 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
'k...since Labor Day is officially over, I couldn't very well continue to use the old thread, but...I couldn't help but notice that I was really productive when I knew I had to come here and chart the day's progress....
So, this is a bit of an experiment then, to see if writing here daily will help keep me motivated.
* Did a bit more behind the scenes work, putting my head together with AG, Hex, Dale and Busta today.
* Started work on the revision of the core rules doc. No notable progress there, but sixteen pages of typing has gotta count for something!
* Added in the five events that were proposed in the discussion forums. They're now a part of the event engine proper, which brings us up to date there.
High on the ol' do-list is to do a recount of those events and find out just exactly how many we got, and AG's working on some statistics and variables lists for us there, so we can get a better handle on just what the event engine needs to keep track of.
Tomorrow's plan will prolly involve not a lot of visible progress, as I'll be mired in events we won't be putting on display, and more of the rules doc revision, so if things don't seem to be coming together as fast as they did this weekend, it's cos those projects aren't all that "visible" but I will continue charting the day's progress here nonetheless!
Oh....and I have a DATE tomorrow evening, so I'm prolly not gonna get as much work done...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
* Not a lot to report today, except that I got the creeping crud, courtesy of my brother, and the date went well despite it. Conferred with AG, who's hard at work compiling stats on the basic event engine, organized some thoughts and made ready to finish out the world events, but didn't make a lot of headway there, and fixed a lingering, vexing problem I've been having in my head re: provinces changing hands (at least...I think I fixed it...we'll see... )
Otherwise, I was somewhat disappointed with my personal productivity, especially after the long weekend's jamfest....I had hoped to flesh out one or two more of the world events, but that pesky thing called WORK kept getting in the way....ah well, perhaps tomorrow...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
 You know that's right, Thor!
Nahhh, seriously, our project has benefited greatly from our good fortune of having strongly opinionated women in our ranks since day one.
That's one of my favorite things about this game. It's got a single, unifying vision, yes....but it does not speak with one voice.
I can look at various elements inside the game, and point to specific people here on these forums, or in our team, who have been directly responsible for dreaming up, and then championing and selling the rest of us on a certain idea.
Just the other day, Hex made a cool screen entitled "MistMoon Warriors." (that's the name of a Water Spell, btw).
I loved the screen, but had nothing in particular in mind re: The MistMoon warriors that would warrant them having their own unique bit of artwork....but that got me thinking, and inspired BY the artwork, I created one.
Likewise, BigRich played a HUGE role in the shaping of our magic system, and in truth, the birth of combinatroncis as a means of expression.
Provinces named after our earliest team members.
Bits of history spun out from random conversations in chat that make their way into the lore of the game.
There are hundreds of examples....woven together like a tapestry....awesome.
Anyway, I'm rambling....today was mostly spent on the core rules re-write. Made steady progress, but it's not glamor work, that's for sure. Heard from Ram, who tells us that progress is being made on restoring the forums....no firm ETA yet, but it looks like we'll preserve most of the data, so that's a good thing.
In writing the core rules, I'm attempting to answer both user/player questions AND build in implementation notes for the code Gurus....not that my feeble advice will be of much help, but as I think of stuff, I include it...
26 pages of original material added to the basic framework of helio's old rules...still trucking. Will keep everybody posted...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
This kind of thinking helps me to refine my ideas about the game, and how everything hangs together...might not be interesting reading for many, but for those few who dig this kinna thing, I'll put it here....
Diametric Tension and the creation of Complex Systems
Hypothesis: It's damnably hard to actually *create* a complex system. On the computer, this would be any system that attempts to accurately model a part of, or the entirety of the world, or human civilization. The reason it's so hard is because of all the subtle shading that exists in either real world system. All the variation and variability is almost mind-boggling, and that's difficult to capture in discrete data sets.
What's easier, I believe, it to create the illusion of complexity, and this can be done by creating a string of relevant, fairly simple linear programs, and turn them loose in a controlled environment, such that they all operate at the same time, and more-or-less in tandem.
What you get then is a seeming seething mass of complexity, but is, in reality, just a number of smaller bits, performing their sole functionality in dronelike fashion.
Such a system runs the risk of utter failure and predictability, however, unless there is some means in place for evolutionary nudges (and sometimes leaps) to occur.
This then, is the true goal. If done properly, a marvellous side effect of the true goal will be that a game is born that is both maddeningly addictive and beautiful to watch and immerse oneself in, but the game itself cannot be claimed as the true goal. The true goal is something subtler than simply that.
Foundational Aspects
What is needed then, is physics of a sort. A bedrock foundation of ground rules that govern the way the world works.
Because we want to create a wholly unique world, but also make it immersive and easy to relate to, some nods to society as it is, or has been, are needed to provide points of relationship with those who will be interacting with the system.
