Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
Modern civilized life is very soft compared to what we see in this game. I doubt most people have ever had a pretty damaging injury and had to "press through" to run a mile or two afterwards (or maybe fight in a battle for an hour). You can just call for emergency services and wait for help.
The point is that we are not machines and we become less effective when we get hurt as the adrenaline wears off. Try playing a fast paced competitive game (whatever you enjoy) but right before the game starts give yourself a nasty paper cut on the index finger of your primary hand. By comparison that is nothing to having 2 inches of steel penetration to the chest.
Someone else put forth the idea that a javelin could deliver a killing blow. I am emphasizing the point that an inch or two of penetration can give you a wound that could lead to your death. There is of course the obvious that you get something like sepsis or gangrene. And then your death was because "God hated you" as a result of not having knowledge of bacteria.
Platemail is a challenging concept because you needed to be mobile while still being protected. This is why it has cut outs to save on material and weight. The mail you wear underneath the coat of plates gives you some protection where you need more mobility at the joints. The problem is that this means you were not completely protected especially when attached from the side or rear.
You don't need to go through plate if the enemy is wearing some mail. There is a big difference in armor if we are talking about 1066 vs 1415. Let's not forget the game can start in the 860 where the javelin might be more appropriate. Still when you look at a 1415 breastplate you can see large cut outs on the sides (where the armor is nearly 1/3 as thick).
This is a far more realistic video looking at period weapons and armor. Look at what happens with the first shot.
https://youtu.be/DBxdTkddHaE?t=1129
Sigh... I can't believe I'm going to bother...
Let's see if I can explain this... Complexity is not a good thing
Complex is one of the GREAT EVILS of game design.
The LAST THING you want in a game is complexity.
What you seek in Game Design is DEPTH.
The idea of Depth is giving the players the ability to make meaningful choices.
Complexity is each system that you add that allows the players to make those meaningful choices, that adds Depth.
However, Complexity and Depth are not a 1 to 1 ratio. Adding more Complexity may not add more Depth. This means you're adding Complexity for nothing! Worse even, it may even remove Depth, in which case the entire concept is flawed from the start.
This is why a Game Designer doesn't go... "What is the most insanely complex game I could possibly make?"
Which is why you saying that you want Complexity for the sake of Complexity is not only illogical, but harmful for the game.
Yeah. And you said you want more simple, I said I want more complex. I did not say I want something what makes no difference to the game play or makes the game worse.
We can take cultural soldier units as an example here. I want them because it is complex concept, while it adds little game play choice. It adds just slightly variation, and maybe some immersion, some could argue a bit history. You could argue it adds nothing to the game play. But even though something may add nothing to the game play it can be a nice detail.
Better example would be that you would make Shogun 2, I would make for example Divide et Impera modded Rome 2. If you know good differences you understand that example. Both approaches have their fans. Your CK3 would be very different than mine, and both would had their fans, yours more than mine by a big margin.
I'm starting to feel like a teacher now...
So Chapter 2 of game design... Vertical vs Horizontal design...
Vertical design is the idea of adding more mechanics
Horizontal design is the idea of adding more options that work within the current design
Each time you add more Vertical Design you're adding more burden of knowledge on the players because they need to learn and understand more systems.
Horizontal Design is generally considered a safer way of adding more options and choices without adding much more complexity.
Guns in a Shooter doesn't change the core game, but it does add more options to it. Cultural Units in this game follows this logic.
Now an issue that occurs with these 2 systems intermixing is that when you add one, you need to take the other into consideration.
For example, each time they add a new Cultural Unit, it needs to interact with other units in the game, it needs to interact with the terrain rules, and it needs to interact with the Skill Tree.
On the opposite axis, if they add additional Vertical design to units. Say they added Seasons to the game, and each unit performs differently on each season. Then they need to go back and change every single existing unit to fit with the new rules.
This can create a ton of work and complexity... but Paradox are Master Game designers and they understand these concepts which is why they added a containment system. Huscarls are not just Huscarls. Huscarls are Heavy Infantry. Now they don't need to add Huscarls to the Skill Tree, they just need to add Heavy Infantry to the skill tree. Which is also a call back to Chapter 1, simplifying.
So it could be argued that proves the point of the design philosophy because game became so complex as a result that new players scared, new people do not get into game. But old players happy. Old players very happy. Not complex for them.
Edit: Also people were more interested of Vertical development, they requested complex big DLCs, and Horizontal development was hated in the form of flavor packs because it was not given free, you had to pay of it, and many raged it is not worth it to pay.
MAA hint hint
Out in the open they are similar to levies (worthless), but in their terrain they are deadly.
Tbh I wish more units would take advantage of terrain, I didn't notice much of a difference attacking anywhere, a man at arms army will always beat every empire in the game.
When the devs create a masterpiece and, for some reason, decide to make it simpler for simplicity's sake, that's when they create a lower quality product incapable of attracting a new audience AND lose their old one at the same time, for instance when HoTS decided to make a simpler MOBA very few people liked it, and once the players realized how little there was to it, their players lost interest quickly, meanwhile the most played mobas have tons of combos, metagame rules, unique interactions between 2 items or 2 champions/heroes, and they are still going strong.
When Imperator came out, still using that simple mana system nobody liked it, that was one of many criticisms the game received.
