The Internal Balance of the Pyro

Well, first off, I'd like to return a shout-out to Shadowfred - my friend Scott.

His goal is designing or programming games, both if necessary - so he's kind of similar to me, except I'd rather take the programming route into just design.

Anyway, he's working on a game called Jungle Hat Madness 2 - and he'll be updating his blog with progress, so, give it a look: http://shadowfred.blogspot.com/

Anyway, a few people really liked my Undeadables article as it has a more practical display of design philosophy. Rather than me just saying "you should do this" and "a balanced game should have this", it dealt with a real example where I had to solve some issues with an idea I have loved to develop. It was a little tricky though, as, when you hold an idea close to you - it's hard to be critiqued on it, and it's hard to steer it in a different direction to what you had set in mind.

The Internal Balance of the Pyro

Anyway, I want to make another practical post today - as they're always useful as demonstrations, and today's relates to Team Fortress 2 - and the internal balance of the Pyro.

I use the term Internal as I did with Internal Content Redundancy - in the way that it relates to the options given to the Pyro when not in actually actively engaged in gameplay - so it reflects his choice of items, mostly.

The Problem

The Pyro suffers from great Internal Content Redundancy - but, well, first we'll just lay down the basics for the Pyro - so those who don't play Team Fortress 2 can understand.

The Pyro is a close range ambush class, who has above average health (175), with average movement speed (100%).

The Pyro has 6 weapons, 2 Primaries (Flamethrower / Backburner), 2 Secondaries (Shotgun / Flare Gun), 2 Melee (Fire Axe / Axtinguisher).

The Flamethrower has the Airblast ability that can reflect projectiles (mainly rockets), disrupt enemy movement (even if the enemy is invincible in an Ubercharge), and it can extinguish burning teammates. The Backburner - the other Primary that can be chosen, loses the Airblast but gains critical hits when attacking the enemy's back. This is supposed to function primarily as a strong ambush weapon, while losing the utility of the Flamethrower.

The Backburner is widely considered to be inferior to the Flamethrower, and the Fire Axe is considered to be inferior to the Axtinguisher (The Axtinguisher has a strong killing ability and combos really well with the Flamethower's airblast - the Fire Axe has nothing of the sort). The Flamethrower and Axtinguisher are considered balanced - so this is not a matter of nerfing those.

The Backburner is redundant because the trade-off the Pyro makes is unfavourable - he loses defence and support ability for ambush ability - that he unfortunately has great trouble utilising.

I'll put it into perspective - there are 3 specialised ambush classes in Team Fortress 2: The Scout, the Spy, and the Pyro.

The Scout is able to ambush effectively, as his speed allows him to trespass effectively, getting behind key players. His small frame also helps with hiding in wait.

The Spy has the cloak ability, which makes him completely invisible, allowing him to sneak past enemy lines. He also has a slender frame - allowing him to hide around corners more effectively.

Redefining the Problem:

The Pyro doesn't have the speed necessary to function as a Scout, and he of course doesn't have the Spy's cloak - the only thing he does have is his higher health (both Scout and Spy are 125hp classes). This often means that the Backburner Pyro has to battle and push his way through enemies to get around them - which doesn't work as he makes himself known (subsequent ambushes are less likely to succeed), and with his lesser combat ability due to the loss of the Airblast - it often means he dies trying to get around the enemy team.

So he needs a change in his ambushing ability - you can either increase his capacity to push through enemies - or change his style of ambushing from pushing to stealth, or speed-oriented maneuvering.

Now, if you read my post on Content Redundancy - you're likly thinking that we should increase the Pyro's pushing power, so that he doesn't encroach the Spy's stealth or the Scout's speed. The only issue is - Valve saw this issue with the Backburner when they released the Pyro update and included a +50hp buff on it, so the Pyro could survive to get behind the enemy team. This however had the side-effect of making the Pyro too effective in general combat, so rather than ambushing, he ran right up to people instead of flanking. This health was promptly removed as it upset the class balance of the game (this is actually something I'll talk about in another post - conservative balancing).

The Solution:

Anyway, with all this in mind, hopefully we have enough information to create a list of criteria and constraints.

