※ 引述《wulouise (在线上!=在电脑前)》之铭言： http://www.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417 原文靠北长 看完就懒了 -- I've been asked a few times, "Why don't you do stuff like Rupture (from DOTA Bloodseeker) in LoL?" 我被人问了很多次为啥不在LOL加个类似OS的含笑半步颠的技能 I usually respond -- Rupture contains several basic design 'anti-patterns'. I thought I'd post for the benefit of those who are interested what strong anti-patterns I am aware of. 我通常回说，因为这技能是"反模式"的设计 我在这就说明一下我注意到哪些是强力的"反模式"设计 So... Here are a few that come to mind.... Note that you can find an example of each of these somewhere in our game at some intensity level. Sometimes this is just bad design. Sometimes this is because we got something else in exchange. Design is an optimization -- but these anti-patterns are of negative design value, so you should only do them if you get something good in return. 我说一说我想到的 你可以在我们的游戏都各找到一些 有些可能只是不好的设计，有些是因为我们在其他地方弥补 设计是一种最佳化，而这些反模式设计则是有负面设计价值 所以你只应该在有良好的弥补下才使用这些负面设计 To be clear, LoL has a number of abilities that use these anti-patterns. Sometimes it's because we got something good in return. Sometimes it's because we made design errors. However, we generally avoid them nonetheless, and certainly use them a lot less than other games in our genre. LOL的这些反模式设计有些可能是因为我们有好的弥补，或是只是设计失误 然而，我们一般都会去避免或是尽量少用 Power Without Gameplay 不需要主动玩的POWER This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don't find satisfying or don't notice. The classic example of this is team benefit Auras. In general, other players don't value the aura you give them very much, and you don't value it much either -- even though auras can win games. As a REALLY general example, I would say that players value a +50 armor aura only about twice as much as a +10 armor aura... Even though +50 is 5x better. Another example would be comparing a +10 damage aura to a skill that every 10 seconds gives flaming weapons that make +30 damage to all teammates next attack (with fire and explosions!). I am pretty sure that most players are WAY more excited about the fiery weapons buff, even though the strength is lower overall. 这些可能是有着很大效益但是玩家却不领情的POWER 经典的例子就是灵气 一般来说，玩家都不觉得灵气很强，即使它们可以帮你赢也一样 举一个非常非常一般的例子，+50甲的灵气在玩家们的心中价值大概只有+10甲的两倍好 即使它事实上是五倍强也一样 另一个例子是跟+10伤害的灵气比起来 每10秒给全队一次+30伤害的单击火焰武器强化(如果还有火焰和爆炸就更好了) 玩家们绝对比较喜欢後者，即使後者事实上比灵气烂很多也一样 The problem with using a "power without gameplay" mechanic is that you tend to have to 'over-buff' the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it. As a result, we tend to keep Auras weak, and/or avoid them altogether, and/or pair them on an active/passive where the active is very strong and satisfying, so that the passive is more strategic around character choice. For example, Sona's auras are all quite weak -- because at weak values they ARE appreciated properly. 从上面的例子看，因为玩家们普遍低估，所以你可能会倾向把它们弄得太强 因为我们的灵气都很弱，而且(或是)避免把它们搞在一起、或是跟主动被动效果搭配 然後这个主动要够强，这样来弥补 举例来说唢呐的灵气都烂烂的，但其实它们够好 (总结：像是灵气的不讨喜，所以尽量不要，不然还有人会哭弱，大家偏好爆炸) Burden of Knowledge 知识超载 This is a VERY common pattern amongst hardcore novice game designers. This pattern is when you do a complex mechanic that creates gameplay -- ONLY IF the victim understands what is going on. Rupture is a great example -- with Rupture in DOTA, you receive a DOT that triggers if you, the victim, choose to move. However, you have no way of knowing this is happening unless someone tells you or unless you read up on it online... So the initial response is extreme frustration. We believe that giving the victim counter gameplay is VERY fun -- but that we should not place a 'burden of knowledge' on them figuring out what that gameplay might be. That's why we like Dark Binding and Black Shield (both of which have bait and/or 'dodge' counter gameplay that is VERY obvious), but not Rupture, which is not obvious. 这在硬派的新手设计师非常非常常见 就是你设计了很复杂的玩法，只有受害者才知道发生什麽事 含笑半步颠就是个很棒的例子，你只要走动就会受到伤害 但是你除了去看说明或是别人告诉你，不然你不知道WHYYY 所以可以说这招的初步反应很让人混乱 我们相信让受害者有反制法是很好玩的，但是不应该有知识超载 In a sense, ALL abilities have some burden of knowledge, but some have _a lot more_ -- the ones that force the opponent to know about a specific interaction to 'enjoy' the gameplay have it worst. 