"Everybody Plays" -- Essential for Success!

[Mark_Everson]

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]

God I love this "fatherly advice" stuff!

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.

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks for the thoughts Axi. But quit with the "fatherly advice" crap, or I'll start giving you lectures about doing your homework!

I substantially agree with your "lack of 4x" comments. I think we will get there fairly fast, with the pending addition of the social model and real provinces. I already have ethnic-discrimination-based riots working, and it makes things juicier. And of course we'll add better AI into the bargain!

BTW Chris has signed back up for his old job with manuals. Could you help him out in terms of things that are most important to get in the manual? Its important we don't frustrate the new players too much

[sas]

I dont think we should expect too much feedback from the general public yet. I think Axi is right about the "playabillity factor". It still doesnt feel like a playable game yet.

But the team SHOULD give feedback. In fact, its part of the job as a member of the team. So why havent i given feedback ? Well, i'm still getting into the game, and will write down my impression of the game soon..

[Mark_Everson]

Well, Stian, you've obviously gotten it to run from the version with your new tiles on the demo 6 map! Let us have it!

[Mark_Everson]

I'm bumping this up because there are still several team members we haven't heard from.

You know who you are! Please check out the demo and give us your views!

Please

[sas]

Well, this is my feeling of the game so far:

Basically, the game doesnt feel like a game. I know its fully playable, but it feels lacking. So what ? we're not finished yet..


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.

Suggestion: Bars instead of boxes. Make some of the numbers hidden in the interface. You dont really need all that info on everything.

Make it more easy to know when the next unit is made/finished.
Make it possible to remove a planned road. I pressed the wrong tile a couple ot times, and couldnt remove it. Mabie i'm missing an option here.
How about when you hold the pointer still over an icon, you get a short summary of what it does ?

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks for playing the demo, and the reply sas!

Could you copy it to the demo 6 thread? I have a few responses, but I'd like to make them there so we keep all the d6-related comments in one place.

[Mark_Everson]

Game Design

Here's an interesting Game Design Article by Brian Reynolds. It isn't Exactly on-topic here, but I thing it fits here better than most places, and didn't seem worth its own thread.

I think Clash looks pretty good with these metrics. Opinions? Any train wrecks anyone sees?

[axi]

I've read Reynolds's article. I feel that he himself has been guilty of many of the problems he points out. Is is really ironic when he's describing how in civ2 they "fixed" the ancient conquest problem, when it's common knowledge that every good civ player can do that all the time on deity.

Anyway...

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.

[colorrr]

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]

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]

Hi Guys, thanks for the comments!

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.

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.

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.

[axi]

Well Plutarck, nice to see there are enough people eager to help us make the best out of our models and our code. For now though, it would be really nice to see your contribution in the two feedback threads, the questionnaire and the demo6 thread. Just in case you hadn't noticed them...

Mark, I feel that as we go on, we will have to come up with many things that are missing somewhere between the models. Like the expansion and settling thing which it isn't the first time that it gets mentioned; I had mentioned it as top priority in the planning for demos 7 & 8 thread, IIRC.

Btw, I got the "testbed" and I will try it just when I get off the net. Thanks! Should there be a special thread concerning remarks on it, or not?

[Gary Thomas]

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