Clo Prototype is finished!

Hey guys, remember that not-very-fun Clo prototype?

Well, we spiced it up a bit!

Play it here:

There are 3 resolutions to choose from, you'll need the Unity player.

http://edibleweapon.wordpress.com/protoypes/

I am the Lead Designer from this project - most notably, I designed a couple of the levels and mechanics, as well as making design decisions (or at least bringing them to the attention of the group. I like to make sure everyone has their input.)

As we develop the game (now that we're done prototyping), I will be designing far more levels, and hopefully bringing some more mechanics to the table - to ensure that the gameplay experience is exciting, and frankly amazing.

Have fun! I hope you like it!

If you've been wondering where I've been...

That explains it,

Been doing lots of work on Pokemon Universe!

I will make a real blog post soon!

Quick Update

Well, life has exploded.

I am at college 3 days a week, and I work a day a week, leaving me 3 me-days.

On my me-days, I work on balancing Pokemon for Pokemon Universe when my Balance Team is on IRC, I work on The Undeadables (more about that in the next paragraph!), and I write for this blog.

I have also started playtesting for a local company called Convict Interactive, but I can't give out information due to the NDA. Exciting stuff from them, anyway. Visit their site: http://cg.stephenbarnes.net/

Sooo I'm busy with all the design and game-related stuff, but I love it. I've always liked designing games more than playing them - and well, I'm not missing gaming too much.

But yes - The Undeadables is in production as a Warcraft 3 map. It just myself and my friend Alex Hewitt (who made 3D images for the Undeadables video), but we're going okay. We started development on Friday - and we've already hit a couple of snags to do with subterfuge vs. in-game communication, but Alex's knowledge of the Warcraft 3 engine is driving the project. We will likely be working on the game once a week. So, there will be some updates on how we're setting up the balance and sorting out issues in that project.

Anyway, I have 4-5 blog posts planned:

• Pacing (a theoretical post)
• Balance Concerns Across Different Genres (I promised this one a while back)
• Canon vs. Gameplay (the problems with games and their pre-existing universe)
• Setting Up Balance (in depth strategies to starting a balanced game)
• Conservative Game Balancing (how to ensure minimal effects on the entire game when balancing a particular unit)

Pacing is just one I find fun, and Setting Up Balance has a lot to do with The Undeadables - as myself and Alex are trying to find magic balance numbers from scratch.

Conservative Game Balancing and Canon vs. Gameplay are both very much to do with Pokemon Universe. In that project, myself and the other Balance Team member (Gammal) have to isolate problems in Pokemon, so only that Pokemon is affected. We are trying to be as conservative as possible, to ensure we don't cause larger problems in the game.

Canon vs. Gameplay is an issue I've found in the project, as, many members do not want the Pokemon to change at all, as it will interfere with existing canon. As a firm believer of Gameplay > Canon, I will be listing reasons pertaining to why you should try to preserve Canon, but when change is needed for the sake of balance, or in the name of fun, you shouldn't hesitate.

Balancing Pokémon

Now it's time for the second post of the night. In the morning. Sorry - I started this post but couldn't finish it due to the length. This one, like the other, is pretty tough.

I have undertaken a project in which I want to balance the Pokémon metagame as well as I can.

Note that I haven't even really started on this problem yet - I'm currently developing a tool that will greatly aid me in what I'm trying to do - but, without further crapping on...

Analyze the problem. (remember the brilliant 2 step problem solving method)

Pokemon faces 80% content redundancy.

No joke. Don't ask me how Nintendo let it get that way - but anyway, that is ridiculous. Most companies would freak over just 10% redundancy - but okay.

Now, remember to refine the problem - we can't magically make a solution that fixes "80% redundancy" without more information.

Refining The Problem

There are a multitude of balance problems in Pokemon:

• A vast majority of Pokemon do not have the stat totals to be competitive.
• Most Pokemon don't have a favourable stat spread that allows them to be competitive.
• A lot of Pokemon don't have the movepool to have viable movesets in competitive play.
• Some types are unfavourable in comparison to others.

As most of these issues are Pokemon based, it is probably best to leave types out of it for the most part - unless particularly problematic moves are found (hello, Stealth Rock).

Now, there are 2 main categories of change I can make -

1. Buff the weak Pokemon
2. Nerf the strong Pokemon

#2 is a bad idea, because the strong Pokemon have a really dynamic and fun game going on right now, ripe with strategy and counter strategy. Nerfing them and removing the viability of these strategies used would be a hit to the game.

Similarly, there is no stable metagame below the standard metagame we have now. There is the UU tier metagame, but it has been unstable with Pokemon entering and leaving it since Gen IV was released.

Similarly, there are a large amount of Pokemon in the NU tier than must be buffed to even be useful in UU. Merely weakening the stronger Pokemon will not change the majority of their viability.

So, we should buff the weaker Pokemon.

Choose a Balancing Strategy

Due to the scale of the problem (rather than looking at one unit, we're looking at around 230!), it could be a smart idea to consider options such as algorithms that will immediately scale all Pokemon stats to a certain total, while maintaining their stat spread.

This does not take into account Pokemon with amazing movepools, who are already competitively viable with their stat sets, and other Pokemon like them who may become too powerful if their movepool is too compatible with a large stat gain.

So - this will often attempt to solve problems, that aren't apparent for some pokemon.

