I know those values are the right ones because they've been the right ones for the last 30 years or so...These values have more than 30 years of actualy use backing them up. They are far more certain than any computer game values.

I know those values are the right ones because they've been the right ones for the last 30 years or so...These values have more than 30 years of actualy use backing them up. They are far more certain than any computer game values.

Humor us non-designers. We're curious. Tell us why those are the right values. Tell us what would happen if we didn't use those values. Please. That's all mikeman is asking. Is that really so difficult? What was the question you thought mikeman asked, that you thought you were answering?

You could even write a multi-paragraph blog post explaining those numbers alone. People here would read it.

If you can't explain why you believe something, how can you be sure that you're right?

I mean, he conceded that those values are just a "good starting point based on experience", and prone to change, which is reasonable...you award the player based on their dice roll, you start with some default values that seem reasonable based on your exprience and then tune them as necessary...except that's what all designers do *anyway*. What Kavig Kang claims to bring to the table is a much more detailed design document...but if the document is 800-pages littered with arrays of values that are not set in stone and can change anyway, why not condense it to "player is awarded based on a 5-dice roll - values of awards to be decided upon playtesting" in the first place?

If the various values are to be balanced during playtesting anyway, would you rather have 20 pages detailing the fire and damage rates of all the weapons in the game, or just a single sentence "weapons will differ in damage and fire rates, but no weapon is clearly better than the other and they all have their purpose - the actual values are to be decided when the game is played and tested"? The latter is what he calls a "summary" in contrast to the "detail design document that is already a game" - except I don't see the value in the former when the values are going to be tuned during testing anyway, it just feels like you filled a lot of pages with numbers to give the *impression* of "professionalism" instead of capturing the essense of the game mechanic in a few paragraphs and do the tuning later. I mean, if we go back to the money you get based on dice roll, the essence here seems to be that there's an extra bonus for the "all 5 dices roll six", beyond what you'd normally get based on the function used for 1-4 sixes. So you can just say that, more effectively communicating what you're trying to do and why, instead of listing endless arrays of values which are to be tuned afterwards anyway.

Unless, of course, he does have a "scientific method", besides of past experience that every designer has, of determining those values, in which case the detailed designed document is valuable because fine-tuning in order to capture the elusive "fun" factor will take much less time. But so far he hasn't answered what is the "scientific method" that lead to a 400-million bonus instead of a 800-million one or a 200-million one. Hell, I could even say that if you roll 5 sixes, you do one more dice roll and the extra bonus is decided based on that, so it could be 100 to 600 million extra bonus. Or you roll the dice and you get a fixed bonus, unless you roll 1, in which case, no bonus, just your "regular" 1.6 billion. Are those rules better? Are they worse? Are they just different? Does the extra dice roll generate more "fun/suspense" or more "boredom" for the players? I personally have no idea, that's why I'm asking questions(but not really getting answers), but don't you need to have an explanation of why if you claim that "those value are correct" and even bring "math" and "scientific method" into it?

Kavik Kang, I don't want you to think I'm doubting that you're a good game designer, I mean it's certainly obvious you know your stuff when it comes to board games, I'm just curious what is this "scientific method" you use and you claim is a huge advantage over all the other videogame designers.

Okay, and now something tangentially related to lighten the mood :D

Yeah, but as someone who is just interested in learning *some* stuff about game design, I posed an honest-to-god question. What is it that makes a 400-million extra bonus to result in better and more exciting game play than a 800-million one(or any other value really)?

I am not sure what you are asking. This is only one of many ways the player makes money in this game. In fact, I will also reveal that a core mechanic of this game is building up minor nations both militarily and politically so that it is then safe to "invest" in those minor nations that are strong enough to survive an opponents attempt to reduce, or eliminate, the return you would otherwise get is a primary element that has broad impact on all aspects of the game and how the players play it. But for this one bonus from the land combat system... it represents the minor nations needing to buy their equipment from their associated superpower. So that is the money that you are receiving from them for that, what this war/battle cost them in the end. If the minor nation lost one or more units, you would make even more money because they would be buying those units back from you as well. Those values are only good starting points. There are certain core values of any game, at least the way I do it, that are pretty set in stone... only because they are so proven. Those values are "the rock" by which you compare all others. This money bonus is most definitely on the "will not be truly known until playtesting" type of numbers. So if that is what you are pointing out, I agree completely. Those values are not likely to survive development, and then the development numbers are unlikely to survive playtesting.