Thus, while it is possible to create a game world that counts currency as butterflies and clouds, such a system has never existed in the real world, and would be relatively hard to relate to, and thus, harder to immerse oneself in, so at the base level, there will be several similarities with the real world, in some form or fashion.
A specific example of this would be to use gold as a primary currency. Gold has been a measure of value in the real world since its first discovery, and will likely remain so for some time to come, and as such, it's easy to relate to.
In a similar vein, although it would be entirely possible to create a wholly unique methodology of time keeping (making a new calendar and naming the days of the week entirely different from what they are now), unless there is a compelling game reason to do this, it should not be done, because again, it's difficult to relate to, and unless it adds something important to game play, it should be glossed over in preference for the months of the year/days of the week we use right now, and this is, in fact, what we're doing.
No good game system works without tension and choice. These two things are the mainstays of all good games, and we need them.
In Candle'Bre, there are three levels of dynamic tension, called Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary, and each level or layer exists for a specific reason.
The Primary Layer
Governs the day to day (or in our case, month to month) operation of the game world, and at the interface level, can be broken into four basic areas:
Military
Diplomacy
Espionage
Economics
There's tension here, as these are designed as diametric opposites to one another, thusly:
Military <--> Diplomacy
Espionage <--> Economics
Now, while the first of these is obvious, the second may not be so, unless one looks at the Espionage function as essentially theft (stealing information or resources) vs. the Economic approach of building such resources through dint of hard, honest work. At that point, the polarization between the two points becomes clear.
Every variable that makes up these four elements is at the very bedrock of the game. From the economic model, for example, we get rules that govern province population growth, tax rates, goods produced, etc. And these are the "physics of money" that guide the development of the realm.
Similarly, rules exist in the other three areas that provide the same basic function.
The Secondary Layer
Because this seeks to model a human system, however, it is important to do more than just create a kind of "game world physics." We must also seek to incorporate values into the system that mimic values and struggles between conflicting values in the real world. In Candle'Bre, this is done through four additional dimetric opposites, thusly:
Faith
Magic
Honor
Infamy
or
Faith <--> Magic
Honor <--> Infamy
To put these in more easily accessible terminology, the Faith-Magic range essentially describes the very real, and often catty agitation between staunchly conservative thinking and free wheeling liberal mindedness, while the Honor-Infamy range describes the tendencies toward good and evil.
Unlike the Primary level, which are essentially the primal, Elemental Forces that make and bind the game together, the Secondary level is driven by, guided by, and informed by player interaction WITH the base-level systems, and it is possible to have essentially five combinations of interaction with those base level systems:
Conservative & Good
Conservative & Evil
Liberal & Good
Liberal & Evil
Largely Neutral
And of course, these systems are (or need to be) complex enough that there is an enormous range of variability both between and within any of these positions (witness the four elemental schools of magic and the artificer school, for example), and the variety of diplomatic, espionage, and military options that become available only as you move down either the honorable or infamous paths).
The Tertiary Level
Finally, there needs to be a system in place to describe the evolutionary process.
Often, evolution hums along quietly, along wholly predictable paths, and this is as it should be.
Sometimes, however, there is a radical evolutionary leap which creates a wholly unexpected, brand new variable.
The evolutionary process may be guided in small ways, but may not be predicted with any real sense of reliability, and this is modelled in the game system via the Acts of Fate. You may modify your chances of seeing certain kinds of events by your own actions, but you can never say for certain that your actions will have the desired effect every time.
Also, the more radical kind of evolution is modelled here, at the Tertiary Level, in the Acts of Fate engine, by allowing for ideas and events that expand the whole scope of the game, introducing entirely new variables that can dramatically change the equation in unpredictable ways.
These must be balanced to a degree, but by and large, the balancing can be (and should be) accomplished in indirect ways, rather than with a heavy hand.
That is to say that it's not "unfair" to allow a player to have evolutionary (radical, mutated) access to some uber-combat unit, if all players have access to direct damage means of eliminating combat units in general (ie, yes, you might be able to summon a powerful demon to fight your enemies, and said creature is ten times better than any army unit your opponent has, but if he can still be killed by the Lightning Storm spell held by your opponent, then it's not unbalancing, or doesn't need to be).
This then, is what drives and extends the system, and the good thing about this structure, is that it is infinitely expandable.
New event series may be added at any time, and old ones culled out and retired as the game progresses and expands.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ouch!
|
|
Australia
Jul 2001
time: 15:24
|
|
Vel,
I agree with the design principles laid out in the introduction there. I don't agree that it is hard to create a complex system, its more that its hard to create a complex system with a simple interface.
When you have a complex system with a simple interface, you have the classic "easy to learn hard to master" type of game.
The breakdown of the elements is interesting. I notice that The tech tree does not get a mention at all (although you could argue that this is part of economics). This could suggest that the tech tree is redundant and the game would be just as well without techs.
If it was categorized, the tech tree would come under the tertiary layer as it represents evolutionary changes to the way the game is played. This makes the tech tree seem like a predictable form of the fate engine.
