Warlords TBS Series
Spin-off Projects
Home Forum
Welcome,
Guest
|
TOPIC: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #216
Slayer of Cliffracers,
Sure, a tactical mini-game does not "require" a high budget, but ultimately a game has to appeal to the market and if you can't make a substantial game element look awesome and convincing, you are better off staying away from it entirely. You want to enchant the players and keep them enchanted for long enough to become addicted to the core game play. A genuine strategic experience with simple game mechanics without any off-beat mini-games to dispel the magic would accomplish that. Other than that it is the issue of experience when discussing game design and mechanics. To know what you are talking about you need to have plenty of multiplayer experience. It is in multiplayer that the players AND the game are truly put to the test. Singleplayer does not amount to much, and when you write "I have completed the entire campaign so I have plenty of experiance of playing Warlords III" you disqualify yourself. Sure, it is commendable that you have played the campaign but that did not really teach you much about the game. |
|
Last Edit: 13 years ago by Onslaught.
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #220
Slayer of Cliffracers wrote:
There is one principle that I would like every game sequel to follow. It is 'never completely get rid of things once you've introduced them'. Doing otherwise merely alienates a section of the fan-base while those who do want to get rid of things are clearly not angry enough to stop playing the game. I hope you were joking when you made this comment. Otherwise it would mean every sequel would get perpetually more unwieldy / contain unwanted/poor features just because they you couldn't remove anything. The whole idea of a sequel is to *improve* on the original, not to carry forward every feature/idea and add even more bloat to it. Otherwise we'd still have Microsoft Bob in Windows and the annoying Paperclip in MS Office Just look at the Warlords series. Every squeal has added AND removed features. For example Warlords I had boats that you built as units. In Warlords II that was abandoned for automatic unit conversion to boats in an effort to streamline naval movement/combat (for the better). Warlords II had the concept of Vectoring to a special item called your 'standard'. This was abandoned in Warlords III. There are lots of other such features that have come and gone. So there is no particular reason that something can't be removed or automated in Warlords 5 that was under manual control in Warlords IV or III or II or I. KGB |
|
Last Edit: 13 years ago by KGB.
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #245
CliffRacer,
As you can see, building boats was removed from the game in Warlords II. But boats remained. Warlords IV got rid of boats completely, a great loss to the game. True. Warlords II had vectoring to a standard, Warlords III replaced this with vectoring between cities. Warlords IV got rid of vectoring, a great loss to the game. False. Warlords IV has vectoring. Just not vectoring that you like, but it has it. In fact the vectoring in Warlords IV is what many fans wrote Steve to ask for. The reason this is particularly the case is because a good game represents an imaginary reality in a symbolic form. But at the same time nobody wants to know what Mr. Goblinwarrior ate for breakfast at 9.00 am. The trick is to create powerful symbols which express that reality but without creating so many symbols that people get bogged down in the details. You should amend this statement to say a good 'strategic' game. In a tactical game you do care what he had for breakfast. Many players like that type of game which is why Heroes of M&M is popular. KGB |
|
Last Edit: 12 years, 12 months ago by KGB.
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #247
Slayer of Cliffracers,
Multiplayer is a whole different game because human opponents are infinitely more skilled and adaptive than the AI. There is also a psychological element in multiplayer; an element that does not exist at all in singleplayer. Moreover, the AI cheats its way through the game, and by doing so it effectively punctuates the game mechanics. It does not have any other choice because strategic thinking, pattern recognition and psychologial exploits are not part of its toolkit. Human opponents have to play by the rules and the true game will only be revealed when playing against intelligent, experienced players that abide by the same rules as you. Singleplayer is simple: exploit the AI, who always acts in the same way. Multiplayer is complex: exploit the humans, who rarely act in the same way. Singeplayer is much more about exploiting the game than multiplayer. Granted, exploiting bugs tend to play a significant part in multiplayer at high level but it is the same for everyone involved and it does not come close to the exploiting of the AI that takes place in singleplayer. Ultimately, it's the human element you must exploit in multiplayer, and that is what the true game is all about. This brings us to tactics and strategy: Tactical combat, in the shape of a mini-game, is a singleplayer feature. It's something the AI can handle quite well, and consequently it makes the game more interesting for the player who should not really be challenged by the strategic ability of the AI. The game will drag out on time but seeing as you can play when you want and for as long as you want, it's not an issue. Strategic gameplay is a multiplayer feature. The AI can't handle it well, especially not if it would abide by the same rules as you, and the game at large *can* be brought to conclusion relatively quickly. So it's all about what you want. A singleplayer game in the same vein as heroes, disciples or age of wonders or a multiplayer game that players actually play. |
|
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #253
Onslaught wrote:
