Scope Matters

Missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm using them as examples. Fog of war does not hide unit readability. It is a core component of the recon system. It has nothing to do with weather, unless you want to propose a design that combines the two. You're comparing an apple to a lime.

I'm not arguing that my examples are worst possible examples. But while not detracting from the game, I'm just waiting for someone to explain how it makes the game better, and how to solve various problems called out.

This was an intellectual exercise of how to look at feature ideas. It's not shooting down all these ideas or saying they'll never happen. But more than anything, to get people to really think through the implementations of ideas. They're a lot easier to take seriously when some thought is put into them.

That's all I'm saying.

Tell me a better example that doesn't cause far more problems than it solves (ignore the "do you have the person power to do it" because unless you're a developer, you don't know the answer to that - it's a team specific question).

I think the key for solving weather is turning it less into a random chance encounter and more into a calculated risk that players are intentionally making.

Randomness -> Predictability: If I know that all big masses of desert biome have a significant chance of spawning a sandstorm, that sandstorms have X effect on my units, and I know that ahead of time, then this becomes part of the decision process that I make when choosing a start location, or choosing the direction to send an attack, or choosing to attack when the weather is in my benefit. Generally this would apply to all weather effects: they occur only within a given predictable area (eg, a specific biome, near shoreline, etc), they occur often in the context of an entire game (once every 5-10 minutes for each potential weather region), have a small yet noticeable effect, and are presented in a way that players know about the risk/effect ahead of time.

This could extend beyond weather effects and into things like active volcanoes that spit out fireballs randomly within an area, or frozen lakes that have visible cracks that grow under pressure and eventually break swallowing units (perhaps a bad example as it would probably induce micro).

Visuals: This could be solved with shaders that display units underneath weather effects, having a weather overlay that gets toggled on/off, and, more straightforwardly, designing weather effects that are transparent enough to see through. You could also do something like making weather more transparent when closer to the planet, and more opaque when it's zoomed-out and displaying strategic icons.

It might not be realistic, but it could still read like the appropriate weather and be as unobtrusive as possible.

Feasability: This isn't really a solvable problem. Either you have the resources to add it or you don't.

Isn't in Line With Existing Goals: Again, not really a solvable problem if your game's goals are already defined, and that's why I wished you focused more on this part.

Edit: I posted this article in another thread, but it's really good and relevant - http://www.lostgarden.com/2012/12/under ... ms-of.html

I used to be on the RNG hateboat until I read that, and now I think it's a really great tool - when used right - to make players make decisions about calculated risks and their effects (like Poker) instead of just a ton of binary decisions.

Sweet, another PA dev blog to follow (along with sorian and Mavor)

I don't know what or how, but I feel you've misinterpreted something I said. Perhaps people are asking for gameplay impacting weather mechanics, which I'm not.

Fog of war does effect unity readability. So much, that you can't even see the units! This obviously opens up new strategic options. All I'm suggesting,(which you picked up on) is that it's possible to the combine weather and FoW. Clouds and other atmospheric effects could always float above the horizon, as done in spore, and extend into areas where you wouldn't see units anyway (areas covered by FoW).

Don't hold your breath waiting for an explanation as to how it makes your game better, because obviously it doesn't. Everything suggested is entirely aesthetic and makes no more of an improvement than better explosion effects, higher quality textures, etc. The only real question still stands: "Is the time and money worth the aesthetic gain?". Maybe, maybe not, it's personal taste.

All that aside, I have a related question.

What approach would you take to filtering ideas, when the game thrives on an unnecessary amount of features and mechanics? Minecraft for example.

I agree 100% with everything in garat's blog. Great read.

Garat, just out of curiosity, what are the chances of things like weather or deep space combat being conceivably modded into the game? I don't mean a full on Homeworld 3 total conversion, I just mean something reasonably space-combatey. Just trying to get a feel for how open the game will be to some crazy modding.

