開發者談手機遊戲平臺策略遊戲設計的問題
開發者談手機遊戲平臺策略遊戲設計的問題
原作者：Josh Bycer 譯者：Vivian Xue
廣受玩家喜愛的《命令與征服》系列的新作誕生了，EA在E3展上公佈了新版F2P遊戲《命令與征服：宿敵》（Command and Conquer Rivals）。正如EA自己和粉絲們在Twitter上指出的，這是即時戰略遊戲型別和戰略手遊領域的一大突破。然而作為RTS遊戲的忠實玩家和CnC系列的粉絲，我並不贊同這一觀點，我認為是時候討論一下RTS手遊設計的一些問題了。
一、關於RTS的基本知識：
RTS設計是一個很大的主題，但是為了切入正題我將避免長篇大論，集中討論這類遊戲的一些核心內容。
如果把戰略遊戲比作一枚硬幣，那麼即時戰略遊戲只是硬幣的一面，另一面則是回合制戰略遊戲。即時戰略遊戲主要包括以下幾個基礎方面：
AI War：Fleet Command(from gameris)
1：基地建設/管理
無論是小型還是大型戰略遊戲，基地建設都是遊戲設計中不可或缺的一部分。基地既是玩家升級的渠道，又對玩家起到一定的限制，決定了比賽的節奏。
玩家們必須組建起一支軍隊，通過升級基地來蒐集更多資源以及解鎖新單位。很多的戰略遊戲把基地建設作為戰略的主要部分。《帝國時代》（Age of Empires）和《王國的興起》(Rise of Nations)系列中玩家通過升級基地來實現時代的更替，他們需要在建設一支龐大的軍隊還是一個規模更小但是更先進的時代之間進行衡量。
對於某些戰略遊戲，基地建設可能是整場比賽中的一個持續關注點，或者僅僅用於推動生產，那麼遊戲剩下的內容就是軍隊的管理。
2：單位控制
談到軍隊管理，這方面的理念千變萬化。在即時戰略遊戲中玩家們控制著上百個單位，在此情況下他們需要儘可能控制好每一個單位。
在單位控制方面，一個關鍵點在於遊戲重微觀（還是重巨集觀，巨集觀涉及戰略遊戲中玩家的思維模式、遊戲經濟和總體策略，而微觀指策略內的具體細節，比如選擇和取消單位、為單位下達命令等微觀操作，遊戲邦注。）《星際爭霸》和《英雄連》這類遊戲引以為傲的便是讓戰鬥雙方能夠在一種來回的博弈中進行。相對的在《橫掃千星》中玩家只需排兵佈陣，然後等待一場大戰的上演。（與《橫掃千星》這種注重大局的遊戲相比，《星際爭霸》和《英雄連》更偏向區域性的戰鬥，遊戲邦注。）
而控制好單位依賴於一個優秀的使用者操作介面，能夠讓玩家管理軍隊以及各個單位。為避免偏題我就不深入探討了。
3：單位的平衡
單位的平衡是戰略遊戲設計的主要部分，也是本文將討論的重點。戰略遊戲總是把單位平衡作為設計基礎以確保公平性。
一些遊戲系列採取非對稱的平衡，比如《星際爭霸》以及《命令與征服》中，不同派別的單位的能力和屬性值各不相同。而一些其他的遊戲則保持單位組合大致相當，但可能存在輕微的差異和特殊獎勵，《帝國時代》就是一大例子。
單位平衡的核心就是石頭剪刀布系統，或者本文中提到的RPS。RPS指的是單位之間互相剋制，不存在絕對的強者和弱者。
這種平衡為設計者和玩家提供了兩個關鍵的優勢。第一，玩家很容易理解遊戲規則以及比賽的核心。對於設計者來說，RPS為設計和微調單位提供了一個框架。
不過，你必須瞭解RPS平衡會對戰鬥結果產生多大的影響。如果系統太強大，戰鬥可能會失衡並且無休止地進行下去。如果系統太弱，玩家們則不會去考慮如何建立平衡的軍隊，而是直接選擇屬性值最高的單位。
單元平衡是戰略遊戲設計的成敗點，也是如今的“戰略”遊戲最失敗的地方。
二、如今的戰略遊戲
如今讓人們聊聊戰略遊戲，他們很可能會提到《部落衝突》或者《皇室戰爭》。這些年來，戰略遊戲設計轉向了移動端，設計理念也隨之改變了。
比賽在單個畫面中進行，而不再是過去的多個畫面。基地管理、資源，以及單位控制都被簡化。最大也是最關鍵的變化是遊戲重點落在了RPG式升級和抽象上。
遊戲的主要內容不再是如何調遣你的軍隊，而是確保你的部隊和能力得到提升。玩家通過升級單位提高基地的屬性，從而在戰爭中獲得更好的表現。這一升級過程與盈利結合在了一起。要升級單個單位，玩家必須花費遊戲貨幣和一定數量的該單位。隨著級別的提高，二者的成本越來越高昂。
儘管這種系統對玩家們來說並不是最好的，但開發者們選擇了它。原因顯而易見，RPG升級曲線比單純的技能升級更長。通過將它與遊戲盈利機制結合起來，它還能提供一個向玩家間接出售基礎能力的簡易方法。
持有一張稀有或史詩級別的卡片是永遠不夠的，你需要多張卡片的疊加，才能在其他玩家中保持競爭力。這意味著玩家需要花大量時間碰運氣，或者在遊戲商店裡花錢。
RPG升級還可以幫助新玩家更好地理解遊戲。一些更復雜的單位需要達到某個級別才能被解鎖，這使得玩家瞭解新單位如何融入到遊戲玩法中，從而獲得成長、不斷收穫新的知識。
儘管有這些積極面，但是移動遊戲開發者卻沒能從《命令與征服 4》和《帝國時代Oline》的慘痛教訓中吸取經驗。
三、為什麼角色扮演模式行不通
正如我們之前提到的，策略遊戲建立在一個要麼寬鬆要麼僵化的RPS系統上。這使得玩家必須進行不同單位的組合，而不得使用單一型別的單位。問題在於，RPS系統和RPG升級機制是不相容的。
RPS設計是為了創造一個簡單的平衡規則：單元X應該總能夠對抗單元Y。而單位解鎖機制和額外的單位增強，會造成設計中很大的不平衡。
《命令與征服4》設計中的一個問題就是這種單位和選項的解鎖機制。由於玩家們無法得到所有的選擇項，等級不同的玩家在戰鬥過程中就會遇到一個很大的問題，如果玩家A擁有一個玩家B暫時無法抵抗的單位，那麼玩家B將毫無還擊的辦法。
