※ 引述《wulouise (在線上!=在電腦前)》之銘言： http://www.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417 原文靠北長 看完就懶了 -- I've been asked a few times, "Why don't you do stuff like Rupture (from DOTA Bloodseeker) in LoL?" 我被人問了很多次為啥不在LOL加個類似OS的含笑半步顛的技能 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. 我通常回說，因為這技能是"反模式"的設計 我在這就說明一下我注意到哪些是強力的"反模式"設計 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. 我說一說我想到的 你可以在我們的遊戲都各找到一些 有些可能只是不好的設計，有些是因為我們在其他地方彌補 設計是一種最佳化，而這些反模式設計則是有負面設計價值 所以你只應該在有良好的彌補下才使用這些負面設計 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的這些反模式設計有些可能是因為我們有好的彌補，或是只是設計失誤 然而，我們一般都會去避免或是盡量少用 Power Without Gameplay 不需要主動玩的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. 這些可能是有著很大效益但是玩家卻不領情的POWER 經典的例子就是靈氣 一般來說，玩家都不覺得靈氣很強，即使它們可以幫你贏也一樣 舉一個非常非常一般的例子，+50甲的靈氣在玩家們的心中價值大概只有+10甲的兩倍好 即使它事實上是五倍強也一樣 另一個例子是跟+10傷害的靈氣比起來 每10秒給全隊一次+30傷害的單擊火焰武器強化(如果還有火焰和爆炸就更好了) 玩家們絕對比較喜歡後者，即使後者事實上比靈氣爛很多也一樣 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. 從上面的例子看，因為玩家們普遍低估，所以你可能會傾向把它們弄得太強 因為我們的靈氣都很弱，而且(或是)避免把它們搞在一起、或是跟主動被動效果搭配 然後這個主動要夠強，這樣來彌補 舉例來說嗩吶的靈氣都爛爛的，但其實它們夠好 (總結：像是靈氣的不討喜，所以盡量不要，不然還有人會哭弱，大家偏好爆炸) Burden of Knowledge 知識超載 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. 這在硬派的新手設計師非常非常常見 就是你設計了很複雜的玩法，只有受害者才知道發生什麼事 含笑半步顛就是個很棒的例子，你只要走動就會受到傷害 但是你除了去看說明或是別人告訴你，不然你不知道WHYYY 所以可以說這招的初步反應很讓人混亂 我們相信讓受害者有反制法是很好玩的，但是不應該有知識超載 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. 某種意義來說，所有的招式都有這問題，只是有些招多很多 招式越獨特越特化的問題就越大 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. 良好的聲光效果，也就是推銷，會降低這問題(但不會解決) 總之我們不會在LOL搞個含笑半步顛 但是我得說HON也有這招，而它的非常特殊的聲音效果大大地降低了這問題 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. 總之我們總是在尋求降低知識超載的問題 (總結：玩家都懶得看說明，招式要有多直覺就有多直覺，不用文字就瞭最好) 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. 這部分比較微妙 當玩家們知道他們最佳化地使用了某個技能，他們就會很爽 舉例來說安妮用火球燒了個敵人以後會回法力，所以玩家知道他做對了，就爽了 相對的有些就比較彆扭，或是有相反的效果，以至於你無法當場就了解怎麼做才是最好 所以你就會沒法滿足 一個好例子就是OS船長的幽靈船，一艘船過一段時間撞過來，造成一大堆傷害和昏迷 然而隊友同時得到抗傷害和額外跑速，但是傷害的緩和會晚一些 OMG這超級複雜的對吧，你根本沒法知道你是不是真的有把這招用到最好 你是不是真的要把脆皮捲進範圍？可能要也可能不要，你需要考慮的太多，也無法滿足 我們的艾許就簡單多了，你射出去，把一個快掛掉然後逃命的傢伙給爆頭了 或是把一團人全都給緩了 你知道你超強也就爽了 EZ的射射也是一樣 (總結：玩家喜歡簡單又容易回饋的技能，不用擔心一堆，因為用的完美就爽) 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 這邊沒太多細節，舉例來說就是給弓手一個近戰技能 所以他們得靠過去用這個技能，這樣感覺會不好，應該避免如此 我知道你們這時會想，嘿，WOW的法師不就有一堆近戰技能嗎 well 冰霜新星是逃跑技，而那堆範圍技則容易理解而且符合不同的法師風格... 總之我說他不適用這個例子 Fun Fails to Exceed Anti-Fun 反樂趣>樂趣 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? 