 |
| |
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
Just in case you miss the reference, "Everybody Plays" was one of Sid's rules for making a great game. As I understand it the rule stipulates that Everyone on the team: coders, artists, designers, even management, plays the evolving game and gives feedback. The goal is to ensure that everyone is experiencing and Thinking About the big picture, and also experiencing and reporting any bad GUI features etc. Before its too late.
Its one of our stated goals to be doing things the Everybody Plays way. Not only within the team, but also with as many outsider opinions as possible giving input into the design and refinement process. That's IMO a good way to avoid "Small Game Company Syndrome" where everyone in the small design group thinks everything is great... until the game is released, and the public tells them it Sucks!
Everybody Plays is Not happening as far as I can tell. Axi is the only person who has given significant feedback on demo 6!  The coders have some excuse, since as part of routine coding they fire up the game, play it, and give suggestions (usually by email). Although I'd even like to see some of those discussions up in the D6 thread just so everyone can see them.
I would like to Strongly encourage Everyone on the team to get Demo 6 running, and put it through its paces. 
Then Please say what you think, both good and bad. It doesn't have to be that detailed. We know many things are going to change in a lot of areas as Clash evolves. Many of your comments will be only logged in the Small Features List for future action. But we need to know Important things ASAP!
"Does the simultaneous movement system basically work for you in terms of fun?"
"Does the low-micromangement more-realistic economics system seem like it'll be fun, or does it not give enough contact between the player and the econ aspects of the game?"
If we know something is Awful with good lead time, we can work around it! If everyone says feature X is Great, we can stop worrying about it.... As a project we need to Know these things. The sooner the better. This is something Important to the future of the project that should take a few hours or less for you to do.
I am leaning toward demo evaluation as being a requirement for remaining a team member in good standing. I believe its That important. Does anyone consider that out of line?
I am also very disappointed with the lack of external interest in the demos. I think the demos show our progress, and that we're just not blowin' smoke. Sure, things don't look sexy at the moment, but I was sure that when we got to this stage, there would be many people who were willing to look beyond that and run the game through its paces. I certainly hope that as a few more of our breakthrough features come out, in the next few demos, that outside interest will increase. Any opinions on how to improve things in this area are Very welcome! Those of you who haven't tried the demo yet can help in this area by saying why you haven't.
Keep up all the good work everyone!
Best Regards,
Mark
|
|
| |
|
|
|
axi
|
 |
Athens Greece
Sep 1999
time: 07:17
|
|
The fact that I gave detailed feedback doesn't mean that I've played much the game itself but rather that I've played with the program and the stuff one can do with it. It also hints to the fact that since I'm worthless for anything else, I should do some playtesting at least.
The game has currently very little playability which means that noone is going to spend enough time with it, until we really add a couple of the X's of the "4X" recipe: "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate" (to quote another cheesy game industry motto ). IMHO demo 4 has been more of a game than demos 5 and 6 and back then it had made quite an impact in the community (it got me hooked into Clash, at least) and, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it was probably a bad choice to have an "empty" map in the new demo.
In subsequent demos, such basic functionalities have to be added:
- Exploration we have already, but "full" map scenarios will probably have us reevaluate the way knowledge of the world is given to the player.
- Expansion, not only by conquest, but also by cultural assimilation (or combination of the two) and by colonisation of new lands.
- Exploitation of the owned tiles, not just static as of now, but dynamic, in the sense of "building something" out of your owned tiles, by accumulation of infrastructure and the betterment of technology.
- Extermination or suppression of challenging internal and external foes.
And of course:
- Capability of saving and editing a game/scenario.
- Map and scenario generation.
This is what will make Clash into a game. So let's keep adding stuff which are already planned in detail. To the team I will just say: heads up! Clash is now in a much much better shape than it was a few months ago.
Clash is very old as a concept, but still young as a game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
colorrr
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by axi
Until now, Clash design has focused on realism, reducing micromanagement, innovative features and flexiblity and is planning to to pay extra attention to the AI. Clash is lagging behind so far in gameplay and interface(graphics, sound, etc), of which the first is really important. We still have no exact idea how the gameplay will be. I'm afraid that we're leaving the player with too few and chiefly to "evident" decisions. OTOH, I feel that Clash will inherently deal with the "rich get richer" problem and will be ok with small tweaks. But I think that we will have alot of trouble balancing all those variables in the models. |
I agree with axi here.
Making detailed models is good, but I have a fear Clash is bogging down into too many details. Some of the models are very detailed, and to be frank they confuse me when I read them.
Some threads (social model among others) I avoid getting into as really understanding the models takes a lot of reading and thinking. This improves over time though as I enter more into the project
I suggest things should be kept simpler to make it easier to balance the game. A good thing would be to have a first release which plays good but lacks the amount of detail that have been foreseen. Then later we can add on more details, step by step, always making sure no huge changes are made in the balance.
