Skip to Content
 

Pet Peeves

22 replies [Last post]
Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013

Have you ever run into a game where the game is great, it works well, but there is just something in there that just doesn't sit right? Or perhaps the game has this awesome theme but something in the rules or the mechanics just nags at you until it starts to ruin the experience for you?

I ran into a game like this. Command & Colors: Ancients. *Shakes head in disgust*

Chariots...Chariots? CHARIOTS??? You've got to be kidding me. The romans NEVER fought with chariots. They had been outdated since before Alexander the Great. And since when did the Romans use elephants in warfare? They didn't. *Facepalm*

The game and the whole system is a great system, but...I can't get past the blatant historical innaccuracies. This is the reason I had to download the Rome Total Realism mod for the original Rome Total War game. I can understand giving Romans archers even though they didn't really use them in their legions. The auxilliaries, sure. Then I looked at some of the expansions and if I drank coffee, it would've spewed all over my laptop. At least they didn't give the barbarian hoards war elephants.

Anyways...my rant is over. Please share games that contain your game designing pet peeves.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
RPS

Forced application of rock-paper-scissors mechanics, instead of using some of the very interesting complex relationships between historical unit types and terrain etc. More generically it is sad when someone has a theme that is very rich in interesting dynamics that could lead to great player decision-making without making the game more complex, but then that is thrown away (or more likely the designer did not bother to research) and some generic far less interesting mechanic (but equally or more rules-heavy) not based in history at all is used instead.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Cossacks

This is the reason I wasn't ever really too keen on the Age of Games, with the exception of Age of Mythology, that was an awesome game. To try and force certain things to become true, desigers give bonuses for one unit type against another. Spearmen are super effective against cavalry, which are super effective against archers, which are super effective against infantry. In all reality, archers were good, but unsupported they would be wiped out. Archers need a proper screen. Cavlary COULD take on formations of spearmen when flanking. Spearmen in the ancient times were actually many times the main footsoldiers of armies and they did quite well against other infantry. Spears aren't just for fending off cavalry.

Cossacks was one of my favorite RTS games for a long time because there was no super effective modifiers to attack. Everyone did damage, and everyone had defense. Certain units did better than others based on their merits. Pikemen in a static formation were invincible to frontal assault. Early muskateers were vulnarable to cavalry attack because of their frail nature, not because Cavalry had some bonus against them. Cannons were good against infantry formations because, well they're cannons and blowing holes in enemy formations with grapeshot is what cannons do! While it is a computer RTS game, it brought to life the battles better than any other RTS game.

I'm developing a game right along the lines of Commands and Colors for my own book series but to bring the different units to life, I don't corner certain units into a sole purpose role. Cavalry aren't just archer killers. Archers aren't just there to kill infantry. (although they do a good job of it) Spearmen aren't there just to kill the cavalry. I want to make each unit type unique enough, but also leave each commander with flexibility to (borrowing from Pixar's Brave here) choose his own fate.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
yes

Exactly that, Kroz1776. This is typically seen in historic RTS, but also on forums like this when designers describe their new ideas. Probably a few have ended up with them in completed boardgames as well, but I can't recall playing one luckily.

Gave this some more thought and I think it is mainly a design-process problem. The resulting abstracted game mechanic might make it difficult to see if RPS was applied or not, but when you see someone talking about their game project and all of the combat system is built upon trying to artificially force X-beat-Y-beat-Z-beat-Z that seems like a useless way to structure your design and much too restricting. I can't see how that will result in a game that is as good as if RPS is completely ignored. Of course you every type of piece in a game to have its uses, and no piece to be invincible, but you will have that anyway if you just use some minor inspiration from eg history. If the real unit was useful to a real commander (or a sci-fi/fantasy unit would be useful to its imagined commander) that unit will be useful to the player as well if its characteristics have been properly kept intact. If you need to add artificial ways to make it useful I would say something else is missing from the game.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Illusion Spells

This reminds me of Illusion spells. They are some of the least combative spells in DnD, YET they are extremely powerful in the hands of a creative caster (This actually goes for most spells).

