Relic's Poorest Design: Contrary To All Reasonable Thought

Edit: Check out Romeo's translation for concision and precision: http://www.coh2.org/topic/32981/relic-s-poorest-design-contrary-to-all-reasonable-thought/post/311339

Edit 2: Marcus' take on Relic's design philosophy: http://www.coh2.org/topic/32981/relic-s-poorest-design-contrary-to-all-reasonable-thought/post/311647

During yesterday's livestream, the question of tank critical strikes and plane crashes was raised and addressed, if unsatisfactorily. They were defended in a cautiously wistful, if not blasé, manner by Quinn. Yet, anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the game must feel some tension beneath those words. Relic seem to know at some level, even if only intuitively, that their position is running directly contrary to the wishes of the playerbase.

Their position is directly contrary to all reasonable game design as well. The maximization of enjoyment, which is the virtue of good design, is ignored. With some assistance of other games, and a description of the CoH2 mechanics themselves, why we enjoy them will be sussed out, and the general character of a player's reaction, a lack of enjoyment, will be examined.

It is conceded that dramatics, which are the cornerstone of Quinn's argument, are important to the enjoyment of the individual; that which is predictable is thus solved, and thus solved then more boring.[1] Even in the more rigid games this is true. Just as flow of enjoyment is derived from the logical rote of clearing Minesweeper, or employing the technical skill required to micro units in Brood War, or the degree of control one exercises over their character in Melee, the games still retain their uncertainty, as with Mindgames and prediction and far more in Brood War and Melee, and the sheer chance involved in some Minesweeper clicks that cannot be solved from the given information. It is that flowing mode of consciousness for the sake of solving uncertainty later.

It is a consistent inconsistency. The penetration and armor system falls neatly into this category as a beautiful gameplay mechanic. Both sides know the risks and rewards, and know the various ways to improve their chances, this makes the engagement typical in that both players have a fair amount of control as to whether an engagement goes favorably or not. For, though RNG is in effect, its uncertainty is mitigated by being roughly expected, and its small degree of what feels like unfair arbitrariness. It is that norm which drives the player's expectation.

These expectations are spat on by plane crashes killing units and critical strikes causing the survival of a tank. Frustration is the emotion when this norm is dishonored. Often it occurs the noble minded are sympathetic towards those whom it happens upon, the unsympathetic derive little enjoyment from that which they may feel they did not earn, and those whom it happens upon are not wont to feel glad for their opponent.[2]

Relic has succeeded in making squad/unit preservation an important and entertaining mechanic. Those that preserve more often win than those that do not, and often it is deserved. However, as with a tank and its penetration system, one expects that if he has made the better choices, he capitalizes on the failure of the other, to destroy the target within an expected time frame. Penetration, being so normal, and being of predictable and middling percentages, with tanks being hit upon often enough to come nearer the law of large numbers, feels fair, therefore it is more often that one feels he or his opponent deserves the preservation or deprivation of that unit. Thus, enjoyment of the game largely unaffected. Tank criticals fly in the face of the penetration system as an added layer of protection, where expectation would have them not be.[3]

The uncertainty provided by the other systems described is more than enough for Quinn's want of randomness, in his ill-defined analogy to real-life sports, ill defined because he does not explain the system comparable to RNG that makes it so 'compelling' to him.[4] Frustration is heightened because the plane crashes and tank crits can often decide a game, while feeling entirely undeserved on both sides. If removing these poor design choices means not feeling like Company of Heroes any more, then Company of Heroes as Quinn sees it ought not to exist.

Footnote:
[1] By a "binary existence", Quinn means an effect put on the tank that forces it to operate in a sort of in-between state. Presumably, this also means a plane does not simply live in usefulness and die in uselessness, but that its in-between state is something, again, qualitatively unique. But a gun becoming non-operational, for example, means nothing but the absolute survival of the tank, or the frustration of having to spend extra valuable time and risk pursuing it to finish it off. It is only one small degree removed from the penetration system in that the pursuers have less apparent risk of being shot back at, disregarding any support one may have around the tank. A plane's in-between effect is comparatively shallow, since it means either the absolute death of some random unit, or absolutely nothing, thus it feels just as numbers-based and arbitrary as the chances of shooting a plane down, but far more frustrating.

[2] a. Mind, it is not the arbitration itself which causes the frustration, it is the degree and significance which it defies expectation in. It does well to point out that this is the reason many are as passionate about balance as they are. It seems that things ought not to be as they are, and that a faction or unit has enough advantages that there is little reasonable one can do against it. It does well to point that out, because it demonstrates that plane crashes killing units and tank crits aiding preservation is a universal sort of imbalance. It is a universal imbalance, because it is so significant an arbitration, and so advantageous to one player or the other.

[3] Just as plane crashes fly in the face of the expected and entirely deserved outcomes of the chance-to-kill system delivered by flak. It would be likewise ridiculous, from a gameplay and not immersion perspective, if dead infantry models randomly exploded under the pretense that 'he pulled his grenade before he died'.

