The Importance of Options

Spurred by the latest two builds and the drastic changes they introduced, there's been a lot of talk lately about this and that balance. Should transports be Basic or Advanced? Should the Uber Cannon have a cooldown time? Should fighters be nerfed? Should anti-air ground units be buffed? Should Missile Defense Towers shoot at air or ground? Should we have Super Units?

In all of this, I think we may be missing the grand goal of the end balance of PA.

Most importantly: Options.

In order for a strategy game to be successful, there MUST be options. There cannot be a single best way to start or a single best unit to win.

Let's take a look at one of the oldest and greatest strategy games of all time: Chess. In Chess, there is no single best opening move, or single guarantee game winning unit. Sure the queen is the best unit, but without using your pawns properly, you cannot win a game of chess.

In Chess, the total number of moves and games is nigh infinite. "A guesstimate is that the maximum logical possible positions are somewhere in the region of +-140,100,033, including trans-positional positions, giving the approximation of 4,670,033 maximum logical possible games, thus making chess very playable." (source)

Let's contrast this to PA and the RTS genre.

Many RTS games have one specific best opening build. If you don't use that opening build, you fall behind and lose. They also have a specific best unit. That single unit is the best way to win the game due to it's incredible power. In SupCom, there were a number of Experimentals that were considered game enders. If you built one, there was no counter and you would end up winning the game. That is bad.

If there is one supreme opening build. One supreme winning unit.

Then PA loses all diversity. It loses all options. It loses all strategy. Players must use that one move set to win. If you don't utilize that move set, you lose. If that happens, PA is no longer a Real Time Strategy game, it is a Real Time Whoever-Can-Click-Through-The-Move-Set-Fastest game.

PA already has an awesome foundation for becoming an amazing strategy oriented game: randomized planets.

With that, players must adapt to the ever changing terrain to win. They cannot memorize a move set they copied from YouTube. They must play. Think. Learn. Strategize. Adapt.

"Hey Brian! Quit rambling! What are you trying to say?"

Well. I'm not completely sure. This is quite the rant. But lately I think people are more concerned about what would be "cool" rather than what would promote good gameplay. Ultimately, if a new feature in of itself is "cool," but hinders gameplay, then that feature is no longer cool because it ruins the game. We cannot be narrow minded. We must look at the broad scope of things.

"Ok. Cool. But what does this change?"

Well. Probably nothing. I seriously doubt this post will change how Uber does anything – if Uber even needs to change what they're doing at all.

"Then why don't you just shut up?"

Because I believe it is important that the community keep our eyes on the goal.

Also. I'm kinda frustrated with the game's current state. Air is so unbelievably powerful. It is incredibly easy to obtain air supremacy by building more fighters first and once that is done, there is little to nothing an opponent can do.

I've won quite a few matches by building not one single ground unit. Simply get a dozen or so Peregrines, and almost as many Gunships, destroy all of my opponent's air factories (ignoring all other buildings), and I've won.

I dunno.

Quite the rambling rant.

I hope this helps. ... somehow. ... or something.

So.. TL;DR: T2 air is still OP?

Heh.

TL;DR: All of air is OP and we're in danger of losing out on diverse if the Community were to have their way.

and... I ramble.

Every option in the menu represents a failure on the part of the designer to make a solid design that works for the game. There are some things that absolutely is related to the circumstance of the player rather than preference, such as graphics performance, but they are few.

Less options = better design.

For example, me tweaking the camera options to my liking really represents a failure for them to design a camera system that doesn't need tweaking.

Yep, so no money maps then bmb.

Edit: also, bmb your example is just full on retarded. As the best way to design a camera is to ALLOW choice.

Or, that different people have different systems and different preferences. It's something of a bizarre idea that everyone is identical in how they run and appreciate the game.

Read the OP.

Also play games like Civ V, Rise of Nations, perhaps Age of Empires/Age of Mythology? Look at mods. Mods give you options the original game did not. Sometimes mods give you options the original game should have, and sequels implement. More preferences are *better* than less preferences. However, debate for another thread, as this seems to be about options in strategy from a gameplay balance POV

If you don't like the game play a different one. A game can't appeal to everyone, and every attempt at doing so ends in dismal failure as the design becomes a schizophrenic mess.

The game is trying to create a certain kind of gameplay, the designer must arrive at the kind of mechanics and interfaces that support that gameplay best possible. Whether those mechanics and interfaces support that gameplay isn't a matter of taste or preference. Giving options simply relegates the task of designing the correct experience to the user, bothering them with a task that was never theirs, creating a barrier between them and that gameplay.

There are kinds of games where creation is the gameplay, those are somewhat different.

A mod can't really be compared, as that is simply a third party creating an original design on top of the old one.

I'm not talking about menu options or UI. That is a 100% completely different topic.

I'm talking about gameplay balance.

Wow.. you think your taste in camera behavior is the universal truth? There is good design and then there is personal preference.

There's always console games, if you think lack of customizability is a sign of good design.

I think TotalBiscuit would hate you. Or at least, give you a 2-hour lecture on why PC games need to have a good options menu.

No, bmb
Not at all.

Less options = easier to make a better design

They have options for a reason. They can be adjusted to fit YOU.

It is easy to consider a feature, if it should be one way or another, and put both in as options.

It is difficult to consider a feature, which way best creates the experience that you want to create. It is very difficult. Often, it is not even one of the ways you initially considered.

Just because there are options, doesn't mean thought hasn't been put into design. On the contrary, having options usually indicates that there has been some effort put into figuring out how things work best.

What if you're one of those people who get FOV sickness? If there's no way to adjust it the game can become unplayable unless you're willing to put up with nausea and keeping vomit bags on your desk.

"I'll make it an option" is the first refuge of the poor designer. Thankfully the reality of putting in every conceivable option being a lot of work that doesn't benefit gameplay puts a dampener on such silliness in practice.

But you see it all around forums such as these with players who haven't the first idea about solid game design going on about options. Don't know which way would be better for the game? Make it an option! Options are good because totalbiscuit and other hardcore PC gamers I look up to say so!

FOV actually does depend on something outside of the designers control, it isn't preference or taste though, it's screen size and viewing distance. So while nobody would actually ever use an FOV slider correctly it is still important to have it there because you just can't control the viewing conditions of the game. And probably shouldn't.

So you are saying that if the default settings are perfect, meaning everybody in the world agrees that they are perfect, still just having the ability to change those settings somehow makes those default settings a bad design?

Look! Is it a bird!? Is it a plane!? No! It's the point flying right over your head!

What if my computer's a little old and, for example, I'm saving up for a wedding or a holiday. Do I not get to enjoy the game because the devs thought "No! You MUST play the game this way! No other! No! You must have volumetric lighting! You need 50 million physics objects! You must have a FOV of 65! No I don't care if it makes you vomit like a kitten in a jet fighter!"

Not everyone likes volumetric lighting, maybe they don't like the in-game music. Forcing it onto them is completely pointless.

Nobody has to agree it's perfect, it just has to create the gameplay that is right for the game. Sometimes options are good because the defaults were horrible. As a designer you have to take on the responsibility and the risk of poor defaults not being changeable. On one hand no options are a sign that you stood up for a way to do things, on the other there is the risk that it wasn't right after all.

So... Why take the risk when you can make everyone happy with a few tick boxes and sliders?