I must put a plug in here though, if your game central theme requires or is centered around RPS, then by all means, I don't think I'd mind, but when RPS is pasted into a game to try and force certain outcomes, it's not the optimal way to go.

Edit: Just to add, I think almost all mechanics can work well in a game, it's just that some mechanics get overused when they really only work in a more niche environment, and others seemed to be added because the designer went through a lazy phase.

Warcraft II had no RPS mechanism. Warcraft III I didn't really like because they introduced this RPS system. In Starcraft II, they made the game into RPS without using RPS. This is due to the fact that the advantages and disadvantages of many units in that game are due to certain limitations of their abilities, and NOT because of artificial bonus damage done.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I studied the balancing a lot

I studied the balancing a lot of a lot of RTS games, just to make sure mine would work the way I wanted.

So I am sorry to correct you regarding SC2.
In SC2, they do use RPS mechanics. Although not very noticeable for people who are only used to percentage table's. And I am not talking about speed and range effects.
However, there is also one RPS mechanic to be found in low damage, high fire rate weaponry against armored units.

Normally a RPS mechanic has (R>S>P>R) A>B>C>A
Or A>B>C>D>A where A=C and B=D

In SC2 you have a little bit bigger system. A bonus to a certain type, with just a little number. The effects are the following:
A=C and D (but C and D differ to each other)
B=D and E (but D and E differ to each other)
C=E and A (but E and A differ to each other)
D=A and B (but A and B differ to each other)
E=B and C (but B and C differ to each other)
While A>B>C>D>E>A

The Stalker is such an example where there is a damage of 10 and a bonus of 4 against armored. 40% more damage means in overall, 68% more effectiveness against armored units.
And another ability is that special blocking shield for the Immortal. All damage reduced to 10. So rapid fire weapons are the best against the Immortal. (I used that one trick in SC1, for making one of the units super weak against marines, and super strong against tank blasts).

Ow, and WC2 also has the RPS system. A very weak one in damage mechanics. But a strong one in range effects against the speed of units. And of course, the ground/air targets where there.

A question. Are we discussing all the RPS systems? Or only the one where damage effects are taken into account?

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Naw!

Naw! This is because the "RPS" system if you want to call it that, in SC2 is so much more elegant than just straight up, A beats B. You're building a unit and giving it abilities that define that unit. This creates natural counters. In the game Cossacks, all units had attack and defense. Cavalry didn't gain a bonus attack against musketeers nor did pikeman gain a bonus against cavalry. Their own characteristics made them good against musketeers.

They didn't need to put in a bonus dmg system. This is why the "RPS" system of SC2, I like. Whereas the RPS system of Age of Empires is a horrible system in my opinion (didn't stop me liking Age of Mythology though)!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Ah, but then you are talking

Ah, but then you are talking about the RPS system that comes from other game mechanics.
And I am not just talking about those in SC2 now. There is a big list where that comes from (lots of mechanics), yet the source is very rare (not much games where it is implemented). Then the only question remains, how can they be implemented in board games?

This... is a long post. But please let me know if you have read a part of it :),

Here there are 6 mechanics that always draw my attention:
- Speed/Short Ranged versus Ranged/Slow Projectiles (with minimum range), The Speed unit wins. Example is in Dune2 where Trikes and Quads versus the Rocket Launcher. Or Warcraft 2 where you see the same with Grunts/Footman and Ogres/Knights versus Catapult.
- Inaccuracy versus Small Units, Small units win if they are not with a big group. The example in this is 1 tank trying to shoot several infantry that are spread out.
- Slow Projectile/straight ahead projectile, Fast units could dodge this. An example is tanks trying to squish infantry. A better example is in Red Alert, the V2 or V3 Launcher trying to kill moving units.
- Splash Damage versus Small. 1 Big unit, or 4 small units, the big unit gets hit 1 time. Each small unit gets hit 1 time. But that would be 4 times 1 hit. You see this in C&Cdawn with the MRLS against either a group of infantry, or a tank.
- Terrain effects on the speed. Some propulsions still can keep going, others can not. Against certain slow moving projectiles, this means a big difference.
- Out ranging, this one is very noticeable in any game. All the long distance firing units, no matter how inaccurate or how slow the projectile moves; they kill shorter ranged defence structures.

