games
-----
1. Why the skill argument fail.
In a balanced game, the only factor that result in winning is skill and luck. In any RTS game, mirror races in symmetric maps result in a balanced game. In a game without using random number generators or pronounced pseudo-random factors, skill would automatically dominate. In addition, additional iterations of games played would magnify the effect of skill, as Bo5 lets the stronger player win more often than Bo1, and Bo120 would amplify even the smallest skill difference into visible differences in wins.
Lets take a look at one of those games that people denounce and see why they fail: Lets take a C&C-like game where both side chooses the strongest side and do the strongest, mirror, build. After spending 5 minutes building, the units clash in the middle for 10 seconds of intense micro before one side wins.
This game fails. This is due to the fact that you get 5 minutes of boredom for 10 seconds of fun. This is not due to a skill ceiling because that 10 seconds have a skill ceiling up to near infinity since no human can control even a dozen unit perfectly with only one mouse pointer when an advantage can be gained in under quarter of a second.
Even if the players do hit a ceiling, it is extremely easy to raise the skill ceiling to whatever people want. Just speed up the game, force them to play on a DDR pad or reduce screen resolution to 40x40 or make them skip ropes while balancing a bucket over their head while playing or make them 3 games at the same time. Making a game harder to perfect is trivial and that is not the reason why a game fails.
What makes games fail at the competitive level is that it is no longer fun to watch or play when it is played at such a level.
------------------
2. What is "fun"
When people talk about skill ceilings, it is not really about "being able to perfect the things players can do to help him win" but the "limit in the number of interesting things in the game at the competitive level."
That said, different people find different things interesting and that is why there is so many different games across so many different genres. That said, people's tastes aren't quite so different and some games are more successful than others. Some universal principles I have gathered are listed below, listed in order of importance.
I. Consistent Challenge: Challenge is fun. A game must provide some challenge at every phase of the game. This is where many games fails, since the player is bored doing things like executing a mindless BO. It is not about absolute skill requirements to win, but down time in a match where player and watcher attention drifts. The important part is to tune the game so that every phase require attention, is important and has interesting things going on. In other words, importance of time has to be balanced. Never should a game be pointless in the first 5 minutes for only 10 seconds of worthy battle followed by another 5 minutes of dull clean up of someone refusing to gg.
In addition to challenges of control, there needs to be consistent intellectual challenge, over phases of an individual game and the game's lifetime. This comes from Diversity in the game, which results from BALANCE, depth, probabilistic factors and variation between the individual games played (aka maps, settings, etc). The topic is large enough for its own thread.
II. Control: Games are different from other medium in the control it provide. Predictable, effective, and responsive controls that gets better with practice is generally desirable. (unless contradicted by other requirements) Things like stupid dragoons that run circles around a ramp or "too smart" Company of Heros snipers that dives into cover outside control of players violate this as it is more random than anything. It is just pleasant to control things, may it be cars, planes or 10 hatchery and mutalisks. Many games are built on this principle alone.
III. Theme and intuition: Games for most people are considered thematically and intuitively as opposed to mathematically. The more the game follows intuitive concepts, the better. Flanks, surrounds and looks and feel better than say, complex armor class interactions with 20 confusing looking buff/debuff casted on a unit, regardless of difficulties or control or complexity involved. All the above factors are only meaningful if the player or observer is aware of it, so it doesn't matter how complicated and deep the optimal play is or the complexities of muta micro if the player doesn't know that it exists, and this is yet another common failing in games. For dedicated "play to win" gamers, this may not be huge, but intuitive gameplay is absolutely necessary to generate a casual following that produces future competitive players and watches the games.
The difference between a competitive player and a noncompetitive one is often decided by the willingness to break the theme to learn the mechanics to win at the game. However, even for competitive players, they still follow a theme rule otherwise they'd be fine with "terrible games" like playing SC with 40x40 resolution. Ideally, there should be no huge break between the two groups. There isn't a non-competitive Quake 3 community that somehow has to play radically differently from the skilled people, for example. (unlike Starcraft)
-----------------
How did Starcraft succeed
Starcraft has been one of the most successful RTS, and there are a few things in its design that made it possible.
I. Heavy Geometric dependence on balance of units and races:
One of the most important thing about Starcraft is that geometry of engagement is absolutely important in everything. Just about every unit counters another in the right terrain and engagement geometry and hard counters are rare. This made the map editor extremely powerful tool, in both balance and creating diverse games.
II. Intuitive combat model: Combat micro in Starcraft is in large part about controlling the ground. Spell casting is marginal, simple and visible, so is targeting, (compared to say, wc3) due to short times involved in the actual engagement and relatively simple spell effects.