某种意义来说，所有的招式都有这问题，只是有些招多很多 招式越独特越特化的问题就越大 Good particle work and sound -- good 'salesmanship' -- will reduce burden of knowledge (but not eliminate it). We still would not do Rupture as is in LoL ever, but I would say that the HON version of Rupture, with it's really distinct sound effect when you move, greatly reduces the burden of knowledge on it. 良好的声光效果，也就是推销，会降低这问题(但不会解决) 总之我们不会在LOL搞个含笑半步颠 但是我得说HON也有这招，而它的非常特殊的声音效果大大地降低了这问题 In summary, all mechanics have some burden of knowledge, and as game designers, we seek to design skills in a way that gives us a lot of gameplay, for not too much burden of knowledge. If we get a lot more gameplay from something, we are willing to take on more burden of knowledge -- but for a given mechanic, we want to have as little burden of knowledge as possible. 总之我们总是在寻求降低知识超载的问题 (总结：玩家都懒得看说明，招式要有多直觉就有多直觉，不用文字就了最好) Unclear Optimization 不清楚的最佳化 This is a more subtle one. when players KNOW they've used a spell optimally, they feel really good. An example is disintegrate on Annie. When you kill a target and get the mana back, you know that you used it optimally, and this makes the game more fun. On the other hand, some mechanics are so convoluted, or have so many contrary effects, that it is not possible to 'off the cuff' analyze if you played optimally, so you tend not to be satisfied. A good example of this is Proudmoore's ult in DOTA where he drops a ship. The ship hits the target a bit in the future, dealing a bunch of damage and some stun to enemies. Allies on the other hand get damage resistance and bonus move speed, but damage mitigated comes up later. Very complicated! And almost impossible to know if you have used it optimally -- do you really want your squishies getting into the AOE? Maybe! Maybe not... It's really hard to know that you've used this skill optimally and feel that you made a 'clutch' play, because it's so hard to tell, and there are so many considerations you have to make. On the other hand, with Ashe's skill shot, if you hit the guy who was weak and running, you know you did it right... You also know you did it right if you slowed their entire team... Ditto on Ezreal's skill shot. 这部分比较微妙 当玩家们知道他们最佳化地使用了某个技能，他们就会很爽 举例来说安妮用火球烧了个敌人以後会回法力，所以玩家知道他做对了，就爽了 相对的有些就比较别扭，或是有相反的效果，以至於你无法当场就了解怎麽做才是最好 所以你就会没法满足 一个好例子就是OS船长的幽灵船，一艘船过一段时间撞过来，造成一大堆伤害和昏迷 然而队友同时得到抗伤害和额外跑速，但是伤害的缓和会晚一些 OMG这超级复杂的对吧，你根本没法知道你是不是真的有把这招用到最好 你是不是真的要把脆皮卷进范围？可能要也可能不要，你需要考虑的太多，也无法满足 我们的艾许就简单多了，你射出去，把一个快挂掉然後逃命的家伙给爆头了 或是把一团人全都给缓了 你知道你超强也就爽了 EZ的射射也是一样 (总结：玩家喜欢简单又容易回馈的技能，不用担心一堆，因为用的完美就爽) Use Pattern Mis-matches Surrounding Gameplay 不搭配的技能 I won't go into too much detail on this, but the simple example is giving a melee DPS ability to a ranged DPS character -- the use pattern on that is to force move to melee, then use. This does not feel good, and should be avoided. I'm sure you are all thinking -- but WoW mages are ranged, and they have all these melee abilities! Well... Frost Nova is an escape, and the various AEs are fit around a _comprehensive_ different mage playstyle that no longer is truly 'ranged' and is mechanically supported across the board by Blizzard -- so the rules don't apply there ;p 这边没太多细节，举例来说就是给弓手一个近战技能 所以他们得靠过去用这个技能，这样感觉会不好，应该避免如此 我知道你们这时会想，嘿，WOW的法师不就有一堆近战技能吗 well 冰霜新星是逃跑技，而那堆范围技则容易理解而且符合不同的法师风格... 总之我说他不适用这个例子 Fun Fails to Exceed Anti-Fun 反乐趣>乐趣 Anti-fun is the negative experience your opponents feel when you do something that prevents them from 'playing their game' or doing activities they consider fun. While everything useful you can do as a player is likely to cause SOME anti-fun in your opponents, it only becomes a design issue when the 'anti-fun' created on your use of a mechanic is greater than your fun in using the mechanic. Dark Binding is VERY favorable on this measurement, because opponents get clutch dodges just like you get clutch hits, so it might actually create fun on both sides, instead of fun on one and weak anti-fun on another. On the other hand, a strong mana burn is NOT desirable -- if you drain someone to 0 you feel kinda good, and they feel TERRIBLE -- so the anti-fun is exceeded by the fun. This is important because the goal of the game is for players to have fun, so designers should seek abilities that result in a net increase of fun in the game. Basic design theory, yes? 