Mechanics that I do not count is:
- Terrain hight on the range. It does not give a RPS system.
- Air and anti air. That is a RPS system based on damage bonuses. Simply multiply by 0 or 1.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

To know if your unit is useful?
There is also a RPS system if it comes to the choice, attack units or the base? Or being the meat? Simply looking at how fast an unit is and how far an unit can shoot. But also if the damage is in balance with the health of that unit. If the unit has something good, they are more expensive. Thus if the goody part fails, they are actually weaker.
Speed can be either slow or fast (I am leaving out 0 Speed here)
Range can be either short or long (0 Range is short too)
Health can be either low or high (There can't be 0 Health)
Damage can be either low or high (I am leaving out 0 Damage here)
2x2x2x2=16 different classes: I shall only name the good parts if they are there:

----
An unit that has none of the above. Is meant to be fodder meat. Might block enemy movements. These fodder meat units are often used to take the hit. Then another class can safely move in during the cool down time and do their job.

S---
An unit with speed. Will likely attack the base only. But is cheap enough to be meat as well.

-R--
An unit with range. Will likely act as support in attacking units. But needs meat in front.

--H-
An unit with health. Again only fodder meat. But more durable. Could penetrate defences and harass a structure.

---D (no matter what, this class fails if used alone)
An unit with damage. Will likely act as late support in attacking the base. These units are good in destroying things fast. But since they are slow, weak and have short range. They are often not used at all. The only reason, and only reason that players would use this class is if they have a damage type that no other unit has. Which is what we are not looking for in this thread. If you think of them as useful, please tell me how? The only reason that I can think of is, protecting them until they are in the base. You might as well use fodder only.

SR-- (outdated once SR-D comes in)
Having speed and range makes these units annoying. They are very good in harassing other units by simply hit and run tactics. They are also good in attacking the base. But are a bit more expensive then the other base harasses.

S-H-
Having speed and health makes these units not only durable. But they will penetrate the base with ease. They also can safe other units by simply move in and take the hit instead.

S--D
These units are the same as ---D class. But they can move around quickly. Therefore excellent base killers.

-RH- (-RHD will replace this one once the time arrives)
This class will take hits, but it's only purpose is getting a job done any way. Not much used by most players. It is more of a FU unit. The best way to use this class is to set them up somewhere and give them closer back up. If the enemy decides to shoot the -RH- class first, they simply need time for that and actually die. I love using them for the FU situation :).

-R-D
This is a classical support class. Either supporting in killing units, or the base.

--HD
This is a classical steam roll class.

SRH-
Just like -RH-. This class is a FU class. But they also share the SR-- tactics. However, if the enemy comes to close, the H will say FU man, kill you any ways. These classes are more common than you think.

SR-D
SR--, but then fine tuned. Players choose SR-D over the SR-- class. Simply because they also get the job done faster. Great again in killing units and the base. Not only annoying, but painful too.

S-HD
A steam roll that had a nitro upgrade. Suddenly this unit stands close to your units, then inside your base. Simply harassing everything. Be warned, the --HD class beats this class simply by cost efficiency.

-RHD
Just like -RH-. Getting the job done. But then faster. -RH- becomes obsolete at this point.

SRHD
Not necessary godlike. This class has it all. But is also very expensive. It loses in cost efficiency to all the other classes. And some classes are just as good. The best classes to counter SRHD would be SR-D for hunting it down and -R-D is great as defence and even cheaper.

Further notices:
All the units without H, can be overkilled. This means that all units with D might do to much damage on just 1 unit. The cheaper the H-less unit, the better they stop D units.
S is mostly used for running away.
R is mostly used for doing things before the enemy reacts.