The fix should increase the Pyro's ambush ability, while not doing any of the following:

• The fix should not increase the Pyro's combat ability (as that will lead to a more combative playstyle rather than an ambush focused play style)
• The fix should not be a general buff to the Pyro (it would upset class balance)
• The fix should not heavily affect the Flamethrower or Axtinguisher (They don't need more power, or to be nerfed - more options are good though)
• The fix should directly address the issue of the Pyro's lack of ambush ability.
• The fix should not encroach on other class's roles and special traits.
• The fix should not heavily change the Pyro, his role, or the primary abilities of the weapons at hand.

At this point, I'd like you to try and think of your own fix before reading about mine.

------------------------------------

My Solution:

Okay.

My fix was a little roundabout.

First of all, I thought that the Backburner should have access to a 'mini-blast' of sorts - which is a small burst of air activated by right click (costing maybe 5-10 ammo) that merely extinguishes teammates. This is just so the Backburner can be used for some support - without your allies wanting you to use the Flamethrower so you can extinguish them.

Second, I decided that the best way to increase the Pyro's ambushing ability was to increase his speed. Frankly, as we covered - wading through enemies to ambush them is pointless, and leads to imbalance when you try and increase a class's defensive abilities. Also, we couldn't give the Pyro any amount of cloak, as it would severely encroach on the Spy's role, and it wouldn't fit with the Pyro at all.

But, I'm not saying that I made the Pyro faster all the time. I made him faster not when he was holding the Backburner (that would be a general increase to his combat ability) - but when he was holding the Fire Axe.

This means that, when the Fire Axe is a Pyro's active weapon, he runs somewhat faster (not nearly as fast as a Scout - that would be encroaching) to get around his opponents.

Justification:

You might be asking "But Zanda - isn't this a bad fix as it doesn't fix the Backburner directly - but complicates things by solving the issue through a different item?" - I know I asked myself the very same question.

I decided that there was no real issue with the Backburner itself aside from its lack of utility. Its lack of movement disruption and inability to reflect projectiles can be made up for with the crits from behind. The main issue, however, was the Pyro's lack of movement ability.

So - rather than considering this a fix to the Backburner, I would consider this a fix to the Pyro that arises from the analysis of the failure of the Backburner - that subsequently increases the Backburner's viability in general play.

The other plus side of it being assosciated with the Fire Axe, is that the Fire Axe was considered redundant and now hopefully will not be, but also, Airblast Pyros who would prefer movement ability over their powerful Axtinguish combo may also use it.

You may say that this makes Airblast Pyros more powerful, but truly, it doesn't. As said, they lose the Axtinguisher Combo - but they also don't gain a lot from being faster. The Flamethrower without the Axtinguisher isn't amazing for ambushing, but also, while moving, a Flamethrower Pyro will often hold the Flamethrower so he can airblast projectiles away. Obviously you can't hold both the Flamethrower and Axe out at once, so, there you go.

The final point I need to address is that this doesn't really affect his combat ability, or class balance as he must have a melee weapon as his active weapon to get the speed boost - which is easily beaten by most classes - the main class that would have trouble is likely the Sniper, who shouldn't be in close combat anyway.

Well, truly, as the Backburner is a close range weapon - most classes would think themselves lucky that the Pyro's holding the Axe and not it anyway.

So, feel free to post your solutions, I hope you liked mine - as it's what I have implemented for my TF2 Mod.

The Undeadables

Well, I just want to introduce you to a project that myself and a friend at school (who is also going to the AIE) thought up, called the Undeadables. It's a multiplayer small-squad RTS, in which the players control mafia bosses and their henchmen, as they fight against a zombie apocalypse and amongst themselves.

Anyway, I submitted this idea to the AIE GameFace Competition:http://www.aie.edu.au/gameface/index.php

And was lucky enough to take out first prize.

Also, speaking of the AIE, I start there on the 1st of Feb!

Anyway, here's a link to the video I submitted to the competition:

The video is 2:59 because there was a 3 minute limit. If there weren't it would have gone for a while longer so I could really get into the details - which I may do on this blog.

Feeback:

And, one of the judges (a Game Designer from Big Ant Studios) gave me some feedback:

" I like the idea of a Mafia vs Mafia game, with an environmental factor (the zombies) being unaligned and just nasty across the board.
My main suggestion would be that the zombies are NOT the main enemy. The idea for each mafia team would be to eliminate the other mafia teams to get their all-important territory, and defend themselves against zombies in the meantime, clearing their areas of zombies as they see fit.