反乐趣就是你做了某件事然後伤害到对方的游戏体验 虽说其实在玩游戏你几乎都是在破坏对方的游戏体验，但是在设计时就要注意不要太超过 Morgana的Q就让我们非常非常满意， 因为射出去的时候绑到人的时候你会爽，没绑到对方也会爽，不管怎麽样都是有人爽 相反的我们就没有做强力的燃烧法力 因为你把对方抽成0的时候只会觉得不错，但是对方会觉得超级不爽 这时候就是反乐趣>乐趣 因为我们要知道玩游戏就是要乐趣，所以我们要注意两边的平衡， 这是基础的设计理论，yes? (总结：两边都能爽最好，不然也要尽量平衡，显然TK就是个糟糕的例子) Conflicted Purpose 冲突的目标 This one is not a super strong anti-pattern, but sometimes it's there. A good example of this would be a 500 damage nuke that slows enemy attack speed by 50% for 10 seconds (as opposed to say, 20%), on a 20 second cooldown. At 50%, this is a strong combat initiation disable... but at 500 damage it's a great finisher on someone who is running... but you also want to use it early to get the disable -- even though you won't have it avail by the end of combat usually to finish. This makes players queasy about using the ability much like in the optimization case, but it's a slightly different problem. If the ability exists for too many different purposes on an explicit basis, it becomes confusing. this is different from something like blink which can be used for many purposes, but has a clear basic purpose -- in that place, players tend to just feel creative instead. 这个并不严重，但是有时候就是在那边 举例来说有一招是500瞬伤同时又会缓对方攻速50%十秒(或是20%)，CD20s 当缓50%时她是个强大的开场控场，但是500瞬伤又是个良好的尾刀技 所以这地方就冲突了，你很难决定要要开场还是尾刀用(这地方跟玩法最佳化类似) 如果一招有太多用途，就容易造成混乱 这不像跳跳，有着多用途，但是基本目的很清楚，这时候玩家倾向认为不同玩法是有创意 Anti-Combo 反组合 This one is bad. This is essentially when one ability you have diminishes the effectiveness of another in a frustrating manner. Some examples: - Giving a character a 'break-on-damage' CC with a DOT (yes, warlocks have this, but they tuned it to make it not anti-combo much at all) - With Warriors in WoW -- they need to get rage by taking damage so that they can use abilities and gain threat -- but parry and dodge, which are key to staying alive, make them lose out on critical early fight rage. So, by gearing as a better tank, you become a worse tank in another dimension -- anti combo! - With old warrior talent trees in WoW, revenge would give you a stun -- but stunned enemies cannot hit you and cause rage gain... So this talent actually reduced your tanking capability a lot in some sense! Anti-combo! 这个很糟，某一招会让另一招缩减功能，举例来说 1.某个"受伤就会解除"的控场，但是同时又有持续伤害 (warlock就有类似的招式，但是有被改进一些) 2.WOW的战士，需要被揍才有怒气，有怒气才能放招，才能吸怪，格档和回避没有怒气 而这样就变成你的装备越好，格档和回避就越高，所以你就没怒气，就是个烂坦克 3.古代的WOW战士天赋，复仇可以击昏人，但是对方被昏就不会打你，也就没有怒气 所以你点了这招就让你坦力变弱 False Choice -- Deceptive Wrong Choice 错误选择：欺骗你的错误选择 This is when you present the player with one or more choices that appear to be valid, but one of the choices is just flat wrong. An example of this is an ability we had in early stages recently. It was a wall like Karthus' wall, but if you ran into it, it did damage to you, and then knocked you towards the caster. In almost every case, this is a false choice -- because you just shoudln't go there ever. If it was possible for the character to do a knockback to send you into the wall, it wouldn't be as bad. Anyhow, there's no reason to give players a choice that is just plain bad -- the Tomb of Horrors (original module) is defined by false choices -- like the room with three treasure chests, all of which have no treasure and lethal traps. 就是你有几个选择让玩家选，看起都可行，但是其实里面有一个根本就是错的 举例来说我们早期有一招墙像是死歌那样，你跑进去会受伤然後被撞到施法者那边 在大部分的情况这是个错误的选择，因为你根本不应该跑过去 如果是施法者可以拉你去撞墙，这样才比较好 总之，你没有理由给玩家一个纯粹就是错误的选择 像是DND的Tomb of Horrors就是个错误的选择 又像是房间有三个宝箱，但是里面全都没宝物，只有致命的陷阱 (总结：不要裱玩家) False Choice -- Ineffective Choice 错误选择：没效率的选择 Similar to above, except when you give what appears to be an interesting choice that is then completely unrewarding, or ineffective at the promised action. An older version of Swain's lazer bird had this failing... Because the slow was so large, you could never run away in time to de-leash and break the spell and reduce damage, and in cases you did, you'd just dodge 20% of the damage at a big cost of movement and DPS -- so running was just an ineffective choice. 