Jorgen
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plutarck
|
 |
Earth
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
I'm glad I'm not the only one that was kinda getting the same feeling. I thought it might just be because I'm new to the whole thing and not familiar with all the models...
Basically, I was going to propose the same kind of thing.
The problem, as I see it, is the ethos seems to be to go from the complex to the simple. Going from detailed to less detailed.
However, it seems kind of backwards to me. Wouldn't it work better going the other way?
But if absolutely anything, the area my skills lie in is Gameplay. I can tweak it, prod it, poke it, and just generally improve it as well as anyone around (IMHO). I think my work on Civ3 shows that the most, and it's mainly because I like to tweak. Tweak, tweak, tweak. I love playing with the numbers, changing stats and attributes, moving stuff around, getting things just So, based upon my own opinion and user opinions (can't do it fully without that).
Writing the code for determining the placement of resource or making the algorithem to determine their effects, I'm no so good. But deciding what resources get "discovered" when and how, what they do, what they are, and how they fit together with Technology, Units, and Everything Else (and maybe even where they appear)- that's where I excel.
So that's what I'm going to look into and see if I can't figure out. How to make the game really playable, for at least 1 hour straight without having to Try to play it. Sounds like a pretty reasonable goal to me.
What it all comes down to, I think, is just putting together some Really simple implementations. If it weren't so much easier to say than to do...
But it seems to me that Technology would be the key to the first bit of playability. It gives the feeling of actually doing something, of progression.
Rather than have all the different units available, you'd just have the Warrior Band. You'd produce them (producing research points by Doing is a great idea mentioned in the tech model, so the more warriors you produce the better your warriors become, etc) and divert some cash into research (that is, tell your people to try to figure out how to come up with ideas for a better military).
Also, parts of the economy may just need abstracted away for the present time. From the start there are just too many options, and most of the options seem not to matter (why build a warrior band when you have Legions?) when it's best if the options are introduced to the player more gradually (which is stating the obvious, hehe). That, or maybe the problem is I just have absolutely no idea what they mean.
So along with gaining access to new units (and those units actually having known stats...cause I can't really figure out that either. I can find the numbers, but I haven't the foggiest clue as to how they really inter-relate) and being able to have technological progress, the other thing is with actually Settling citys.
I have no idea what model that's under, or if it's planned at all or any time soon, but there needs to be some form of gameplay progress in that way. Because for now the only way to become more powerful is to capture citys, which are all premade.
Nothing wrong with that, but you don't get that nice feeling of really building up your empire like you do with the building-oriented games. Maybe it's a feature of the higher-level aspect, but something must be added in that respect, because you don't get the feeling that a city is really Your city, or that they're really Your people, and you don't feel like You actually built it.
In Age of Empires style games, you don't really feel ownership of anything. If a building gets razed you don't really care, because you just build another one.
But when the barbarians threaten your beloved Rome? They must Pay!
Thus you'd have the keys to success: Grow, Learn, and Conquer.
Fundamentals of the game that will only grow in depth and degree, but are the foundation of a fun game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
|
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
Hi Guys, thanks for the comments!
quote:
Originally posted by axi
Clash is lagging behind so far in gameplay and interface(graphics, sound, etc), of which the first is really important. We still have no exact idea how the gameplay will be. I'm afraid that we're leaving the player with too few and chiefly to "evident" decisions. |
I agree with you, but think we are slowly building in the deficient areas. In terms of decisions being mostly "evident", I think that is a factor of there being only two parts of the game working in D6, military and economy. And economy is more of an enabler of other things rather than economic growth being fun by itself. With only military to use the economy on, it is indeed an easy decision . So we are left with military challenges, which admittedly aren't great. I think decisions will become a bit less clear-cut with D7. The inclusion of govt and tech at even a simple level will help. Only diplomacy and a few more civs need to be added, I feel, to make us have lots more meaningful player decisions in the game. By D8 I think we'll have a good handle on whether the decision space is satisfying enough. I am convinced it will be.
quote:
But I think that we will have alot of trouble balancing all those variables in the models. |
The balancing problem will indeed be worse than a generic game project, but I don't think hugely worse. Part of point in the extra complexity of the models is that their behavior will be Less likely to "run away" and give balance problems. FE in the economics model, because its based on diminishing returns, it can't run away without technological progress. But you may be right in the end, that is just one of those things where only time will tell.
quote:
Originally posted by colorrr
Making detailed models is good, but I have a fear Clash is bogging down into too many details. |
A reasonable criticism... Part of that is due to project history, where we spent too much time on models, and not enough on coding. Largely my fault!  But I feel the distinction to be made is that in a game like civ, understanding many of the model details is critical to success, whereas in Clash it should not be so.
In Civ, because the models have very little to do with things like they happen in the real world, understanding the model is all a player has. Well, that or trial-and-error. Those simple models with bizarre non-linear results have complex secondary consequences of thier own that must be learned to become good. (Good in MP, not vs the AI, anyone can do that) In contrast, the goal in Clash is to have the model results be more realistic so there is less need to understand the models in detail.