Actually using the zombies in your fight could be a great mechanic. Trying to flood an enemy territory with zombies by filling it with zombie attractants could be a good strategy. Maybe some items attract and some repel zombies, and these resources would be hard to get, constantly in threat of being stolen by the other Mafioso, etc.

In shoot-outs, it will be inevitable that Mafioso will have to shoot zombies to defend themselves, which ultimately helps their enemy Mafioso – it’s a passing necessity, not an active act of working together. Again, the zombies would be a shared environmental threat, not the core focus.

I don’t think you should have the mechanic of ‘shoot zombies to earn money to buy upgrades’. It’s an artificial gameplay mechanic that doesn’t fit the theme. Mafioso (in the real world) gain money through killing, stealing, and so on. Work THIS mechanic into the game, if you need a system of money to buy/acquire resources.

What’s the single main objective? Defeat the zombies or defeat the mafia bosses? It’s always highly dangerous to have two goals. Find ONE win criteria, and work around that.

This game ranked first for me, as there’s a game in it. I think it needs reworking and refocussing, but there’s a game here."

There are some places where he hits the nail on the head of what I tried to get across with my video, but didn't quite get there due to the time limit, but, here's my response.

Response:

I agree that you do have to be extremely careful with having multiple goals - such as, defeating the zombies or defeating the mafia. You don't want to overwhelm players, confuse them, etc. For that reason I think I agree with the judge - that eliminating the enemy Mafias should likely be the higher priority goal - as this will have the most PvP-action, and will therefore be the most engaging.

I think, when drawing up the concepts of the game - the main objective was not actually to fight either of them off specifically, but to survive. This insinuates that you could just flee and hide for the duration of the game, so I created obstacles to draw them in - such as the necessity of killing zombies to get upgrades, and killing zombie spawn points to slow their growth.

As I've already mentioned - the zombies solve such a huge amount of issues that would be common in this sort of game, and so it's hard to make them a secondary objective.

Some reasons behind the zombies are:

• They force players into action (as already explained, so players do not just hide until the others die)
• They stop, or at least, postpone relentless deathmatching.
• They provide an eliminated player a second chance to redeem themselves - and make it so they don't just leave as soon as they are eliminated.
• They can be used as a weapon by players. (I like the Designer's idea of attractive items)
• Well, the game actually started as a zombie game - the PvP only came in after. Not really a design call as much of a personal call.

Though, I agree that we must sort out the focusing - such that the player is not overwhelmed.

Ways to do this, could be by making a zombie win condition that is easy to keep down for the most part, challenges players in the early game - especially when it comes to deciding whether to engage another player, while playing a small part in the late game.

As the players attain higher power in the late game, a counter can solve this - where, if the counter reaches (for example) 500 (there are 500 zombies on the map), the zombies automatically win. The growth rate of the zombie army can be adjusted so that players more or less need to spend their early game mostly killing zombies, and, as they grow and take out key zombie spawns, the zombies become far less an issue.

The idea is that at some point, the priority of killing zombies, shifts to being a lower priority than seeking out other players and attempting to injure them. Zombies remain in the game, and a threat - but by the end of the game, you're not being overwhelmed by both Mafias and Zombies.

I also agree that the money system feels a little tacked on. It could likely be largely replaced by a measure of experience (the player does need to attain power) and the foraging system referenced in the video. As experience is a particularly... disbelief suspending mechanic, for this game it could perhaps be replaced by money (merely a change of name) - which, through the leveling up process, attains new skills (which can be referenced as weapon upgrades).

When I think of a Mafia in a comedy game, I think their greed is a major character feature that should be highlighted. Hell, it's why they're all killing each other rather than bunkering up in peace!

Through the adoption of the experience mechanic, with some slight stylisation, we just eliminated the need for a shopping system - while keeping the mechanics needed, and the themes of the game.

Anyway, that's the end of my reflection - and the designer who reviewed my game definitely knows what he's talking about, and through his ideas - I could refine my own.