The combat values, on the other hand, are known to work. It's just too simple to not work, from our perspective of our experience. In fact, I have gone with what we consider to be "the best way if you can make it work" which are the lowest numbers and the tightest balance. It's not possible to get any lower and tighter than this land combat system. There is no room to change anything and maintain this "tightest of balances". To make any value changes here you have to "give up" and double everything just to create room for adjustments. Or, if you are not inexperienced at this... you would actually tipple everything, which is what I would do. That lets you adjust all the values 1 in either direction. It also allows for a more dynamic relationship between units which I would DEFINITELY take advantage of. If I were losing the "tight balance" that does work best, then I would want to compensate for that by adding another dynamic back somewhere in the system. This would, by definition, change the relationship between the units as it exists now... but it is easy to make it work in many ways, so I can do this and still have it be balanced in the end. But I don't need to do that here. This actually works exceptionally well. Anyone can put some Axis & Allies pieces, or some poker chips, and put this on a table and play with it. It is practically an Hall of Fame cast of previous similar systems tied together by me, with a little of me in between, on top, and in the middle.

Assembling the battle, on and Axis & Allies battle board, using the rules of Fortress America, allocating the damage with the Federation & Empire combat system (with SVCs sheer magic with making a mountain of a molehill of almost nothing at the core of how a game works), and me composing it all and connecting it with some of my own things in between to make them work together the way they do, and then adding a few of my own cherries on top of that. All of it's major components are very well tried and true, and the values being used are so low that it is VERY easy to understand... for the player, as well. This F&E system, for example, becomes quite a bit more complicated when the numbers range between 20-120 and you are using the actual F&E die roll chart to determine the damage. This is far more simple than that, because players like games best when it is simply for them to totally and fully understand all aspects of the mechanics and thus their decisions are 100% fully informed. Maximum "situational awareness".

EDIT: Mike, Rube is a whole other subject that I think we determined is not a good one for me to try and focus on. This cold war game is the game I first noticed Rube in, coincidentally. It is not a "system" it is a physical construct for understanding the "3rd generation of Avalon Hill" or simply, the way I make games that has evolved over a period of 40 years and comes from the "second generation of Avalon Hill" the Star Fleet Universe. The Pirate Dawn Universe is the next generation of that line. What is likely the final evolution of that 70 years or so of continuous work of an entire industry... and then me. Them for 50, me for 20. That is what Rube is... the end result of 70 years of work by hundreds of designers.

PS - If anyone does put this on a table to play it just ignore fighters, they don't exist. You don't have the rules for them, and they are very often not present. Definately use my helicopter, it adds a lot to the situation with regard to the Tank and is essentially a ground unit. In fact, try it with and without the helicopter and see the difference:-)

I followed the thread from afar, because too much "I AM OF THE ANCIENT CIVILIZATION MIGHTY AND POWERFUL RESPECT MA AUTHORITA!!!" and one-sided conversation, but still, I wanted to react on the following passage, where you describe why a team can't comes up with a succesful idea.

Your process then has everyone in the room chiming in about how that RTS will work. So you have already begun to make a "generic RTS". Bland, generic, inevitably a lot like the last few ones that were successful. What happened to the actually specific idea that first person had? It's been forgotten and lost during the very first discussion.

Why? Why, as soon as multiple people are working on a game design, it automaticaly makes it a generic idea? Sure it can. But the echange can also go like :

- Hey I thought about this.

- Funny, but I think this idea is better.

- Mmh, if I take your idea and modify it a bit, it make a fun mechanic.

- Oh, you are right, and it inspire me for another mechanic.