Similarly, it will be necessary to scan over all affected Pokemon, to try and look for potential imbalances with movepools, or, problems that have simply not been solved, like Pokemon with bad movepools and pokemon with poor stat spreads (having all of your stats piled into Defence and Special Defence, with no HP for example is an awful stat spread).

Either way you'll be scanning over all Pokemon, still trying to fix imbalances on the majority of them - and a lot of them must be implemented into a game engine to find (with such large changes, testing is even more needed).

Basically, while trying to save time with a blind algorithm, you're ignoring 3/4 problems, and fixing the 1st problem, even when it isn't a problem - causing you to need to iterate over every Pokemon anyway.

So if we're going to be going over all of the Pokemon anyway, we should analyse the problems with each Pokemon and treat them accordingly.

1. A vast majority of Pokemon do not have the base stat totals to be competitive.

This problem is fairly self-explanatory, and it can be rectified by scaling up base stats to less terrible levels.

Chances are, you'd buff the lower stats to a more acceptable level to start (approx 65), and then see if the Pokemon needs to have more specialised stats (taking them to perhaps 110 or so) - leaving the rest in the 70s-80s.

A general guide to go by:

• Less than 50: Crippling. The Pokemon likely is useless because of this stat. Ridiculous other stats (255hp Blissey for example) are the only things that can make up for this.
• 50: Bad. Your Pokemon has to make up for it with other stats.
• 60-70: Passable, this is 'Okay', it will be a weakness of your Pokemon, but it won't cripple it.
• 75-85: Positively average. Most good pokemon have the majority of their less used stats around this level.
• 100: An important stat to the Pokemon. Well in the good range.
• 120: Considered a great stat.
• 130: The Pokemon is likely heavily based in this stat.
• Greater than 130: The Pokemon probably heavily gives up other stats for this stat.
• Greater than 160: The Pokemon is probably so one track stat wise, it suffers in the majority of other areas, if the Pokemon is weak, its stat spread likely needs to be looked at.

2. Most Pokemon don't have a favourable stat spread that allows them to be competitive.

Some Pokemon may have the right stat totals, but their stats may be spread out in a way that is very unfavourable. Some may be when the Pokemon has all of their stat points rather evenly distributed - 85 in every stat is great, the stat total is 510 - nothing to laugh at, but, the Pokemon can be considered plainly bad, relying on the features of their movesets to be useful.

A lot of these Pokemon would be better if they had some of their stats standing out more than others.

Another issue to do with averaging, is when a Pokemon has equal Attack and Special Attack, but only really has Physical (or Special) moves to work with. A lot of Pokemon are better of specialising in just one.

Another problem with stat spreads is... just really bad stat spreads. Let's take a look at the Pokemon Shuckle.

Hello Shuckle!

His stats of note are:

Defence: 230

Special Defence: 230

Wow! What a tan... wait... hold on...

HP: 20

What?!

This Pokemon suffers from possibly one of the most redundant, useless stat sets. So much defence, but no HP to back it up.

In fact, mathematically, if you were to change Shuckle's Defence to 165, his Special Defence to 165, and his HP to 60 (-70 stat points in total), he would have far better survival - despite the apparent stat nerf.

Let's not forget that Shuckle's Speed is 5, and his Attack/Special Attack are both 10 - and you're looking at an awful stat spread.

Your stats should properly reflect your role. A tank isn't a tank without good HP, and such.

To fix this, derived stats such as 'defence indexes' are useful, for finding more optimal arrangements of stats.

3. A lot of Pokemon don't have the movepool to have viable movesets in competitive play.

Some Pokemon have great stats - but moves that don't compliment them, or, bad moves in general.

A Pokemon should always have moves that support its role, and then a few that can be used to surprise the enemy, or create a slightly different play style. Simple.

If you're a tank, you should have moves that weaken the enemy team as they fumble to kill you, if you're a sweeper, you should have moves that allow you to hit the enemy hard. If you're a supporter, you should have moves that help your team.

If you are a tank, with low offenses (like Shuckle) and all you have are offensive moves, you are useless as you cannot perform your role.

The best way to balance movesets it to analyse other movesets of Pokemon with similar roles.

Let's say I got Shuckle's stats right, but, found he did not have a proper moveset to make him a viable tank. If I copied the features of a more effective tank's moveset into his, he would now be effective.

Solution: Single Target Analysis with Archetyping

I have picked my solution.

The best way to create balance in Pokemon, is to iterate through every single bad Pokemon, and analyse it heavily. I need to find its weaknesses, and fix them according to the balancing procedures outlined above (primarily stat analysis, and copying archetypal movesets).

While I plan to compare bad Pokemon to good Pokemon in order to find weaknesses in roles and movesets primarily - why stop there?

Archetyping is the practise of finding strong units, and latching onto them to base weaker units. You basically, make the weaker unit look statistically like the stronger 'Archetype', but also try and have it keep in tough with its own identity and nuances. The result, is, more often than not, a strong unit who performs their role properly, but still very much has their own identity.

If I make archetypes of each role (Physical/Special Sweeper, Physical/Special Wall, Staller, Support, etc.) - and compare these to the weaker Pokemon, and then again after the Pokemon has been buffed - we can get a good idea of the balance of the Pokemon.

Coupled with proper analysis, the Pokemon will be viable in no time.

Hopefully I can make a big difference to the Pokemon metagame, and increase the viability so that players can still fight with their favourite Pokes.

Wish me luck.

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

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,