III. Stable pressure and back and game play in some matchups: Due to defender's advantage and easy to harass (peon are weak, unit mobility can be great) but hard to kill (buildings are tough) design of the game, in some match ups there is always a way to get a small advantage in every phase of the game, without ending it right there. This lead to games that can go back and forth as opposed to one knock out punch games that is common in failed RTS games.
---------------
How this effect future game design
Looking at topics in isolation (micro/macro/specific unit) is not so helpful as, perhaps, looking at an APM selection chart and the number of branch points in strategy guides. Thinking about whether something can be made hard is pointless. It is probably better to think in terms of phases and diversity, so if a phase of a game is too boring, you make that part more challenging. If people keep on doing something to the point of boredom, you give them something else to do. The inverse can also happen, for example if a game element is too hard and too decisive resulting in lessened importance for other parts of the game, you nerf its importance and difficulty so other parts of the game is not overshadowed.
The game design question is thus this: Would the game as a whole be fun in providing stable pressure, responsive control and diversity without breaking the theme when it is played competitively?
------------
Side notes: I don't think, however, the above necessarily supports macro since it breaks the theme badly in requiring dumb baby sitting nor is the mechanic pleasurable to control in itself for most people and does not grow intellectually over time. Its probably better to look for diversity and pressure from other paths, like adding harass units during lulls in fighting.
|
2. What is skill? [What makes a game more skillful?]
I. Consistent Challenge: Challenge is fun. A game must provide some challenge at every phase of the game. This is where many games fails, since the player is bored doing things like executing a mindless BO. It is not about absolute skill requirements to win, but down time in a match where player and watcher attention drifts. The important part is to tune the game so that every phase require attention, is important and has interesting things going on. In other words, importance of time has to be balanced. Never should a game be pointless in the first 5 minutes for only 10 seconds of worthy battle followed by another 5 minutes of dull clean up of someone refusing to gg.
In addition to challenges of control, there needs to be consistent intellectual challenge, over phases of an individual game and the game's lifetime. This comes from Diversity in the game, which results from BALANCE, depth, probabilistic factors and variation between the individual games played (aka maps, settings, etc). The topic is large enough for its own thread.
II. Control: Games are different from other medium in the control it provide. Predictable, effective, and responsive controls that gets better with practice is generally desirable. (unless contradicted by other requirements) Things like stupid dragoons that run circles around a ramp or "too smart" Company of Heros snipers that dives into cover outside control of players violate this as it is more random than anything. It is just pleasant to control things, may it be cars, planes or 10 hatchery and mutalisks. Many games are built on this principle alone.
[I disagree that dragoons violate this part =0...They are 1. Predicatable (you have to click alot otherwise they will go where ever THEY want), effective IF you click alot (fine...its not effective =/), and as responsive as you can get, with laag online etc.]
III. Theme and intuition: Games for most people are considered thematically and intuitively as opposed to mathematically. The more the game follows intuitive concepts, the better. Flanks, surrounds and looks and feel better than say, complex armor class interactions with 20 confusing looking buff/debuff casted on a unit, regardless of difficulties or control or complexity involved. All the above factors are only meaningful if the player or observer is aware of it, so it doesn't matter how complicated and deep the optimal play is or the complexities of muta micro if the player doesn't know that it exists, and this is yet another common failing in games. For dedicated "play to win" gamers, this may not be huge, but intuitive gameplay is absolutely necessary to generate a casual following that produces future competitive players and watches the games.
+ Show Spoiler +Skill is an important factor in the game, but HOW the skill is implemented needs to be fun. The first point (constant attention) is the most important of the three (imo), and the other two are already in most RTS games. People are scared that the game will no longer be fun, because the game is too easy, and doesn't provide this. When people say that the game will fail because its not skilled enough, they are really saying that the game will fail because it is not skilled enough, and thus not fun anymore.
|
On January 23 2009 17:16 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Never should a game be pointless in the first 5 minutes for only 10 seconds of worthy battle followed by another 5 minutes of dull clean up of someone refusing to gg.
Interesting that you should mention this. This is Blizzard's argument for increasing the number of drones available at the beginning of the game - it's pointless to have 30 seconds when the only thing happening is building more drones to collect more resources.
Although this is actually quite important for televised games... give presenters a chance to talk about the players =)
|
I generally agree with the op but I think that most of the people that consider physical demands as skill will not.