That said, we must be ever on our guard to fight off unneeded detail! Since govt and econ, and military, the three most complicated main models already have much of their details coded, I am reluctant to start shutting things off. But I think that in the long run we will have "training" interfaces atop some of the more complex models. So, using govt as an example, the player can just be presented with the choices of Despotism, Monarchy, Theocracy and Republic if they want. Those and a few simple things like negotiating the tax rate should be sufficient. And if even an experienced Clash player wants to stick with the simplified version it should be no problem. Economy is another area Desperately in need of a more streamlined interface.
I will take your words seriously as Diplomacy coding goes forward. We should start there with a very stripped-down approach as you recommend in your comments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
 |
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:17
|
|
The problem with the models is not their complexity or possible lack of playability, but rather the fact that we do not yet have a developed testbed for them. The program is only starting to have some of the program infrastructure, the bread and butter, available for this.
As an example, high on my list of priorities is to provide a means for the player to instruct the program to load a unit onto some kind of sea transport, and unload on arrival.
Off the track a little, at present the only plan is for triremes to transport units. This really irritates me, since it would take something like 250 triremes to transport a single legion, without any support staff or horses or supplies. This is patently ridiculous, and we really need some transport ships. More to the point, we need a little picture of a transport ship. Or maybe this should be abstracted, like the system for trade. On the other hand there are instances in the Punic Wars where troops were lost because the transports were intercepted, so a visible target is a good idea.
Nevertheless, my problem is to design a gui that allows boats to be loaded and unloaded. This is an area where there has been, in essence, no design thought at all. The gui we have has been cobbled on in an ad hoc fashion. Much of it by me in a "lets get the code working" fashion.
So how about making me a good gui design, eh?
Cheers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
|
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plutarck
What it all comes down to, I think, is just putting together some Really simple implementations. If it weren't so much easier to say than to do...
But it seems to me that Technology would be the key to the first bit of playability. It gives the feeling of actually doing something, of progression.
Also, parts of the economy may just need abstracted away for the present time. |
Hi Plutarck:
Well we definitely aren't getting the interest in the demos I was hoping for, and the issue of the initial complexity overwhelming people may well be a big chunk of it... I don't see that because I'm too close to things, and mostly understand all the models. A case of "small gaming company syndrome"
I'm certainly game to look at having a targeted introductory scenario with things stripped down to make it a bit more comprehensible. All the work that Gary has put into the xml initialization files is a good enabler for that. Tech is coming soon... but it's not quite there yet. Maybe a week or two?
I can look a bit at the econ stuff, and see which can be pitched for a stripped-down game. For just the intro scenario we could cut things way back to maybe 10 total items. Perhaps less. Unfortunately Econ isn't set up with the xml yet, and may not be by demo 7. But I can probably rig up a kludge.
Why don't you start an "Introductory scenario" thread, and all those who want to discuss the most important stuff to streamline can join in.
Meanwhile you can look into the limited customization capabilities that the xml files already give, and see what can be done with that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gar
|
|
My demo 6 experiences so far...
5 plays of it, one abbrreviated get some feel trying the small start (third option.) 4 Rome vs. ones. First one I stopped halfway through feeling confused and wanting to read the documentation.
Second one I goofed with stuff on the economics screen never sure where and what effect anything I was changing was doing with much "Dang, I just really want a unit to be made." I got the ROI somewhat from reading, but wasn't sure what its real effect was and when I just wanted some unit produced and the barbarians are at the gates.
Third time I tried not to goof with economics as much, but ran into alot of resource reduction messages and wasn't sure what to do about those, I got a few units to pop out and got crushed. Eventually down to one city and couldn't get any troops to be made there, and the enemy was stocking up many many units on my other two cities.
Fourth time I realized that I didn't seem to get much effect (as in numbers other than 0 to the right of unit % spend) unless my taxes were 9 or 10%. Not sure I understand what I was taxing or why some numbers would go up and others down when I changed tax rates. Eventually I got some different units to pop out and sent them off to battle and explored and conquered and won. About halfway through no more units were popping out and don't know why.
Rather than try to assert my own analysis or suggestions on top of these, I'll leave these my pretty raw experiences here.
Oh yeah, control things that I got frustrated with here and there. When exploring couldn't figure out why sometimes I could go deep into the black areas and others couldn't get anywhere but an adjacent square. I found myself clicking on map stuff alot, not sure why I wasn't selecting a unit.
All in all, pretty cool, lots more I wish to understand with what I was doing, but combat and sense of development and exploration were all present. Definitely left me saying : "More"
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-01-2002 22:37
My main complaint as allready mentioned i think, it's the economy model/menue. It looks very complicated (allthough its really not that difficult), and should be make much more userfriendly. 
Make it more easy to know when the next unit is made/finished.
|