Being able to use constructive criticism is a valuable trait that designers use to refine their game ideas, and please more people. A lot of games could do with some more of this feedback - as glaring issues (such as multiple objectives) are easily found by others.

Anyway, I'll keep you posted on The Undeadables, and any ideas I have with it.

Thanks

Content Redundancy

I wrote this material on content redundancy while writing the first Game Balance article - but found that it was getting too long and complex - so I am posting this section on Content Redundancy here. I also figure that if I can keep some of these articles shorter, they will be easier to reference.

Content Redunancy:

Content Redundancy is where previously introduced content is rendered useless by other content. There are two main types - Internal content redundancy and External content redundancy.

Internal Content Redundancy may be if your character finds Weapon B, which is better in every single way to his current Weapon A. This is a more so a problem in Shooting games and Action games - where players are more expected to choose between the two weapons comparing the trade-offs. However, Internal Content Redundancy is often totally disregarded in Role Playing Games, as the acquisiton of stronger weapons is consdered a part of the character's progression through the game, and you are expected to get stronger weapons as the game goes on.

Internal Content Redundancy is often considered less harmful than External, however, there can still be significant issues in class-based games, where a class may encroach on another's role such that it is better at that role, or, it may be reasonably good at that role and still great at its own role, such that it's considered a better choice as it can perform both roles well.

To solve this second issue (classes fulfilling too many roles), a significant investment is often added so that the class must choose between roles (such as with Skill Trees in Role Playing Games).

External Content Redundancy is where an external entity renders content useless - such as an enemy being a hard counter to your character - making you unable to continue using him (so you have to switch characters, build your character a particular way, etc.). This is a big problem in most games - you never want to have a player feel as if their character is useless in a given scenario (especially if they have to invest a lot of time into this character) - and you want the player to be able to play as he wishes to play.

External Content Redundancy is often a big problem in multiplayer games - in which players being countered by other players are nullified in play, or are at least weakened enough to cause them to switch characters, and not turn back to the other that they wanted to play.

There are two types of External Content Redundancy, Exclusive Content Redundancy and Complete Content Redundancy.

Exclusive Content Redundancy is a term given to a situation in which a character is countered by another, or several characters - such that it is considered to be a bad choice depending on the popularity of these other characters. The countered character is often played less than others without these counters, as players adapt and decide to favour a different character. Exclusive content redundancy can be troublesome in games with few characters/classes, while it is often overlooked in games with extensive rosters. Typically, Exclusive Content Redundancy affects a smaller percentage of the roster - however, an excessive amount leads to the second type of External Content Redudancy - Complete Content Redundancy.

Complete Content Redundancy is about as bad as it sounds. You do not want this in your game at any cost. It's pretty much when there is a lot of imbalance in the game, so, one character/class comes out the victor.

This character is then universally played by the vast majority of players, as he is the one with the fewest counters, and the largest strengths. You find that in most games, the matchups are simply Character X vs. Character X - or 'mirror-matchups'.

Your game then becomes really stale, really quick. It's very dangerous.

A notable case in this issue is Super Smash Bros. Brawl - which, despite its advertised particular focus on balance, has a notable Complete Content Redundancy with the character Metaknight, who, as far as I know, is on the verge of being banned (if not already) as recent tournaments have been over 50% Metaknight players.

Conclusion

Content redundancy is bad in most cases - and so Game Developers try to avoid it in most scenarios. As said, there are exceptions.

Most internal content redundancy is solved by mere balancing - if a weapon is too much better, nerf it, or buff the other. If a class encroaches on another's role, you can nerf it, or buff the other. If you wish, you can solve it through making the encroacher choose between being as effective at the other's role while sacrificing their own, or being effective at their own while sacrificing the others.

Exclusive redundancy can be really tricky, as if you nerf a character so he does not counter another so well, he may be countered by others. You need to get a really good look at the entire roster's relationship with each character, and decide where to go from there. Buffs and nerfs can be managed - though it is often rather difficult.

Complete Content Redundancy is either really easy to fix, or really hard. If the single character is the cause - he can be nerfed in whatever way is deemed most necessary. If the other characters all have large flaws however, you may be in a position where you need to consider a large scale balance revamp.

Thanks.

What is Game Balance?