[4] I would challenge him to find a system comparable to the effects and relative predictability of penetration, and another system analogous to tank crits or plane crashes, then critically analyze the degree of arbitration involved in each. He will find there is nothing quite like the latter systems that is a significant feature in real life sports narratives.

tl;dr QQ relic make better gaem

welcome to .org btw

Epic first post Jaedrik.

Epic first post Jaedrik.

tl;dr QQ relic make better gaem

welcome to .org btw

Thanks!
I decided to join because there were zero threads on Relic's idiocy in this area, and that kinda shocked me given what I've seen from .org

nice thread. some rng should be removed imo.

plane crash threads come and go; the last one fell of the forum several weeks ago. i haven't ever seen anyone come out in support of plane crashes except quinn but he's the one who matters :\

I don't think RNG should be removed, but I do think payers need more ability to influence it. This works for many things like just using more units against a target (more tactics than reliance on random luck), but the plane crash issue is particular because you can't force your units to engage or stop attacking planes.
They should just make the planes fly off the map when they crash, you just hear explosion, and the plan just tumbles off to the map corner. That's pretty much the simplest solution that deals with crashing planes, without even revamping the idea. The entire point of shooting down planes should be nullify their effects, not cause an improvised V1 rocket to occur.

Fully agree, very good post!

+1

"We like vehicle criticals because it enables a unique story to be told."

Dear Relic, it's not a story if it happens every. fucking. time.

Lower it to 1%, then it's a story.

Who is quinn?

Plane crash. Once in a blue moon. Not an issue.

During yesterday's livestream, the question of tank critical strikes and plane crashes was raised and addressed, if unsatisfactorily. They were defended in a cautiously wistful, if not blasé, manner. Yet, anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the game must feel some tension beneath their words. They seem to know at some level, even if only intuitively and vaguely, that their position is running directly contrary to the wishes of the playerbase.

Indeed, directly contrary to all reasonable game design as well. For the maximization of enjoyment, which is the virtue of design, is ignored, and instead frustration is introduced. Henceforth, the above mentioned RNG elements will be contrasted and distinguished from other games, then systems within CoH2 itself and the general character of a player's reaction, and thus defined their error is made clear.

It is conceded that dramatics, which are the corner of Quinn's argument, are important to the enjoyment of the individual; that which is predictable is thus solved, and thus solved then more boring.[1] Even in the most logical and consistent games this is true, just as flow of enjoyment is derived from the logical rote of clearing minesweeper, or employing the technical skill required to micro units in Brood War, or the degree of control one exercises over their character in Melee, the games still retain their uncertainty, as with mindgames and prediction and far more in Brood War and Melee, and the sheer chance involved in some minesweeper clicks that cannot be solved from the given information. It is that flowing mode of consciousness for the sake of some higher point and purpose which is the aid to solving uncertainty.

It is a consistent inconsistency. The penetration and armor system falls neatly into this category as a beautiful gameplay mechanic. Both sides know the risks and rewards, and know the various ways to improve their chances, this makes the engagement typical in that both players have a fair amount of control as to whether an engagement goes favorably or not. For, though RNG is in effect, its uncertainty is mitigated by being roughly expected and normal. And it is that norm which drives the player's expectation.

These expectations are spit on by plane crashes killing units and critical strikes causing the survival of a tank. Frustration is the emotion elicited when this norm is defied. For, often it occurs the noble minded are sympathetic towards those whom it happens upon, the unsympathetic derive little enjoyment from that which they may feel they did not earn, and those whom it happens upon are not wont to feel glad for their opponent, for it is unearned in the degree of its arbitration. Mind, it is not the arbitration itself which causes the frustration, it is the degree and significance which it defies expectation in.[2] Again, the emotion is affected because of the degree of its arbitration.

Relic has succeeded in making squad/unit preservation an extremely important gameplay mechanic. Those that preserve more often win than those that do not, and often it is quite deserved. However, as with a tank and its penetration system, one expects that if he has made the better choices, he capitalizes on the failure of the other, to destroy the target within an expected time frame. Penetration, being so normal, and being of predictable and middling percentages, with tanks being hit upon often enough to come nearer the law of large numbers, feels fair, therefore it is more often that one feels he or his opponent deserves the preservation or deprivation of that unit. Thus, frustration is relatively mild, and enjoyment of the game unaffected. Therefore, tank criticals fly in the face of the penetration system as an added layer of protection, where expectation would have them not be.[3]

The uncertainty provided by the other systems described is more than enough for Quinn's want of randomness, in his ill-defined analogy to real-life sports, ill defined because he does not explain the system comparable to RNG that makes it so 'compelling' to him.[4] Frustration is heightened because the plane crashes and tank crits can often decide a game, while feeling entirely undeserved on both sides. If removing these poor design choices means not feeling like Company of Heroes any more, then Company of Heroes as Quinn sees it ought not to exist.