What do you see as the purpose of the tech tree?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
What about Tech tree vs Acts of Fate?
Rely on known, planned strategy (get techs to reach a known goal) or hope/engourage fate to give you a random advantage you could use to win the game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
Ahhh! An excellent, and astute observation!
That gets me thinking about something else, too....
There are essentially two KINDS of gamers, the classical and the romantic.
Classical gamers generally proceed from the notion of maximizing your gains. These are the folks who enjoy optimalization and pure strategy. Calculating the gains for each possible outcome and making the most of them.
They're methodical and thorough, often in the extreme, and for these folks, the tech trees represent the best, most cherished methodology of seeing advancement, because of its predictability.
The romantics, on the other hand, love oddball options that MIGHT radically alter the flavor of the game, but also might burn your arse (such things as, say in a space game, the ability to work your engines at 150% capacity for a short time, with the chance of completely overpowering/outrunning your opponent, or blowing yourself into millions of tiny bits....your classical gamer would scoff at such tactics, and generally take a dim view of them, while your romantic gamer would be thrilled that such options existed at all, and take great delight in experimenting with them).
I think our predictave tech trees can be compared in a similar vein to the acts of fate.
Outstanding observation, LD!
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
I am beginning the arduous process of outlining all the variables for the event/spell editor, how they work, and what you can do with them. My hope is that this will help our soon-to-be-arriving programmer design a functioning editor, so that while he's doing the code thing, I can set about creating the various events that will be included in the game.
If it works out according to plan, then this editor will likely be the first thing that is released from Team Candy, and will be made available here, for download, so that anyone who's interested can also make events and spells.
So...all that to say, if you'd like a voice in helping to determine the shape and direction of YOUR editor, feel free to drop in at the "Prep Work" thread and voice an opinion!
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999
time: 02:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
There are essentially two KINDS of gamers, the classical and the romantic.
Classical gamers generally proceed from the notion of maximizing your gains. These are the folks who enjoy optimalization and pure strategy. Calculating the gains for each possible outcome and making the most of them.
They're methodical and thorough, often in the extreme, and for these folks, the tech trees represent the best, most cherished methodology of seeing advancement, because of its predictability.
The romantics, on the other hand, love oddball options that MIGHT radically alter the flavor of the game, but also might burn your arse (such things as, say in a space game, the ability to work your engines at 150% capacity for a short time, with the chance of completely overpowering/outrunning your opponent, or blowing yourself into millions of tiny bits....your classical gamer would scoff at such tactics, and generally take a dim view of them, while your romantic gamer would be thrilled that such options existed at all, and take great delight in experimenting with them).
-=Vel=- |
Interesting observation, Vel. I'd say I'm more of a romantic gamer myself. I like these kinds of challenges and options.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
yeah i keep seeing stuff getting posted, then finding i can't read it here
The screenie looks good
On the classic and romantic gamer thing, i think that is a realistic division of gamers.
I think that one of the reasons i like CTP(1 or 2), is because it has a dose of the 'romantic' about it, compared to Civ for example.
See if you can work out exactly how much production your going to get from your city squares with any given population
In Civ you just needed to count your sheathes of wheat, and each resource had an exact count. In CTP that info isn't easy to find.
And i expect this might be in part why many Civ gamers just dont get CTP?
I, like Alex, would tend to be a 'Romantic' gamer. Its the role play/story/imagination part of gaming that keeps me most interested, still i like my romantic notions to have some semblence of reality.
A great game i like to reccomend people is 'King of Dragon Pass' http://www.a-sharp.com/kodp/ - its been beutifully made and everything; just for me its too much in the 'romantic' gamer mode.
It can get frustrating because of this, sometimes you just have no idea what your decisions are going to do, untill they blow up in your face and its difficult to get back to a winning situation.
So its a fine balance to find imho.
Last edited by child of Thor on 10-05-2005 at 14:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
I'll check that game out! And definitely agree....a balance MUST be struck, because most players DO want a sense of continuity and to feel like they have a pretty good grasp about what's going on (ie - you KNOW in CTP2 that, even tho you can't re-create the bizzare formula that GIVES you production, you know you've got some, and can clearly see how much, AND what your other decisions (allocating entertainers, farmers, etc, have on what you've got). Too much romanticism might create a situation where one turn you have some set amount of production, and the next, you don't have any....cities produce....mummy wrap, or something equally strange-but-usable in-game, and you're sitting there thinking.....whaaaaaat?
Ya....played me some games like that....a little too gnomic for my liking (which is an interesting game *theory* but too far from the mainstream to work for a mass audience, IMO).
Anyways....I just didn't want you guys to think we were in the midst of some big flame war or something....just a LOT of really steady progress of late, and solving some vexing technical issues....good stuff...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2004 06:56
........ 
......... 
Attachment: 
|