Multiplayer is a whole different game because human opponents are infinitely more skilled and adaptive than the AI. There is also a psychological element in multiplayer; an element that does not exist at all in singleplayer. Moreover, the AI cheats its way through the game, and by doing so it effectively punctuates the game mechanics. It does not have any other choice because strategic thinking, pattern recognition and psychologial exploits are not part of its toolkit. Human opponents have to play by the rules and the true game will only be revealed when playing against intelligent, experienced players that abide by the same rules as you. Well in Warlords III everyone cheats. Cheating is part of the rules of the game and thus isn't cheating at all. . But in some missions the AI does get so many bonuses that they only way to win is to break the AI. Onslaught wrote: Singleplayer is simple: exploit the AI, who always acts in the same way. Multiplayer is complex: exploit the humans, who rarely act in the same way. Except that in a lot of games played on multiplayer the players simply find flaws in the game balance and exploit it mercilessly to the point that it basically impoverishes the game. Onslaught wrote: Tactical combat, in the shape of a mini-game, is a singleplayer feature. It's something the AI can handle quite well, and consequently it makes the game more interesting for the player who should not really be challenged by the strategic ability of the AI. The game will drag out on time but seeing as you can play when you want and for as long as you want, it's not an issue. Strategic gameplay is a multiplayer feature. The AI can't handle it well, especially not if it would abide by the same rules as you, and the game at large *can* be brought to conclusion relatively quickly. So it's all about what you want. A singleplayer game in the same vein as heroes, disciples or age of wonders or a multiplayer game that players actually play. Not at all. When games have reasonably good AI (like Age of Wonders) and tactical combat of some kind of complexity then tactical combat is always the No.1 weakness of the AI, while strategic combat is it's strength. The complexity of tactical combat in the proper sense (i.e with a map) favours the human player because the AI cannot really react to new developments on the field with a single relentlessly pursued strategy, while on the strategic map this is actually pretty successful if it's the right strategy, but by the time you get to adapt it's too late. You kill the AI at the tactical level, the AI kills you at the strategic level. The AI in fact excels at large-scale strategy because it allows it to use it's lack of consciousness to it's advantage, it can keep track of all it's units and get them to where they are needed. While a human consciousness allows the most efficiant use of a small number of componants, which is tactical combat. |
|
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #256
Giving the AI-controlled side an abundance of resources is one way to make it more challenging, but when I wrote cheating I was referring more to the way the AI gathers intelligence on its opponents. The AI is not constrained by fog of war and things like not being able to see into stacks or cities. It can see everything all the time. Otherwise it would not stand a chance. In the real game, between human players, gathering intelligence constitutes 50% of the gameplay. The AI does not gather intelligence at all, instead it cheats behind the scenes, hence my notion that singleplayer game mechanics are punctuated. The AI would never be able to beat you strategically without cheating behind the scenes. That is, unless you are a complete amateur.
Your notion of multiplayer being ruined by exploiting flaws in the game balance is not a multiplayer issue. It is partly a matter of how well the game company supports the game and keeps it updated but there is another far more fundamental issue at play here: There will always be an imbalance or "flaw" that makes certain ways of playing superior, no matter how the game is designed. After every balance "fix" there will be a new best way of playing. If there was not, how could you ever win a game? Sure, certain imbalances can be severely more "broken" than others but there will always be an imbalance. There is no escaping this. Designing a game with the goal to not have imbalances is not a good way to go. You will just wind up with a boring and watered down product. There needs to be a hierarchy inherent in the game elements. A clear goal to strive for. Proper game design is more a matter of making the poweful stuff less accessible than nerfing it. Also, keep in mind that everything is relative. There can only be power if there is lack of power. Every game needs that contrast. |
|
Last Edit: 13 years ago by Onslaught.
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #263
I can't recall of any game (with exception for chess) where AI could match human player's strategy level.
|
|
Darklords players, you are welcomed here: lastcitadel.ru
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #264
And the reason why the computer is good at chess is because of its pure computational power, not its strategic skill per se. Chess is in fact more of a tactical than strategical game seeing as the board is small and you don't control that many pieces.
|
|
Last Edit: 12 years, 11 months ago by Onslaught.
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 12 years, 11 months ago #330
Slayer Of Cliffraces I share your enthusiasm about Warlords 5. What jolted this interest of yours? I see that they have design and some items being set up but do you know something that I don't?
Are they actually taking suggestions for Warlords 5 or is this just your hoping for it. |
|
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 12 years, 11 months ago #341
Are they actually taking suggestions for Warlords 5 or is this just your hoping for it. It's the latter. Steve has not made any recent remarks about the development of Warlords V. |
|
|
Time to create page: 1.54 seconds