Footnote:
[1] By a "binary existence", Quinn means a qualitative effect put on the tank that forces it to operate in a sort of in-between state. Presumably, this also means a plane does not simply live operational and die nonoperational, but that its in-between state is something, again, qualitatively unique. It turns out that a gun becoming non-operational, for example, means nothing but the absolute survival of the tank, or the frustration of having to spend extra valuable time and risk pursuing it to finish it off. Thus, it is only one small degree removed from the penetration system in that the pursuers have less apparent risk of being shot back at, disregarding any support one may have around the tank. A plane's qualitative addition is comparatively shallow, since it means either the absolute death of some random unit, or absolutely nothing, thus it feels just as quantitative, that is numbers-based, as the chances of shooting a plane down, but far more frustrating and arbitrary.

[2] It does well to point out that this is the reason many are as passionate about balance as they are, for often it seems that things ought not to be as they are, that they feel some faction or unit has enough advantages that there is little reasonable one can do against it. It does well to point that out, because it demonstrates that plane crashes killing units and tank crits aiding preservation is a universal imbalance. It is a universal imbalance, because it is so significant an arbitration in the outcome of a game.

[3] Just as plane crashes fly in the face of the expected and entirely deserved outcomes of the chance-to-kill system delivered by flak. It would be likewise ridiculous, from a gameplay and not immersion perspective, if dead infantry models randomly exploded with a very small chance under the pretense that 'he pulled his grenade before he died'.

[4] If he means qualitatively as talked about in footnote 1, I would challenge him to find a system comparable to the effects and relative predictability of penetration, and another system analogous to tank crits or plane crashes, then critically analyze the degree of arbitration involved in each. He will find there is nothing quite like the latter systems.

This is actually the best post on CoH2.org that I've ever read. Hell, it is probably the best post on any game forum that I've ever read.

Beautifully written/constructed. Perfect argument. Simply amazing.

I don't know what sway, if any, I have left at Relic but I'm going to try and make sure that Quinn sees this.

This reads like Sun Tzu. I'd give you points for style, if I could.

That being said, I'd raise another point about the whole "The foreseeable, thus solved, is boring" and CoH2 being compared to sports.

If - and this is a big if - CoH2 should be looked at like a sport, then the current balance design is perfect. I like watching sports. When I do, I'm usually sitting in front of a computer or a sofa, chomping down chips and drinking something equally fattening and lazy. I don't play sports competitively, I never have and never will. Again, I, like many, enjoy watching sports, but I am by no means capable of signing up to some major team and playing with the stars. I'd get my ass kicked.

Therefore it follows that if CoH2 is designed by its RNG elements to be a punishing experience where arbitrary rules and random occurrence define the outcome of matches and thus add excitement to the viewer's pleasure, as opposed to being enjoyable, the current system is PERFECT.

In this regard, if this is the case, CoH2 is -exactly- like sports in this one tiny detail. Both demand a lot more to be played than they do to be watched. Everyone knows (at least where I live) the rules of hockey and football (real football, not hand-egg), but the proportion of pro athletes vs. non-pro couch potatoes is as one expects.

However, unlike sports, CoH2 can be learned and played by just about anyone with minimal investment in terms of time and effort (and money), there is no screening process and ultimately what you make of -your- time playing the game is up to you, not anyone else.

Planes crashing and wiping your army after you've employed Anti-Air, is in the same way entertaining as watching some idiot in football scoring for the other team. The one guy who scored for the other team is ashamed, his team isn't enjoying it, the other team is laughing their ass off, and the audience is a mix of surprize and foreboding doom. But it's hilarious to watch nonetheless. The higher skilled the two teams are, the more hilarious the occurrence. In the same way in CoH2, the more you invest in Anti-Air, the more 'hilarious' it is that planes crash in your army.

The difference being, of course, that in CoH2 you have to purposefully invest into Anti-Air for the game to slap you in the face with a plane.

Thank you for the kind words, everyone.

This is actually the best post on CoH2.org that I've ever read. Hell, it is probably the best post on any game forum that I've ever read.

Beautifully written/constructed. Perfect argument. Simply amazing.

I don't know what sway, if any, I have left at Relic but I'm going to try and make sure that Quinn sees this.

It means a lot to me. I hope he might change his opinion, for the sake of the game's betterment.

too many big words, I'm not trained in this field.

This reads like Sun Tzu. I'd give you points for style, if I could.

I don't remember The Art Of War containing a set of footnotes almost as long as the passage itself.

If anything, it reads like House of Leaves. Pic related.

awesome thread

I don't remember The Art Of War containing a set of footnotes almost as long as the passage itself.

If anything, it reads like House of Leaves. Pic related.

Clearly you haven't read Sun Tzu, it has plenty of footnotes.
Granted the original manuscript is not exactly legible to you or I, the modern translations however are quite readable.

This is beautifully written, props for going above and beyond with your vocabulary.

Clearly you haven't read Sun Tzu, it has plenty of footnotes.
Granted the original manuscript is not exactly legible to you or I, the modern translations however are quite readable.

The only footnotes that exist in any version I've read are ones which are included by the translator, not by the author. Unless Sun Tzu published other works than The Art Of War, which I havent read.