跟上面很像，只是这个选择完全没奖励 像是古代的史汪的鸟，超级缓以致於你根本跑不出技能范围逃脱 即使你跑出去了，你也只是躲开20%的伤害，然後丧失大量的跑速和DPS 在这个例子，逃跑就是个没效率的选择 Or We Could **** the Player!!1111oneoneone 或是我们乾脆就****玩家!! This is where you straight up screw over the player, usually with dramatic flair, or maybe just try to make the player feel crappy in a way that isn't contributing to the fun of the game. These range in severity, but examples usually are spawned because the designer is a pretentious wanker who likes to show what a smart dude he is and how stupid the player is. I do not respect designers who engage in this pattern intentionally, and encourage any design lead out there to immediately fire any of your staff that does. I do understand that it can happen inadvertently, and that you might cause some of this stress on purpose in an RPG for character development.. And of course, I love you WoW team despite the 'playing vs' experience of Rogue and Warlock, as you DO have the best classes of any MMO, and they look even better in Cataclysm.... But, on Bayonetta, did the developers really think the stone award was a good idea? But I digress... 就是直接裱玩家，只有烂设计师才这麽做，想要展示他多聪明玩家多笨 像我很喜欢WOW的团队，即使我必须面对跟贼和战锁队打的阴影也一样 因为你们却时有着所有线上游戏最好的职业设计，而且他们在大灾变看起来又更好了 但是在Bayonetta，那些设计师真的认为那些石头奖励是个好主意吗?我不认为如此 Very Severe: The original tomb of horrors D&D module is the worst in existence. Good examples are the orb of annihilation that doesnt look like one and instakills you and all your gear if you touch it, and the three treasure chests where each has no loot and deadly traps and no clues that this is the case. 非常糟： DND的tomb of horrors是最糟糕的范例 好的范例是orb of annihilation，你摸到以後会被瞬杀然後装备全部不见 还有三个没宝物只有致命陷阱的宝箱也是 Severe: There's a popular wc3 map in China where you enter a bonus round, and have a 2% chance of just straight up dying rather than getting cool loot. 严重： 像中国有个受欢迎的魔兽三地图，当你进入额外回合，就有个2%机率直接死掉 Situationally Moderate:Horrify + fear kiting from a competent warlock who outgears you in WoW. Guess what? You die before getting to react, while watching it in slow motion! 看情况： 在WOW被战锁用惊吓+恐惧放风筝 你还没反应就死了，还是用慢动作观赏！ Mild: Stone award in Bayonetta. So... you barely get through the level for the first time, then get laughed at by the game with a lame statue of the comic relief character, and a mocking laugh. Please -- maybe a bronze award and a 500 pt bonus might be more appropriate? The player might have worked VERY hard to get through the level, espec on normal and higher difficulties. 温和： Bayonetta的石头奖励 你第一次大概都过不了关，然後就被个漫画风的蠢雕像笑，笑的还很让人不爽 拜托，给个铜奖励和500点不会比较好吗？ 玩家得非常非常努力才过的了关，特别是在普通和更高的难度 Non-Reliability 不可靠 Skills are tools. Players count on them to do a job. When a skill is highly unreliable, we have to overpower it to make it 'satisfying enough'. Let me give you an example: Let's say Kayle's targeted invulnerability ult had a 95% chance of working, and a 5% chance of doing nothing when cast. We'd have to make it a LOT stronger to make it 'good enough' because you could not rely upon it... and it would be a lot less fun. Random abilities have this problem on reliability -- they tend to be a lot less satisfying, so you have to overpower them a lot more. Small amounts of randomness can add excitement and drama, but it has a lot of downsides. There are other examples of non-reliability, but randomness is the most obvious one. Abilities that require peculiar situations to do their jobs tend to run into the same problems, such as Tryndamere's shout that only slows when targets are facing away from him. 技能是工具，玩家倚赖它们来达成工作 当技能高度不稳时，我们就必须把它弄的很强才能让人满意 给你个例子：要是凯尔R有5%可能会失灵，我们就得把它弄的非常非常强才能让它够好 因为它不可靠，这样一来也就变得不好玩 随机系的技能就有这种可靠度问题，它们通常让人不太满意，所以你就必须调强很多 小幅度的随机性可以增加乐趣和插曲，但是有很多缺点 不只是随机，还有很多其他例子属於不可靠，然而随机是最明显的一个 需要特殊情况才能发挥的技能也有这种问题，像是Tryn的W需要别人背对才能缓人 这好像解释很多之前一直有人抱怨LOL技能直线或是简单的问题... --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.122.76.84 ※ 编辑: wake01 来自: 140.122.76.84 (07/14 21:27)