I have not named the defences (none moving units), since I wanted to keep the choice on 2 for each statistic and the list short. But if you like, I could add them. And the none damage as well. There is no none H and having none R would actually mean low on R. Adding these 2 choices would make the list bigger. But a certain combination would make no sense to players. R would automatically be 0 if D is 0.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
Since I brought it up, to

Since I brought it up, to clarify, things that annoy me about RPS-mechanics:

1. Artificial rules like "pike has 50 % bonus against cavalry" seen in some RTS. As said above, units should have characteristics that make them useful under some conditions against some types of enemy units, there should be no need to add such bonuses.

2. Thinking about your design in RPS terms. Should never be a need to. Just make sure the units make sense, and that there is enough variety in terrain and unit types and playtest until you are sure all units have a role to fill (which might or might not include being good for fighting some other unit). I can't see how the game can be in any way improved by basing unit design on creating cycles (or directed graphs) of units that are better for combating some other unit. That is just backwards and sounds like the worst way to come up with interesting and fun unit types.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Absolutely!

Also, I have NO problems having bonuses vs. Armor types. A stabby weapon will do better against certain types of armor than another weapon. There is armor that is designed to protect against specific weapons. Just look up the falx (that is a mean weapon)!

My problem, like Pelle said, is when they give artificial bonuses. I wouldn't even call some of the systems you state a RPS system. Here's why, for an RPS system to exist, there must be a clear circle. Age of Empires is the biggest culprit of this. Hoplites beat cavalry which beat archers which beat hoplites. This is true for every faction in the game. In SC2, marines are not the counter to the same things that zealots are. Zealots, the basic protoss unit is actually GOOD against most basic units. Then what counters Zealots isn't necessarily countered by something the Zealots could counter. There isn't a clear and repeatable circle. This shows game design depth.

This is just on what counters one another. If you take into account that the actual countering is mostly because of unit traits and not bonuses given to attack, this just further proves that SC2 doesn't really follow a RPS system. There will always be counters in everything, the challenge is to do this without just giving units a bonus to attack against the others and saying you're done.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
I have never played SC2, but

I have never played SC2, but that sounds like good design. Units are useful, but not because some designer forced everything into an artificial RPS-template.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Still Has Bonus

Now SC2 does still have bonus damage, but that often isn't the main factor in what is good against what.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Indeed, the bonus damage is

Indeed, the bonus damage is only applied there where they didn't had any choice.
The Marauder is such example. That unit is supposed to be good against all the big targets but less against small targets. So a bonus of +10 (x 2 the damage) against armored is applied. They wanted this unit to be a "anti tank.".

There are 41 units that can do combat. Only 12 that I know of have those bonuses.
If you count ground/air tactics. Which is a modification of 0% and 100%. Then the number of these bonuses are higher in my opinion. I see air as another type of armor.

SC2 main focus is on the special abilities that units have. And to have a good army, you want to have a bit of all those special abilities. However, some special abilities are for 1 tactic only. I am not talking about the "permanent" SRHD ratio's but the abilities that alter statistics for a period of time.
Since every special ability is unique, you need to anticipate on them. And that is what makes the game so great.
The Marauder also has the ability to reduce S of units that are hit by its weapon.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Make 'em Unique

There needs to be counters in war games like that. SC2 was done very well in my opinion. The reason is that they didn't go, hmmm...we want the Immortal to be bad against zerglings but good against things with big attack *cough*seige tank*cough cough*

The way I see it is they said, "How can we make this guy counter this guy while still making him unique and giving him a different feel than this guy that would counter the same unit."

Every faction has counters for the others' units BUT each one feels SO different. Each one isn't merely, hey I got a bonus so die! While I don't actual competitive side of the game (I mainly play nexus wars and such), I do love the feel they put into the game giving each unit their own ability which is the TRUE defining characteristic of those units.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Another Pet Peeve

So, another pet peeve of mine in game design is when I see the contents of the box and it's basically a mix of yellows and browns with shades of dirt mixed in with white. Ugh!!! Get some color for your game. I don't care if it's flashy. We don't need Smallworld-esque art. Look at Ticket to Ride. Their boards aren't the most colorful thing on the planet but the routes have enough color AND color diversity that it is pleasing to the eye to behold that board.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I don't know about the

I don't know about the colours. I don't look at the pieces, but I do look at the board itself.
Some games are meant to look like ugly terrain.
Yellow and brown are mostly dessert and rocky terrain.

