In Foundational Principal #6, Mark keeps talking about the "rock, paper, scissor mechanic". What is it? I have never heard of this before, and its meaning is not clear to me from the context of his writing.
In Foundational Principal #6, Mark keeps talking about the "rock, paper, scissor mechanic". What is it? I have never heard of this before, and its meaning is not clear to me from the context of his writing.
That refers to the design idea that one class archetype should always be weak to some other class archetypes but strong against still others. That way the idea of 'class balance' can be de-emphasized in favor of 'realm balance'.
Examples from DAOC :
- cloth casters and ranged bowmen could burn down tanks at range but were automatically interupted by any melee attack, so were defenseless against stealthers that could sneak up and engage them.
- stealthers were glass melee cannons who could rip through any cloth wearer in moments, but would be snared, stunned, and beaten down by any tank that managed to get within melee range of them.
- tanks were tough and could interrupt the movement (shield slams - and I think most had some form of snare, but I could be misremebering) of their targets, leaving lighter armored classes "meat for the beast ", but were vulnerable to ranged attack.
And the brilliance of the general RPS design in a three-realm RvR game: is that there are ANY number of specific class mechanics that can be implemented, as long as the overall relationship is maintained and attention is given to overall realm balance.
In Foundational Principal #6, Mark keeps talking about the "rock, paper, scissor mechanic". What is it? I have never heard of this before, and its meaning is not clear to me from the context of his writing.
That refers to the design idea that one class archetype should always be weak to some other class archetypes but strong against still others. That way the idea of 'class balance' can be de-emphasized in favor of 'realm balance'.
Examples from DAOC :
- cloth casters and ranged bowmen could burn down tanks at range but were automatically interupted by any melee attack, so were defenseless against stealthers that could sneak up and engage them.
- stealthers were glass melee cannons who could rip through any cloth wearer in moments, but would be snared, stunned, and beaten down by any tank that managed to get within melee range of them.
- tanks were tough and could interrupt the movement (shield slams - and I think most had some form of snare, but I could be misremebering) of their targets, leaving lighter armored classes "meat for the beast ", but were vulnerable to ranged attack.
And the brilliance of the general RPS design in a three-realm RvR game: is that there are ANY number of specific class mechanics that can be implemented, as long as the overall relationship is maintained and attention is given to overall realm balance.
In Foundational Principal #6, Mark keeps talking about the "rock, paper, scissor mechanic". What is it? I have never heard of this before, and its meaning is not clear to me from the context of his writing.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
In Foundational Principal #6, Mark keeps talking about the "rock, paper, scissor mechanic". What is it? I have never heard of this before, and its meaning is not clear to me from the context of his writing.
Comments
That refers to the design idea that one class archetype should always be weak to some other class archetypes but strong against still others. That way the idea of 'class balance' can be de-emphasized in favor of 'realm balance'.
Examples from DAOC :
- cloth casters and ranged bowmen could burn down tanks at range but were automatically interupted by any melee attack, so were defenseless against stealthers that could sneak up and engage them.
- stealthers were glass melee cannons who could rip through any cloth wearer in moments, but would be snared, stunned, and beaten down by any tank that managed to get within melee range of them.
- tanks were tough and could interrupt the movement (shield slams - and I think most had some form of snare, but I could be misremebering) of their targets, leaving lighter armored classes "meat for the beast ", but were vulnerable to ranged attack.
And the brilliance of the general RPS design in a three-realm RvR game: is that there are ANY number of specific class mechanics that can be implemented, as long as the overall relationship is maintained and attention is given to overall realm balance.
Like many others, I never realized how much I loves the RPS dynamic until I played games that didn't use it. It really does work.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
Spot on explanation. gg.
Non-transitive. a>b>c>a
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Heh. Um... yeah. What he said.