This conversation is a bit ideal, but the point is, by going back and forth through several people ideas can change and get better. (notice the "can" and not "will")

I know those values are the right ones because they've been the right ones for the last 30 years or so...These values have more than 30 years of actualy use backing them up. They are far more certain than any computer game values.

- I am right today because I was right yesterday.

- Then why were you right yesterday?

- Because I was right the day before.

- ...Nevermind.

Also, I'm curious to see the GDD you are talking about, you said you could send it if asked to.

It's because in many, if not most cases, something like a truly new way of making an RTS, for example, can't be conveyed in a short discussion. The other person hears the beginning of it, envisions what they assume is being explained, but that isn't actually it. Maybe what they are envisioning is actually better, or a great idea for altering it slightly, but it misdirects the discussion and the one person is never going to redirect it back to what they had actually been talking about. If there is something for everyone to read first, which may be 60-200 pages... then everyone can discuss that. After having contemplated it a while, even. So they can discuss the entirety of what this idea that, if the person is experienced at this like many of you are, may have been something very unique and innovative. Or maybe even something special. Or maybe something that, when you understand it and add a few ideas you have always had... it becomes a lot better. It provides a common frame of reference, so everyone is on the same page about what it is that is different about this... and all that entails throughout the entirety of that type of game. Rather than 3 minutes of explanation, and everyone thinking in terms of those last few successful games to start discussing 3 minutes of information.

That land combat system is very simple by our terms. To take it down a level... How do you know that Tic-Tac-Toe does not work, and is a broken game? Is that likely to change? As for anyone who might want to play that on a table to mess with it... lower all the die rolls needed by one. It's a Rube thing... it's set to be balanced for Rube. You have no Rube "summoning support" for you, so this change will make the battles work out a little better:-)

I can send you a copy of Pirate Dawn, but I haven't been able to sent attachments through private messaging here. Someone else had asked to see something as well, but the options for attaching aren't below my text field like they should be. So if you have a way for me to send a word file too you send me a private message with a way how and I can send it too you.

It's because in many, if not most cases, something like a truly new way of making an RTS, for example, can't be conveyed in a short discussion

Why not? I tend to adhere to the K.I.S.S way of thinking. If you need a novel for each and every idea, maybe your idea is to complex, or you are not efficient enough in your explanation. And if the listener does not understand, then maybe you didn't explain it well. And it is your role to make sure he understands. If you are not willing to make this effort, then you'll have to work alone. (which is not bad per se)

Plus, having a huge GDD does not garantee either that everybody will understand correctly what is written. (to be honest, so far your writing is really hard to understand, maybe it is because I am not a native english speaker, but still)

Rather than 3 minutes of explanation, and everyone thinking in terms of those last few successful games to start discussing 3 minutes of information.

I don't understand this sentence.

In the end, you are saying that the "new way" are not good because it involve oral explanation rather than refering to a GDD?

Or is it because there are multiple people involved in the creating process?

That land combat system is very simple by our terms. To take it down a level... How do you know that Tic-Tac-Toe does not work, and is a broken game? Is that likely to change? As for anyone who might want to play that on a table to mess with it... lower all the die rolls needed by one. It's a Rube thing... it's set to be balanced for Rube. You have no Rube "summoning support" for you, so this change will make the battles work out a little better:-)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is likely to change? Die roll in a tic-tac-toe?

I seen the word Rube coming very often in the discussion, what does that mean?

Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

We need to see something you have actually achieved - something that has made it past design and idea stage and a tangible product created, be this a playable game, a board game, whatever. You will continue to have trouble convincing people you are not just ignorant and arrogant until something tangible has been shown.

Simply yes or no, do you have any such thing? If I've missed it in your many walls of text, I'm not surprised.

Does anyone have any advice for my unique situation?

We need to see something you have actually achieved - something that has made it past design and idea stage and a tangible product created, be this a playable game, a board game, whatever. You will continue to have trouble convincing people you are not just ignorant and arrogant until something tangible has been shown.