由於單位升級也與等級掛鉤，即使在兩個玩家擁有單位一樣的情況下，仍然會因其中一方的單位等級更高而造成比賽的不平衡。
一旦允許玩家升級單位，或者改變抽象程度，遊戲平衡會出現兩大問題。第一點也是很容易看出的一點：遊戲會失衡。多數戰略手遊不允許玩家直接控制單位。這意味著一場戰爭的結果取決於遊戲中的抽象設定。
一旦相似的單位的力量等級不同，策略就失去了意義，因為高等級毫無疑問會戰勝低等級。
讓RPS複雜化導致了遊戲對弱玩家來說更為艱難。在《帝國時代》Online中，在單位上裝配武器可以提高單位的屬性值；甚至能打破它們原來的性質。升級的石質單位實際上可以反擊紙質單位。如果遊戲抽象使玩家無法反擊某單位，遊戲的平衡會因此被毀掉。
不僅如此，因為抽象不屬於玩法的範圍內，玩家在比賽中將無力彌補。
四、不太具有戰略意義
我玩的“戰略”手遊越多，感受到遊戲的戰略性越少。獨立開發者仍有望開發出他們自己的RTS，《帝國時代 4》的宣告確實有一定價值。
然而，移動平臺是戰略遊戲的新歸宿是非常虛偽的說法。儘管這些戰略手遊具有輕戰略性，但它們的核心是盈利，它們缺乏戰略遊戲的核心本質。
本文由遊戲邦編譯，轉載請註明來源，或諮詢微信zhengjintiao
At E3, EA announced the “next generation” of Command and Conquer as Command and Conquer Rivals: A F2P version of the beloved franchise. As they, and many supporters on Twitter, were quick to point out, this is the evolution of the real time strategy genre and mobile strategy games. As a fan of RTS games, and obviously the CnC series, this is incorrect, and it’s time to talk about how mobile has failed to learn the lessons of RTS design.
-RTS Basics:
There’s a lot more to RTS design that we’re going to talk about here, but for the sake of keeping things on track, I’m going to focus on some of core tenets of the genre.
Real Time Strategy games have always been one side of the strategy coin; with the other being turn-based. The RTS foundation is built on the following aspects:
1: Base Building/Management
Whether we’re talking about micro or macro-styled strategy games, base building has been an essential part of the design. One part progression, and one part limiter, base building defines the tempo of a match.
Players have to manage building an army with upgrading their base in order to get new research options and units. Many strategy games have turned base upgrading into a major part of the strategy process. Series like Age of Empires and Rise of Nations used the base structure and tied it into era advancement. In this regard, players had to balance between creating a massive army vs. a smaller, but more advanced one.
For some strategy titles, base building may be a constant focus throughout a match, or simply used to get production rolling, and then the rest of the game is army management.
2: Unit Control
The next point is being able to control your army. For this one, there is a wide berth in terms of philosophy. Players should have as much control over one unit, as they can with a hundred.