Planet weather is not terribly interesting. However, some of the effects are. It may be worth trying out strategic barriers such as things that block vision, radar, or are impassable to certain classes of units. Don't use too many things that wound or maim; the players can do that on their own!

For example, an active volcano may release thick clouds of ash. That ash may blind air units, or slow them down, or simply be impassible. The volcano itself may be extra volatile, chain reacting with a fellow nuke or asteroid to deal more damage to the planet than normal. A super structure may simulate some of these things towards a defensive end.

A violent acid lake may allow hovercraft across, but nothing else. It may not allow structures or parked aircraft or raw construction, but ships can cross no problem.

Sure they're not weather patterns, in that they don't move around or resemble the chaotic nature of real weather. But those aren't good things to have anyway. Stick to more fixed disasters, and make sure they're serious enough that a future robot can be legitimately affected by it. Because most of what you see on Earth won't cut it.

I agree with what you're saying, but I just have one little peeve that I'd like to get out there. I would like people to stop saying that pretty explosions are purely aesthetic. Pretty explosions are a core of gameplay, since creating explosions, if you think about it, is what everything we do in an RTS boils down to. It's just plain satisfying, like how in minecraft you get that little sound effect that plays after mining a block.

This is a neat idea. I can envision a wall of ash billowing across part of the globe being a kind of floating mountain as far as aircraft are concerned. And likewise, anvil cloud thunder storms (no base busting lightning for me) that form and dissipate, causing radar problems and air obstacles. Or whatever. I normally don't care much about the weather stuff, but these are interesting.

I'd say explosions are more core to the robot war theme, than the actual genre, but I still get what you're saying. Sorry for poking your peeve.

Lowest hanging fruit

Wait, what? That question was completely unrelated to the other discussion. I'm genuinely curious as to how his approach would differ in a game where diversity is what makes the game.

Yeah, agreed. Making up the different effects is the fun part. Maybe a sandstorm causes anything inside it to be invisible to radar, or lightning storms decrease solar output while causing aoe stuns with lightning strikes. Everything you and bobucles said are fun, though I disagree with bobucles that they'd have to be static effects. Making them active 15+% of the time (in couple minute bursts) would still be predictable enough IMO.

Realistically, I think it would be cool to get some of the simpler of these effects actually in the game (along the line of what bobucles said). If not, it'll be the makings of an awesome mod.

that's what I meant, the feature that results in the most improved user experience for effort require is what gets made.

so minecraft gets lots of different colored blocks and now they're getting horses copied from an existing mod.

that's definitely the mojang way to build a game :lol:

hoping for the thought process on original non-cosmetic ideas though

I think this kind of stuff has to be mod territory only. Weather just isn't a gameplay concept with this RTS. This is about TA style planet smashing. The weirder and riskier stuff should be tried by fans. That way, if the mod sucks or nobody uses it, you can just click off the checkbox and not use it. The thing I want most in PA is the possibility of the community adding in major features like space combat and such. Then people can do as they please, but it's a totally optional part of the game.

Where is the like button?

So, Knickles. When working on a game, I, and others, generally get in the headspace of those games for months, or even years at a time.

You're asking me to think about designs in a game I haven't played in 8 months to prove what exactly? No offense, but while I love Minecraft, worrying about their design challenges isn't really at the top of my to-do list currently. And you'll also not find me on their forums making feature suggestions, because of -->> blog.

Make sense?

Yeah I worded that poorly. At the time I was thinking more about static map features that affect units. Example, they mentioned lava in the May 17 livestream. As long as it's possible to explicitly order a unit to drive into lava and it really kills them, or there's a swamp that slows units down as they drive through it, then that system can be extended in about 1,000 ways by modders. I'm not suggesting they waste their time on weather.

You think I'm trying to prove something :| ? I was just wondering how that thought process may or may not change when applied to a different type of game, because your blog post seemed to fit into a broader discussion than just PA (and because I generally value your insight...). But my god, if I had known you'd get this flustered, I would have never brought it up.