|
DeepO

|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002 time: 06:22
|
|
Interesting article indeed, however it is very hard to design a game to avoid slippery slopes. I hope that because of our balancing, we do anticipate this to a certain extend, however we do not want to get into the situation that Civ III is in: in here corruption is the mechanism to prevent players from growing too large, and while the initial releases were best in avoiding slippery slopes, they were also the least fun too play: from a certain point on corruption was so bad that winning by overproduction was not possible. So no corruption in CB, we are designing other mechanisms...
Another point to note: we are doing all we can to avoid rushing, and this has proven to be harder then it looks. This is one of the things that can break a game: in Starcraft (to relate back to the article) rushing in MP was everything: if you don't rush, you know you're toast. In CB this will not be the case, as to each advantage you get, there is a disadvantage. Things we were discussing the past few weeks to avoid this is that for every troop you train, your people get less loyal to you, thus increasing the chances of unrest on the homefront. If you focus solely on rushing, you will suffer in other domains, thus giving the enemy the chance of recuperating.
Last point here are the fate cards, which can turn the game around instantly. Positive fate cards are being designed that they advantage the smaller factions more, while negative fate cards hit the large factions harder. Another tricky thing to balance, but in general it should lead to a more balanced game, in which comebacks are more likely.
DeepO
|