That's not to say there aren't ways to make unecessarily complex things simpler, or dumb systems more complex to be engaging, there's always a middle ground.
A great counter example would be HoI3, many people, including me have tried to give it a try, I know players who went through videos and tutorials, they were learning the game, but when it came to that absurd chain of command system that, as you said, added nothing but complexity for complexity sake and did little to actually benefit the gameplay itself, most people just threw their arms up in the air and said "♥♥♥♥ this ♥♥♥♥ I'm out" so it's possible to go in the other direction in a bad way.
But as a rule of thumb I'd say trying to simplify a game, specially an old successful IP 99/100 times is a really, really bad idea, there is room for improvement in other, different ways, but never aim at "simpler", that's what gamers have always called dumbind down, and that will burry a game for ever.
The commander makes a difference, but not so huge a difference as to always offset sheer numbers. My 26 advantage commander fought a commander with 16 advantage last night, about 2,500 men against 6,000, and lost decisively. Your numbers won't mean anything unless you deploy them on open ground. Fighting on hills, boglands, or heaven forbid, mountains, will limit combat width. The same is true of major river crossings. At 50% combat with, you're only deploying half your forces at one time, which means a force half your number is now fighting you on equal terms.
As far as counters...
Archers don't counter archers. They counter skirmishers, because skirmishers are lightly armored and have a much shorter effective range than archers. If your archers are countered by actual archers, something is either being misreported, or it's a culture-specific men-at-arms unit. Perhaps English longbowmen? I can see where they might counter regular archers, given that their bows were larger and had a greater range.
But no, I've just double checked, no bow unit counters any other in the game. Are you certain the counter isn't due to the opponent's cavalry?
Light infantry are styled as skirmishers, and counter heavy infantry because they can pepper them with hard-hitting projectiles such as javelins, axes, or even stones while remaining loosely formed and highly mobile, making it nearly impossible for the armored infantry to deal with them.
It's not about a thrown javelin. It's about dozens of them. Javelins stick in shields (if not splintering them entirely), making them dead weight. Javelins can dislodge armor from the arming coat, making it less effective at best and downright hindering at worst. A well-thrown javelin can strike the head and disorient the target. They don't need to pierce the armor. Remember, countering doesn't mean that they're doing more damage to that unit. It means they're making that unit deal less damage.
Really?
The original DOTA was fairly complex,
Heroes of Newearth copied that Complexity
League of Legends and Heroes of the Storm went for a more streamlined and simple system
League of Legends and Heroes of the Storm are currently in Top 3 most popular MOBAs. Heroes of Newearth is basically dead.
When Imperator Rome came out it had an INSANELY COMPLEX mana system. What are you talking about? It literally had like 7 different Mana systems. They simplified it to literally 1 system and it saw a huge spike in popularity.
Gamers don't care about inherent Complexity, they care about Depth
I feel like you missed the essence of Chapter 1
The goal isn't to make things as simple as possible to make it as simple as possible...
It's give as much Depth as possible while keeping it Simple
That's called Elegant design.
Now the amount of Depth determines the the scope of the game. We are heavy gamers. We need games with tremendous amount of depth and are willing to understand complex mechanics for it. To get the amount of depth that Paradox games provide, complexity is a must. However, the goal is never complexity.
There was never anything whatsoever complex about mana systems, it's the simplest game design possible, Victoria 2 didn't use any of that and it's still regarded as the masterpiece of old paradox games, and one of the most complex ones as well (so complex I don't even know if the devs understand how the economy works fully) so that one is just wrong.
But I agree with your last sentence, depth is the goal, and while complexity and depth don't always have a 1 to 1 ratio, it's quite damn close, the moment a game designer ever starts aiming, specifically, for "simplicity", that game designer failed it's audience and the game will die, happened many, many times in gaming history and it's the bane of gamers.
You win one internet cookie!
Depth is what gives a game replay-ability. Imagine if there were a way to make skirmishers "op" as tribal for example. Then imagine if there were a way to make different eras change the meta so that as the player you could stack bonuses to make different units powerful with different factions at different times. That would be a way the devs could theoretically add depth to the game (but maybe it would be too complex for some so it didn't happen).
Games often do not aim for simplicity but rather someone finds a shortcut so that an array of choices becomes simplified by a single best choice. The Spiffing Brit loves to make video series on the subject and if you like his style of comedy I suggest you find his : Sid meier's pirates video.
It turns out you can win every fight in that game by picking a specific starting character trait and only using one move during attacks (when there are many options you are supposed to choose from). You press one button and you will always tie or win; so after enough attempts you win because the AI does not realize the error. In this case the developer made a mistake that you can exploit as the player because there is no choice as to what attack to pick in order to guarantee victory.
People are crying about LI beating HI in this thread but that is a healthy part of game balance. Imagine for a moment if tribes did not get HI and needed feudal to unlock them. If you are feudal then there would be a really simple answer for army design to counter your enemy. You make archers, cavalry, and pikemen. In short it would make the game into : paper rock scissors but tribes are not allowed to pick scissors.
Right now people are complaining when they go feudal because there is no upside, even after the nasty transition, tribal armies are cheaper, stronger and more numerous than feudal for a long, long time, and even late game the difference isn't that great.
Unless a person is aiming to go for the very endate of the game, it's often a really bad idea to go feudal, it's not worth anything for 200++ years, possibly the entire game.