The big factor when it comes to unit control is just how micro-focused the game is. Titles like Starcraft or Company of Heroes prided themselves on turning combat into almost a dance between the two sides. On the other end of the spectrum, you have games like Planetary Annihilation that was about getting your massive army into position and then watching the spectacle unfold.
Good unit control requires a well thought out UI to manage armies and individual units, and going into more detail would take us way off topic.
3: Unit Balance
The big part about strategy game design, and we’ll focus this post on, has to do with unit balance. Strategy games have always been built on a foundation of unit balancing in order to keep things from becoming unfair.
Some series go for full asymmetrical balance, such as Starcraft and Command and Conquer. Here, the different factions have completely different units in terms of abilities and stats. Other series keep the unit compositions the same, but may have slight variances and special bonuses; the big example would be Age of Empires in that regard.
At the heart of unit balance is the idea of a rock paper scissors system, or RPS for this post. RPS refers to the concept that every unit type is strong against one other, and is weak against a different one.
This kind of balance provides two key advantages for designers and players. The first one is that it’s very easy to grasp while learning the game and what to do in the heat of a match. For designers, RPS provides a solid framework for creating and fine-tuning units.
With that said, you have to be aware of how much the RPS balance will impact battle outcomes. If the system is too strong, then it can lead to lopsided matches of endless countering. If the system is too weak, then players will not be conditioned to build balanced armies and simply go with whoever has the highest stats.
Unit balance is the make it or break it point for strategy design, and where modern “strategy” games have failed the most.
-The Modern RTS:
Chances are if you ask people about strategy games today, they will probably point to titles like Clash of Clans or Clash Royale. Strategy design has shifted towards mobile over the years with a change in design philosophy.
Instead of multiple screens, matches take place on just one. Base management, resources, and unit control have all been reduced. The biggest and most concerning change has been a greater focus on RPG progression and abstraction.
It’s no longer about just fielding an army, but making sure that your troops and abilities are upgraded. By upgrading units, players improve the base stats; making them better on the field. This is where the progression and monetization models combine. To upgrade a single unit, players must spend in-game currency and copies of that unit in order to level them up. The costs of both get progressively more expensive with each level.
While this system isn’t the best for the player, it’s very easy to see why developers implement it. RPG progression provides a longer curve compared to just skill. By tying it into the monetization, it also grants an easy way to sell the player base power indirectly.
You can never just use one rare or epic card, you need multiple copies in order to get them competitive with other players. That means many hours farming drops to get lucky, or spending money in the in-game store.
You can also use RPG progression to help the learning curve for new players. By purposely locking more complicated units behind an account or faction level, it provides a sense of growth and discovery as new units become unlocked to be integrated into the gameplay.
Despite those positives, mobile game developers have failed to learn the critical lesson that Command and Conquer 4 and Age of Empires Online learned the hard way.
-Why Role Playing Strategy Doesn’t Work:
As we’ve talked about, strategy games are built on either a loose or rigid RPS system. This creates army compositions and a punish for players who just build one unit type. The problem is that a RPS system doesn’t work when there is RPG progression.
RPS by its design is meant to create simple rules of balance: Unit X should always be able to counter Unit Y. When you start locking units behind progression or allow them to be powered up, it creates a big imbalance in the design.
Regarding locking units or options, this is the issue that Command and Conquer 4 had with its design. By not giving players access to all the options, it created a big issue when players of differing levels fought each other. If player A has a unit that can’t be countered yet by player B, then the second player will not be able to respond to the different unit.
With upgrades also locked to levels, this also meant that two players with the same units could still be imbalanced if one could upgrade their units more.
When you start allowing upgrades, or abstraction changes, this presents two big problems with balance. The first one is an easy one: It creates an imbalanced board. Most strategy games on mobile do not allow for direct control over units. What that means is that the outcome of a battle is dictated by the abstraction at play.
Having similar units at different power levels renders any strategy moot, because the higher level one will always win when fighting something lower.
Throwing RPS into mix makes things worse for the weaker player. In Age of Empires Online, attaching equipment to your units would raise their stats; to the point of breaking their unit roles. Someone with upgraded rock units could actually fight back against paper-type units. If the counter to a unit can’t win due to abstraction, then game balance is ruined.
Moreover, because the abstraction occurred outside of the gameplay, there was nothing a player could do during a match to compensate.
-Not so Strategic:
The more “strategy” games I play on mobile, the less actual strategy I’m seeing. There is still hope from indie developers making their own RTS, and the announcement of Age of Empires 4 does have some merit.
However, saying that the mobile platform is the new home of strategy games is very disingenuous. While these games are strategy-lite, they’ve removed the core essence of the genre and replaced it with monetization.（source： Gamasutra ）