I too dislike the black, grey and white.
And I also dislike big parts that are blue, water, or green, grass.

How about having flower fields?
Sakura tree's? Autumn does the trick too.
Red sand, why not.

And a dungeon map could have a flashy room with colourful carpet.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Yeah! I can Haz Carpetz Plz?

Yeah! Yeah, I understand the whole desert thing, but there are ways of making a desert beautiful. I do hate it though when the colors seem, washed out? They just seem drab. There is one board that sticks out in my mind and to be fair it was designed by someone younger than 10, but it's board is yellow, one side's pieces are yellowish, and the other's are reddish if my memory serves me right. Aw heck no.

I love your ideas for sprucing up a boring board. (heh heh heh...I couldn't resist). I would try and take that carpet from that dungeon crawl even though it's part of the tile. lol. One board that stands out to me as being drab, yet it's redesigned game's version is beautiful is Vinci. The board for Vinci is, IMO, ugly. I look at it, and while it doesn't inspire me to vomit, it leaves a ditaste in my mouth, on the other hand, Smallworld's boards are beautiful and full of vibrancy.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
colors

The only thing about colors that often annoy me are prototype or print'n'play hobby games that often come in horrible primary colors only, like someone used some default Windows 3.11 MS Paint palette. Softer colors please! If you make water #0000ff and grass #00ff00 it is going to hurt everyone's eyes, make the game stand out as very non-pro and cost lots of money for anyone interested in printing.

Not that I am a very skilled artist, but PLEASE, just a quick look should tell you how awful it looks and it isn't that difficult to figure out how to select a less saturated color. A few times when printing such games I had to load all the components into GIMP before printing to play a bit with the color levels tool to make it somewhat less distracting (and save myself from having to guy some extra ink cartridges to print it).

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
ROFL

Ha ha ha! So true Pelle! Unfortunately I think it's because some people don't have skills outside of paint. *cough*me*cough* This is what this community is for though to help fill in gaps for each other.

Shoe
Shoe's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/21/2012
Power Grid

Power Grid is like that for me. I LOOOOVE the game, but during the bidding round, if you get a factory early on, you can be sitting around waiting on everyone else to finish bidding for like 10-15 min with nothing to do.

They really needed to find something for waiting players to have done. I messed around on facebook for like 30 min of the 3-4 hour game. I NEVER even pull my phone out with most games, but I was ALWAYS sitting around during the bidding round for at least 5-10 min, and there were 6 or so of them I think.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Veins! So Red and Juicy!

Right along that same Vein...not blood veins, but like gold veins, is a pet peeve when people play games (not the designers fault). I hate it when someone sees that their turn is done, and they just leave the game (mentally or physically) and then when it is their turn, they take 2 minutes trying to figure out if they want to take the orange face-up train and a face-card, or maybe those two black cards. *Desk Palm* Or is it *Face Desk*...hmmm. Ticket to Ride shouldn't be taking 2 hours to play people!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
O god, I was like that when I

O god, I was like that when I played MtG with my friend.
He always took like 5-10 minutes each turn thinking about what to do. While I could place my cards within seconds.

I was always AFK, until he was done playing. Then I had to look down the table to see what he had done.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Oh No, It's _____'s Turn. Well Let's Start Dinner

X3M wrote:
O god, I was like that when I played MtG with my friend.
He always took like 5-10 minutes each turn thinking about what to do. While I could place my cards within seconds.

I was always AFK, until he was done playing. Then I had to look down the table to see what he had done.

Sometimes I swear I could take a shower, go to the bathroom, make dinner, and eat it before some people are done taking their turn...on TICKET TO RIDE!!!! AHH!!!! Your turn should take less than twenty seconds on TtR

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut