.
What follows I consider this topic's linchpin in a practical sense but at
the same time, a very concise mindcast that owns itself.
Somethings are difficult to wrap your noggin around because they represent something
of an affront to conventional wisdom. This is one
of those occasions.
RPS (Rock, Paper, Scissors), adapted from board games to comp games, is a technique originally invoked to deal with
the limits
of comp processing power to sim any aspect
of real combat experience.
Over time this has also become an instance
of losing sight
of the forest for
the trees - tactics contra strategy, if you will, in
the design
of battle GPMs.
What do these tandem statements mean exactly ?
It comes down to
the difference between "fixed movement rules" (board games) vs. "free-maneuver" (
RTS). This is a partial sim approach and that is more than enough. A total sim is NOT
the point or goal here.
The latest cognitive science is also being applied but in
the service
of the art
of game design.
Movement ruled by RPS constructed knowledge served, in a very real sense, to replace visceral maneuver skills, audacity, creativity & complexity* (defined below).
As
the viability
of enhanced maneuver skills escalates through
the switch-tasking efficacy
of Command Control GPMs-GUIs
the central importance
of movement rules shaped by an RPS construct is diminished.
Achieving one viable maneuver skill we'll call "asymmetric success" would make
of RPS a niche GPM flavor rather than central to satisfying game play or victory.
Maneuver will trump RPS balance under these conditions by a design that is closer to invoking RL War decision-making which is more viscerally & intellectually satisfying to
the field general alter ego resident in
RTS gamers by definition.
Within a couple years, this will become conventional wisdom, not an affront to and, by extension,
the band-wagon to climb aboard.
.
------------------>
* Complexity maneuver I define in this context as effective, coordinated, control over multiple combat groups from multiple vectors at varying velocities..
One practical implementation would go like so (quoting myself):..
- You have 3 Combat Groups: #1, #2 and #3.
- You see those #s on the Mini-Map and can do the following: set-up way points, patrols, coordinated offensive maneuvers from
multiple vectors and at varying velocities.. Basically, this is how 21st Century RL Military OPs are executed. It's called "C3" for
"Communications, Command, and Control". IMHO it would be an elegant way to introduce such a game play mechanic into WZ.
You would be re-assembling what's already there and you wouldn't even need a new GUI. Neat. 'Course it could be further refined
once BetaWidget is fully implemented utilizing one of Elio's fine UI prototype / mock-ups...
- This would also have the side benefit of relieving some of the bogus switch-tasking strain of attending NON-combat tasks while
trying to control a major offensive. As I have said elsewhere - "I think the switch tasking excessive to the point that it degrades the
battlefield aspect of the game which for me is the #1 experience that all other features and GUI's should serve to enhance."
The beauty
of all this is that it can be subject to
the rigors
of a scientific experiment-lab.... readily transcending opinion, if you will.
Arrivederci !, whipper
.
You could be a star on you-tube, explaining all this!
xD seriously - google BAHA - will be similar to whatshisface steve austin... hear ants fart at 100 km.... xD
)