Well, it's been a while since I've updated - but this is not as much because I'm lazy (for once), but because this post has been haunting me. It has been exceptionally hard to write and I've restarted it about 20 times, so I'm just going to get through it and see how I can create it in such a way that I can talk about different aspects of game balance later on.

The Reality of Game Balance

Frankly guys, the topic of Game Balance is huge - as it covers and affects pretty much EVERY aspect of the game, from your character, to the difficulty of levels, to the game time per round, to... everything. Further, every single type of game has its own balance concerns - some derived from genre, some from the number of players, others purely from the individual systems in the game.

Then, consider that both players and developers tear their hair about balance - and you've got a pretty tough safe to crack.

Did I mention it's also difficult at times? Though, it is probably the most rewarding thing to get right. Balancing a weapon or character well - making it fun to use and powerful, while not being too powerful makes you feel great.

Definition:

Game balance is often defined as a state of the game where players have multiple options or routes, where most or all of these options are about equally effective or feasible. (Copied pretty much word for word from Wikipedia - as in general, this definition of balance is as succinct as you can get it.)

Good balance is essential - as the benefits are a fun, balanced (err...) game, while bad balance creates issues surrounding content redundancy and a lack of options that makes the game far less fun for some/most/all players.

I won't lie to you though - the rewards of good balance aren't exactly as notable as the punishment for bad balance for the most part. A well balanced game will generally receive responses such as "Oh, that game's pretty balanced", but bad balance will ruin your game. You game is often reviewed on its other merits as good balance is expected, but good balance is needed as a prevention measure.

Often, you will also find that good balance goes unnoticed by most - as the game feels intuitive and no issues are encountered.

The Results of Bad Balance

As said, the main issues related with bad balance are content redundancy, and the removal of options.

Content Redundancy is where previously introduced content is rendered useless by other content. This limits players greatly in terms of what content they can/will choose to use, and effectively wastes the time of the developers who implemented the useless content

Content Redundancy is mainly caused by:

• Some characters being too strong
• Others being too weak
• Hard counters
• Role-intrusion in class-based games.

[[I originally had a huge section on the different types of content redundancy, but I will post that right after this post]]

The Removal of Options is something that you never want to do to players. You never want to force them into a certain playstyle, or force them to use X weapon, etc. - you want to merely direct them. Well, to clarify, if something is considered outside the rules or limits of the game, you don't want players to be trespassing, but - when it comes to options that you give them, you don't want to force them down a single path. First off, the removal of options is very closely linked to Content Redundancy - why make a fork in the road when only one option is viable?

Second, you want the player to feel in control, and you want them to be able to control the game in their own way, when given choices by you. Basically, you don't want to give the player an option and have it severely deficit them later.

Just remember - the idea of the game is to be fun for the player, not to control them.

Strategies for Game Balance

Now, let's look at some strategies to set up game balance, and then some strategies to maintain it.

I plan to write an entire article on setting up game balance, but I'll just briefly lay it out here.

Good strategies when setting up game balance:

• Use tried and tested game formulae, enemy stats, hero stats, etc. Don't be afraid to partially base your balance on another game's balance.
• Create a quick prototype.
• Consider a life as a basic character (basic hp, speed, weapons) - how they would progress through a level or game.
• Create the most basic character first - for example, make them run at the most basic speed (units per second depends on the game engine), give them 100 health (if your health is going to be base 100), then give them a standard sword, pistol, whatever. Base other characters off this template. You don't have to use this guy in your game, but he can just be for initial testing
• Count attacks. Counting attacks if a strategy used in many multiplayer games, such as saying "Class X should kill Class Y in a minimum of 4 shots from this weapon".

These won't create the balance for you, but will make balancing a lot easier.

Maintaining balance is a matter of basic, logical problem solving. I iterated the necessity of logical problem solving in my last post, but, well, get used to it - as you'll be seeing a lot of it.

If you find imbalance in your game,

1. Evaluate the problem
2. Simplify the problem.
3. Consider possible solutions.
4. Pick the most basic solution, that effectively solves the problem without creating others.
5. Implement solution
6. Test solution.

That's the full process - but the main steps really are 'Simplify the problem' and 'Pick the most basic solution'.

It should be obvious that if you don't simplify the problem to its core elements - and core problems, you cannot effectively solve it, while if you choose a solution that is not simple, does not effectively solve the problem, or creates new ones - you're... just making more problems.

