One of the most impressive features of SiS is IMO the usage of "small numbers". (for example a laser weapon does 1-6 damage or a ship hull has 30 hitpoints etc.) This enables the player to pre-calculate very precisely the propability chance of this actions and know the exact realation of certain weapons to defense systems in advance. Thats the reason I dont like 4x games which build upon an abstract and intransparent simulation, hidden behind sliders (eg. Galciv or EU)
The same "simple numbers" philosophy was one of the secrets of success of grandmaster MOO2, even if many people dont realize it at the fist glance. For example MOO2 had a mechanic where the amount of ships an empire could deploy was connected with the amount of space stations and technologies. So because the mechanic behind this subsystem was easy to learn it was also easy to precalculate the amount of space stations you need in order to field more dreadnoughts.
Is it only me, who likes those transparent mechanics and low numbers in a 4x game or do others have the same feelings?
Transparency of rule mechanics
-
sven
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:24 pm
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Transparency of rule mechanics
I think rule transparency is a great feature to have, and board games have certainly been a major source of inspiration for SiS. As soon as we start seriously testing the game's encounter and special event system, I'm planning to write a more in-depth post about some mechanics I liked in Descent and Mage Knight -- two board games which both managed to achieve a huge amount of replayability by means of cleverly designed deck-draw mechanics.
That said, while elegant mechanics are lovely, I think one of the most interesting things about computer games is that they let players interact with relatively complex simulated worlds. And while you want the results of those simulations to be as intuitive as you can manage, that doesn't mean the rules that govern the world need to be entirely understood by the player.
This ties into the sorts of ideas that rattle is bringing up in the now woefullly off-topic "Map size and range" thread:
These are all ideas I like as well. But, if we're going to include things like a model for alien rebellions (which I certainly think we should), I'm not certain that making that model simple enough that it's outcomes will be entirely predictable by the player is something we need or even want to do.
In a pen and paper game, the rules for starting rebellions would need to be straightforward. A single dice roll made with a couple simple modifiers, perhaps. But, in a computer game, it can be more sophisticated. Even morale systems as "simple" as those in Civ II or Alpha Cent include a lot more modifiers and special cases than would be practical for a board game. What's important, I think, is that the causes behind the numbers a player sees are made clear to them. If you have a "-10" morale penalty on a planet, you should be able to mouse over it, and get a reasonable high-level understanding of what your citizens are most unhappy about, and how you may be able to fix the issue. But, the details of why a given number is showing a "-4" rather than a "-3" don't, I think, need to be immediately clear.
Another important example, and one you bring up in your own post, is the damage model used with ship weapons. Again, even in MOO2's tactical engine, which is a relatively simple one, the details of exactly what die rolls are being made to determine if one ship's attacks will hit another, or how much the damage may be attenuated by range, etc., are complex enough that an average player is unlikely to be able to do the mental math required to predict exactly how likely it is that their attack will hit.
The small integers damage numbers that players see in the ship design screen are relatively honest representations of the relative power of each weapon -- and that, I think, is important. But, the details of just how likely it is that a level 2 battleship will be able to hit a level-4 destroyer given all the other special systems that each may have mounted are actually pretty complicated. That was true in MOO2, and it's true in SiS as well.
But then, in a computer game, we have the power to display a mouseover-tooltip that tells players just how likely their attack is to hit before they commit to firing -- and that means we can make a to-hit system that is in some ways quite "transparent", even while being fairly complex, behind the scenes.*
These layers of complexity give us, as designers, more room to balance the interactions of different ship types and systems than we'd have otherwise. As we keep on modifying the tactical combat rules, one of my goals is always that the combat system's consequences will feel, to players, predictable and intuitive given the information that they can see in game. But, I don't think this necessarily requires making the rules so simple that the average player will have a complete understanding of the mechanics.
It's a delicate distinction, but, as you can see, one I tend to spend a fair amount of time thinking about
* (I think XCOM: Enemy Unknown is a nice example of a turn-based tactical game that achieves this kind of UI-assisted "transparency".)
That said, while elegant mechanics are lovely, I think one of the most interesting things about computer games is that they let players interact with relatively complex simulated worlds. And while you want the results of those simulations to be as intuitive as you can manage, that doesn't mean the rules that govern the world need to be entirely understood by the player.
This ties into the sorts of ideas that rattle is bringing up in the now woefullly off-topic "Map size and range" thread:
rattle wrote:I'd like a dynamic galaxy that spawns new minor races.
...like "Sol pirates", that operate from a hidden moon or starbase in a nebula to cut into a profitable trade network.
Random alien race rebels that get formed for imperial races when morale is low for too long.
These are all ideas I like as well. But, if we're going to include things like a model for alien rebellions (which I certainly think we should), I'm not certain that making that model simple enough that it's outcomes will be entirely predictable by the player is something we need or even want to do.
In a pen and paper game, the rules for starting rebellions would need to be straightforward. A single dice roll made with a couple simple modifiers, perhaps. But, in a computer game, it can be more sophisticated. Even morale systems as "simple" as those in Civ II or Alpha Cent include a lot more modifiers and special cases than would be practical for a board game. What's important, I think, is that the causes behind the numbers a player sees are made clear to them. If you have a "-10" morale penalty on a planet, you should be able to mouse over it, and get a reasonable high-level understanding of what your citizens are most unhappy about, and how you may be able to fix the issue. But, the details of why a given number is showing a "-4" rather than a "-3" don't, I think, need to be immediately clear.
Another important example, and one you bring up in your own post, is the damage model used with ship weapons. Again, even in MOO2's tactical engine, which is a relatively simple one, the details of exactly what die rolls are being made to determine if one ship's attacks will hit another, or how much the damage may be attenuated by range, etc., are complex enough that an average player is unlikely to be able to do the mental math required to predict exactly how likely it is that their attack will hit.
The small integers damage numbers that players see in the ship design screen are relatively honest representations of the relative power of each weapon -- and that, I think, is important. But, the details of just how likely it is that a level 2 battleship will be able to hit a level-4 destroyer given all the other special systems that each may have mounted are actually pretty complicated. That was true in MOO2, and it's true in SiS as well.
But then, in a computer game, we have the power to display a mouseover-tooltip that tells players just how likely their attack is to hit before they commit to firing -- and that means we can make a to-hit system that is in some ways quite "transparent", even while being fairly complex, behind the scenes.*
These layers of complexity give us, as designers, more room to balance the interactions of different ship types and systems than we'd have otherwise. As we keep on modifying the tactical combat rules, one of my goals is always that the combat system's consequences will feel, to players, predictable and intuitive given the information that they can see in game. But, I don't think this necessarily requires making the rules so simple that the average player will have a complete understanding of the mechanics.
It's a delicate distinction, but, as you can see, one I tend to spend a fair amount of time thinking about
* (I think XCOM: Enemy Unknown is a nice example of a turn-based tactical game that achieves this kind of UI-assisted "transparency".)
Re: Transparency of rule mechanics
Was me who derailed the thread into idea brainstorming 
Some of this comes from Distant Worlds, which succeeded in simulating a live universe.
Transparent game mechanics are nice but the trial and error method of finding out that 50 beam attack does not cut into 125 beam defense and that you need better tech was rewarding too.
Some of this comes from Distant Worlds, which succeeded in simulating a live universe.
Transparent game mechanics are nice but the trial and error method of finding out that 50 beam attack does not cut into 125 beam defense and that you need better tech was rewarding too.