反樂趣就是你做了某件事然後傷害到對方的遊戲體驗 雖說其實在玩遊戲你幾乎都是在破壞對方的遊戲體驗，但是在設計時就要注意不要太超過 Morgana的Q就讓我們非常非常滿意， 因為射出去的時候綁到人的時候你會爽，沒綁到對方也會爽，不管怎麼樣都是有人爽 相反的我們就沒有做強力的燃燒法力 因為你把對方抽成0的時候只會覺得不錯，但是對方會覺得超級不爽 這時候就是反樂趣>樂趣 因為我們要知道玩遊戲就是要樂趣，所以我們要注意兩邊的平衡， 這是基礎的設計理論，yes? (總結：兩邊都能爽最好，不然也要盡量平衡，顯然TK就是個糟糕的例子) Conflicted Purpose 衝突的目標 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. 這個並不嚴重，但是有時候就是在那邊 舉例來說有一招是500瞬傷同時又會緩對方攻速50%十秒(或是20%)，CD20s 當緩50%時她是個強大的開場控場，但是500瞬傷又是個良好的尾刀技 所以這地方就衝突了，你很難決定要要開場還是尾刀用(這地方跟玩法最佳化類似) 如果一招有太多用途，就容易造成混亂 這不像跳跳，有著多用途，但是基本目的很清楚，這時候玩家傾向認為不同玩法是有創意 Anti-Combo 反組合 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! 這個很糟，某一招會讓另一招縮減功能，舉例來說 1.某個"受傷就會解除"的控場，但是同時又有持續傷害 (warlock就有類似的招式，但是有被改進一些) 2.WOW的戰士，需要被揍才有怒氣，有怒氣才能放招，才能吸怪，格檔和迴避沒有怒氣 而這樣就變成你的裝備越好，格檔和迴避就越高，所以你就沒怒氣，就是個爛坦克 3.古代的WOW戰士天賦，復仇可以擊昏人，但是對方被昏就不會打你，也就沒有怒氣 所以你點了這招就讓你坦力變弱 False Choice -- Deceptive Wrong Choice 錯誤選擇：欺騙你的錯誤選擇 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. 就是你有幾個選擇讓玩家選，看起都可行，但是其實裡面有一個根本就是錯的 舉例來說我們早期有一招牆像是死歌那樣，你跑進去會受傷然後被撞到施法者那邊 在大部分的情況這是個錯誤的選擇，因為你根本不應該跑過去 如果是施法者可以拉你去撞牆，這樣才比較好 總之，你沒有理由給玩家一個純粹就是錯誤的選擇 像是DND的Tomb of Horrors就是個錯誤的選擇 又像是房間有三個寶箱，但是裡面全都沒寶物，只有致命的陷阱 (總結：不要裱玩家) False Choice -- Ineffective Choice 錯誤選擇：沒效率的選擇 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，只是這個選擇完全沒獎勵 像是古代的史汪的鳥，超級緩以致於你根本跑不出技能範圍逃脫 即使你跑出去了，你也只是躲開20%的傷害，然後喪失大量的跑速和DPS 在這個例子，逃跑就是個沒效率的選擇 Or We Could **** the Player!!1111oneoneone 或是我們乾脆就****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，只有爛設計師才這麼做，想要展示他多聰明玩家多笨 像我很喜歡WOW的團隊，即使我必須面對跟賊和戰鎖隊打的陰影也一樣 因為你們卻時有著所有線上遊戲最好的職業設計，而且他們在大災變看起來又更好了 但是在Bayonetta，那些設計師真的認為那些石頭獎勵是個好主意嗎?我不認為如此 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是最糟糕的範例 好的範例是orb of annihilation，你摸到以後會被瞬殺然後裝備全部不見 還有三個沒寶物只有致命陷阱的寶箱也是 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. 嚴重： 像中國有個受歡迎的魔獸三地圖，當你進入額外回合，就有個2%機率直接死掉 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! 看情況： 在WOW被戰鎖用驚嚇+恐懼放風箏 你還沒反應就死了，還是用慢動作觀賞！ 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. 溫和： Bayonetta的石頭獎勵 你第一次大概都過不了關，然後就被個漫畫風的蠢雕像笑，笑的還很讓人不爽 拜託，給個銅獎勵和500點不會比較好嗎？ 玩家得非常非常努力才過的了關，特別是在普通和更高的難度 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，玩家倚賴它們來達成工作 當技能高度不穩時，我們就必須把它弄的很強才能讓人滿意 給你個例子：要是凱爾R有5%可能會失靈，我們就得把它弄的非常非常強才能讓它夠好 因為它不可靠，這樣一來也就變得不好玩 隨機系的技能就有這種可靠度問題，它們通常讓人不太滿意，所以你就必須調強很多 小幅度的隨機性可以增加樂趣和插曲，但是有很多缺點 不只是隨機，還有很多其他例子屬於不可靠，然而隨機是最明顯的一個 需要特殊情況才能發揮的技能也有這種問題，像是Tryn的W需要別人背對才能緩人 這好像解釋很多之前一直有人抱怨LOL技能直線或是簡單的問題... --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.122.76.84 ※ 編輯: wake01 來自: 140.122.76.84 (07/14 21:27)