So - I've gone over what balance is, why you need balance, and some balancing strategies.

I aim to perhaps create a list of balance concerns for each genre and style of game, but for now - I'm happy to stop here.

Thanks for reading.

Modding TF2 weapons.

Well, I am proud to announce my newest, and, likely, my first modding project. I said in my first post that I really wanted to get into it, and well, now I have - and, what better to mod than a game I have been playing for the entirety of its lifespan, at a large variety of skill levels, exploring every single piece of content possible. I think I'm only more qualified to make a Pokemon game.

Most people who make their own weapons in TF2 do so to see how crazy they can make it (such as machine guns shooting 4 rockets a second), or, to test out unlock ideas that they had envisioned in the past (though, with our limited set of possible modifications, most are very impossible.).

My Aim:

I skipped the first motive - as, well, the crazy game modes and etc. have never interested me - I can see why some would love randomness and having everyone shooting shotguns that shoot rockets that drop plasma grenades, but, as I mainly play games to analyse them, figure out the maths behind them, and the developer's motives - the off-the-wall modes don't interest me. I'm interested in the balance and the designs - others are into the action.

That's not to say I don't like my share of fast paced gaming, but, generally when I play my mind is elsewhere.

I started modifying weapons, and making my own for reason 2, to test out some of my ideas (luckily, most of my ideas were very basic ones that had already seen similar systems in the game, such as life steal and slowing - not to say that they are boring to use, but, they're intended to be balanced and useful, rather than different and situational), and for a third reason - I want to try and balance out some weapons and classes myself. I have a lot of fun playing with pre-existing balance, so this is perfect.

Progress:

First off, I made two weapons that Valve has had in the works for some time now - the Heavy's Gloves of Running Urgently (GRU), that are supposed to counter the Heavy's poor mobility even when outside battle, at the cost of a constant health drain. I like these a lot because they are extremely well thought out, and they don't change game balance when fighting too much. The Heavy merely doesn't take 3 minutes to get to the battlefield anymore. An interesting part of the weapon is the health drain, as, this makes the Heavy a great Medic buddy when running to the battle field, further strengthening their synergy. If Valve made all unlock like this one, I would be in paradise.

The other Valve designed weapon is the Engineer's P.D.Q. - it's a wrench that builds buildinggs much much faster (+150% speed... making a sentry go up in 4 seconds), but, it cannot upgrade the buildings it makes at all.

This build likely sets up a quick teleporter and dispenser, having other engis upgrade them, while the Engineer sets up offensive, dispensable sentries around the place to hinder the enemy as much as possible.

I love the offensive Engineer style, so I really hope this one makes it into the next update. Likewise, if Valve made all of their unlocks like this, heaven.

After these, I started making my own weapons.

First off, was a Syringe Gun for the Medic that builds uber with each hit. The tradeoffs are that it fires far slower (otherwise it would build an uber every 2 minutes just with random spam), it deals very little damage (it's much harder to defend yourself), and, it totally nullifies the Medic's natural health regen.

This highlights the risk vs. reward nature of the Medic - you can take the Blutsauger or Syringe Gun that have better survivability - or you can go for the gun that, with some use, will get you those last few drops of Uber, but, if you're caught in a bad situation, can't help you.

I also made the weapon less powerful in combat so that there are no big issues with Battle Medics trying to gun down the enemy team for an uber, rather than heal.

The 2nd change I made was to the Pyro's Fire Axe. It is currently underused in play, due to the strength of the Axtinguisher - so I added 14.5% movement speed to it when drawn. This aims primarily to solve the poor movement issues of the Pyro, which keep him out of competitive play (not that this unlock will make him viable) - but also, to make the Fire Axe a good choice.

This pure buff is balanced by the fact that the Pyro must be holding his Melee (sacrificing most offensive power) to get the buff, meaning that like the GRU, it will not affect combat too much. It may be harder to run from him, but, with the Airblast, and his average running speed, chances are you weren't really going to without killing him anyway. The melee makes it easier to kill him.

Still, I may nerf this if necessary after further thought.