You did a really nice write-up there, unfortunately many people tried similar things in the past and it usually resulted in a flamewar between different playerbases (more hardcore, more casual, those in the middle and those undecided).
|
Yer I am torn between the slow early game or a faster one. Faster one requires you calm yourself and prepare mentally (including going over your builds) before the game starts, and players will still need this time so in broadcast progaming there still may be a delay (unless they do all of it before coming onto stage).
As for the user, I find this part the most nervous but because it is slow it is easy to calm yourself and ensure your builds are spot on, spam APM to set your tempo for the rest of the game, and get in the mindset. WarCraft III Starts of slightly faster as you build off the start but then slows down around the time you are going into tier 2 where both players are creeping and this time plays a similar role for me (Although you must still remain alert as you want to hit the right creeps and ensure the enemy doesn't attack you while doing so).
I can see how speeding up the start of the game a bit from SC will improve it, as the start is a little repetitive and there will still be time to think, clam yourself, and for some off-topic commentary. I just hope it doesn't speed it up too fast so that players who load faster win. xD
|
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw-
|
Osaka27139 Posts
On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw-
BOOM
See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway.
|
On January 23 2009 19:37 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw- BOOM See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway.
I hope you are joking.
Ki_Do is right if you ask me.
It was a good write until he mentioned mindless babysitting... Unless he is referring to some other game.
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
|
On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p
|
On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 19:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw- BOOM See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway. I hope you are joking. Ki_Do is right if you ask me. It was a good write until he mentioned mindless babysitting... Unless he is referring to some other game. There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
It would have been okay if he actually used any time in explaining his view and not just saying "lol u wrong ha!".
The op clearly put a lot of time in expressing his opinion and so should the ones replying to him do.
The topic can be seen from so many different points there is no definitive "correct" answer to it, so there is no room for comments like what Ki_Do posted.
|
On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 19:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw- BOOM See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway. I hope you are joking. Ki_Do is right if you ask me. It was a good write until he mentioned mindless babysitting... Unless he is referring to some other game. There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
I assumed he was talking about things like the proposed gas mechanic. Which sounds like the most boring tedious activity ever.
To the OP, I say great post.
Well considered and written I agree with what you are saying.
Wolf.
|
On January 23 2009 20:15 Lamentations wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft. 0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p
When do you ever do that in a game ever?
Have you ever played starcraft before?
I don't think you'll do very well if you mindlessly babysit your nexuses like that and stack up 4 queued probes.
|
On January 23 2009 20:15 Lamentations wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft. 0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p
This post made me smile.
It reminded me of the saying (translating from Serbian, I hope it comes out well)
"Every joke is half true."
Back on topic, there is much truth in the OP, definitely a good writeup.
Edit: minor spelling errors.
|
Well doing 0p9p8p7o every now and then can be considered mindless babysitting.
There's no strategy to it appart from when you have to chose between doing other stuff, and putting your probes on mineral patches.
|
I quickly read over some of it, but by and large I agree with the op. Thing is starcraft is fun and it was made by people just wanting to publish a game for a game company, there were no professional gamers involved, no e-sports scene, none of the crap. It was fun and people played it and let's face it most gamers--pro or not--are nerds at heart who really enjoy playing games. The mindless babysitting part, maybe its stretching it a bit, but it has at least some merit to it since you're doing things that really have nothing to do with the actual opponent you're playing just that you have to keep building.
Fun dominates everything.
|
I wonder if progamers have fun.....being a progamer seems so stressful....
|
On January 23 2009 22:50 SCC-AlwaysGG wrote:
I wonder if progamers have fun.....being a progamer seems so stressful....
I remember NaDa saying in his interview that he really does not enjoy it anymore like a casual player would and its not something he does for fun anymore.
I guess most of them share the same mentality.
|
On January 23 2009 21:12 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 20:15 Lamentations wrote:On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft. 0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p When do you ever do that in a game ever? Have you ever played starcraft before? I don't think you'll do very well if you mindlessly babysit your nexuses like that and stack up 4 queued probes.
Babysitting does not involve starting at the baby for hours on end, taking short breaks only to catch up on breathing or going to the bathroom. It is checking back on it often while doing other things :/
|
nevermind ... i think i got it now
thx InRaged
|
Heavy Geometric dependence on balance of units and races:
One of the most important thing about Starcraft is that geometry of engagement is absolutely important in everything. Just about every unit counters another in the right terrain and engagement geometry and hard counters are rare. This made the map editor extremely powerful tool, in both balance and creating diverse games.
One of the best postings around here since a long time.
I'm unsure wheter to agree or disagree with the overall thesis of the text. But some parts of his writing are brilliant. For example I can't remember someone pointing out the principle of geometic dependence in StarCraft as clearly as he has done here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