The final unlock I made today was an additional Pistol for the Scout. This Pistol has a 66% chance of slowing the enemy, but gives up 25% of its damage, and fires slower as the trade-off. This makes the Pistol ideal for catching up to someone, but less amazing in combat situations.

I thought up this unlock because I was not satisfied with the Bonk Drink that the Scout got for his update.

I wanted the Scout to get an unlock that slowed the enemy, as the Scout is the optimal class to take advantage of it. The Scout can catch up to an enemy, and, as his weapons are effective in close range - he can deal a lot of damage through this. The slowing effect also compliments the annoying nature of the Scout, which Valve tried to capture in his update with the Stuns and Knockback.

By contrast, the original slowing weapon was given to the Heavy, who, while he needs to keep his enemies close to him, is in much less a position to take advantage of the trait.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to using this one if I ever get the chance - I think it'll be useful and a lot of fun.

Anyway, I'm off to bed, just thought I'd type up the report.

I have a few more ideas to make before work tomorrow - wish me luck.

Goodnight,

Game Design is like...

Well, forgive me guys - I meant to get this blog post done... about 3 days ago - but I wasn't really in the mood to type. I need inspiration, and I didn't really have anyway.

I have some now though, after a quick trip to the shops to get cereal ended up with me coming home with 2 video games (as you do...). I was pretty anxious about it then, as I don't like to buy on impulse, but I'm glad I did. I came home with Zack and Wiki: The Quest for Barbaros' Treasure. I paid $50 for it, but after playing for 20 mins, I think I would have paid $300 for it if necessary. Great game.

Anyway, I want to lay down the basics on my views of Game Design. I will warn you however, my views are idealistic - to put it in one word. I know that not every game will be perfect - but I strive for perfection when I'm thinking of game ideas, or mechanics, or even patches for pre-existing games.

Game Design is like...

Game Design is like a cube made of pure glass.

It's substance is all clear and consistent - if you look at the core design, you can see right through and view how the entire outside comes together.

On the outside, you have clearly defined faces, edges and corners. There aren't any imperfections, there aren't any jutting out pieces, or chunks missing.

There are a limited number of clearly defined faces, rather than a sphere, that has an infinite amount of indistinguishable facets.

When the game is created, the cube is gift wrapped - it's all pretty, but the inside contents are hidden. People observing the final product can't see all the inner workings, they can't see your intentions, your underlying principles, and why you made it like it is - but they can still clearly see, and touch the faces, edges and corners.

The Criteria for a Game Design

Sorry for the metaphor, but when I think of game design, this is what I think of.

As I said, it's idealistic. A game design should be consistent the whole way through (pure glass), and you should be able to understand the majority of the design by seeing the main structure (gift wrapping hides the inner workings, but players still need to be able to understand the game ideas), and you should understand all the inner mechanics if the developer explains it to you, or shows you the inner workings (transparency).

Designs should also be effective. To put it bluntly, if your design doesn't solve a problem, or meet its intended purpose - it's not worth a damn. This is quite obvious for a patch to a game that is experiencing balance issues ("Does it balance out that overpowered weapon? Yes. Done."), but a total game idea still has to have a purpose. You might have a market driven purpose ("There aren't enough games with Zombies being killed by trigger happy Plants"), experimentally driven ("Let's see what this new game engine is capable of"), or personally driven ("I want to make this"). Make sure there's a purpose.

Fixes and Solutions

If you're making a fix, a good guideline to ensuring that your design is effective is stating the problem - isolating the faulty parameter, then creating a fix to solve the problem, addressing the parameter.

For example, "The new weapon is too powerful" is too bland. Try something like "The new weapon deals too much damage".

At this point, you can make progress - by nerfing its damage.

"The new weapon is too powerful" can mean many things, such as "The new weapon deals too much damage", "The new weapon infringes on that character's main role", "The new weapon counters this character too well", etc.

The best way to do it is by saying:

• What is the problem?
• Can this problem be attributed to a particular aspect of the current design?
• With reference to the problem, and the aspects listed above, here is the simplest, most effective solution.

Make sure to follow these steps when designing anything.

Clean Structure

Similarly, the structure of the design and its contents should be solid, and perfectly shaped - with no random modules added on, and no mechanics missing.

There is nothing worse than having a game where you think "Ugh, if only it had", or, having a game that is all consistent, until you reach a random snag that seems tacked on to fix a major issue without any real thought (such as, if all of your characters had 6 stats, but then one had 9 due to design issues with that character). These seemingly random additions or missing parts just confuse the player, and make the core gameplay convoluted. You want to have everything as clear as glass when you're making your game.

[[ Just a post-publishing note here, this section on tacking on random systems is not trying to persuade you to avoid adding new systems to your games - such as lifesteal on a new weapon, or a new attack modifier, etc. If you want to add something new - by all means do it. The point above is more-so a caution when fixing issues - rather than adding new content.]]

Convolution is represented through the contrast of the cube to a sphere. You might think that a Sphere would be amazing to experience as a game - many players, and early designers say that they want a game that has infinite possibilities - a true sandbox game in which the player isn't forced into anything, and they make their own destiny. I won't lie - I had grand aspirations of this, until a designer once told me that games are all about rules and direction. Games need to be clearly defined and contained, otherwise the player will either be overwhelmed, or they will cut corners to the content they bought the game for, then get sick of the game and don't experience the other 99% .

You want your game to have clear rules, with clear goals - and you want to direct your player to these. Note that I say direct rather than force. I love sandboxes just like everyone else - but you still need rules. Take for example, the game Prototype - it is very sandboxy, you can explore, kill people, fly - but, in order to reach the stage where you have all of your powers, you need to do story missions throughout the game world.

Presentation

The final idea I want to get across is the metaphor of gift-wrapping. You want your game to be clear to the players, you want them to quickly pick up things such as what the game is about, what directions you can take your character in, how you proceed through the game, how the game is played, etc. - but you don't want to show off all the inner workings if the player doesn't want to see them. For example, when a player is playing, you don't want them saying "Oh, the choice of weapons in this game is limited in the range spectrum, so I am expected to get up close and personal" - you want them subconsciously working it out and doing just that, and having a ball.

Similarly, you don't want them saying "The art direction in this game makes heavy use of silhouetting so I can distinguish my enemies from a distance" - you want them saying "Nice graphics", and distinguishing enemies without much thought.

That's not to say you should hide your intentions - I think some of the best leaps and bounds in terms of the developers giving their thoughts and insight to the players comes from Team Fortress 2 and Valve - who, in Single Player mode, have maps with little audio clips that tell you the reasons behind the various aspects of the game. I loved listening to them, and it really drew me into the game. Another example was the Warhammer Online podcasts. I didn't buy the game, I've never played it, but I'm subscribed to their podcast channel.

Conclusion

So really, imagine that the design you're trying to create, whether it is a fix for a bad weapon in your favourite multiplayer game, an entire patch for a game, a large mod for a game, or even an entire game idea in itself - make it as simple, effective, pure, and perfect as possible.

If you're having trouble with an aspect of the design, and you think you're going to have to add a convoluted feature - sleep on it for a few nights, and a better solution will pop into your head.

The reason for my idealism is not because I'm ignorant of the true nature of game design (well, I hope not...), it's because for every problem I've faced, and for every design I have created, I have found a neatly contained, but absolutely effective fix. It hasn't always come to me at the speed of light, and I have had sleepless nights going trough every possible idea that could fix the problem - and hell, sometimes I am totally shut down, and I only get it right when someone else spells out half of it for me - but there's always an elegant, well integrated solution.

Strive for perfection, but not just that.

Strive for

• Consistency
• Clarity
• Simplicity
• Effectiveness
• Efficiency
• Logical problem solving
• Direction
• Communication

Thanks,

Goodnight.

Woorrrk

Okay, I've been trying to get in an update, but I've worked the past 4 days in a row.

And...

All the time I've spent away from work has been sleeping or watching Dexter.

Good thing however, I just finished watching all the Dexter accessible to me, and I am off work for 3 days after tonight.

I know I planned to jump right into what I would call more advanced, or derived balance discussions - such as the nature of balance and such - though, I feel that I need to lay out the groundwork first. I don't want to be talking about X or Y, and leaving giant holes where I use a term that I've made up to describe a feature of the design.

I also want to just lay out the basics of what I have done in the past - this is just so I can refer to them and perhaps give updates with regards to various projects I have undertaken.

Anyway, I will update tomorrow with *something*,

Zanda