Simply yes or no, do you have any such thing? If I've missed it in your many walls of text, I'm not surprised.

Well, he did made Sinistar Unleashed :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinistar:_Unleashed

(Kavik Kang is Marc Michalik, you can see it in his blog which he posted here).

Haven't played it myself, but by most people's admission, it looked pretty, but the design was lacking and the gameplay repetitive. I also don't see any sort of awesome space combat in it either. But according to Kavik, it was everyone else's fault, so...yeah. I remember in the old threads saying that "they gave him an 'empty engine'(?) and he came up with a game in a few months", which to this day I don't understand, since that's pretty much what videogame designers do - they use the engine and the tools(primitive or not, easy-to-use or not, depends on the company) in order to build levels and populate them. I have no idea what he means by "empty engine".

Still, it *is* a shipped game tied to a well-known franchise, and it was not a total disaster, so I'm not sure why he had *such* a hard time finding employment in the industry after that.

As for Star Fleet Battles, all I could find is this : https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/19181/star-fleet-battles-tactics-manual/credits

Which, as far as I understand, is:

"a manual detailing tactics for the game, and included strategy contibutions from many of Star Fleet Battles's top players. It included advice on energy allocation, weapon use, manuever, and empire (race) specific advice.".

Can't find his named attached to the *actual* game as a designer, so the claim that he was part of the "SFB Staff"...meh. Take it with a grain of salt. The manual was published by the company, so you can argue that makes him "part of SFB Staff", but not one of the *designers* of the game. I'm guessing he was probably one of the "top players" that contributed to this "tactics manual" with advice on how to play the game, not a designer of the actual game. Surely professional Starcraft players can't also claim that they're responsible for being part of the *design* team, right? But I could be wrong, he can link us to the actual game's page with his name included in the credits. I personally can't find it in the 3 editions of the actual game, the sole designer listed there is Stephen V. Cole:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/37061/star-fleet-battles-designers-edition/credits
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/29663/star-fleet-battles-captains-edition-basic-set/credits

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1589/star-fleet-battles/credits

So...I don't know. An unremarkable(aside from graphics) videogame, a contribution to a tactics manual for a board game, and a mod(IKNFL) which claims was earth-shattering when it comes to sports games, except when I search for it on google, all I can find are just his own posts about it. It certainly is not *nothing*, and I believe it's enough for a modest portfolio to put in a CV and search employment as a designer in a game company. But surely not enough to warrant such attitude, which frankly I believe comes from sheer bitterness and frustration that he hasn't been given the attention and respect he adamantly believes he deserves. My guess is that is mainly due to his poor communication skills, and overall attitude, which puts people off, especially when you have very few concrete things to show off in order to capture their attention.

I never said anything about the game that Sinistar is on "everyone else". I said I would call what I did there being a "rescue designer". I was not involved with Sinistar until the last 3 months. Almost no work had been done at that point, other than placing the asteroids in the levels and it was supposed to ship in 3 months. I came up with an overall game that would match the description "Sinistar in 3D" and created all 30 levels, across 4 (or was it 3?) levels of difficulty in about 10 weeks. They had two weeks left to ship it... but got a 1 month extension for testing but I wasn't allowed to touch it again because they just wanted to test what they had and ship it in those 6 weeks. GameFX was an extremely talented group of people. What had been said at the time was that I could "make a game out of it". At that point, nobody expected it to be any type of blockbuster, just a shipable product. If I were going to criticize it would only be to say that we could have shipped a much better game if they had listened too me and forgotten about multiplayer and had the entire team help with single-player instead of only half the team. They had to use half the team and the entire time focused on multiplayer just to come to the conclusion I knew with certainty and tried to explain to them to begin with. We could have done a lot more if half of the resources available hadn't been wasted on something I that could never work in the first place. One of the programmer said... "We gave him a shoebox full of unrelated parts, and he gave us a game in three months." if you want to hear it in someone else's words.

As for SFB, I really don't need to say anything there. I am a legend in that world, almost anyone who has played the game knows my name. And you forgot about Babylon 5, we did that one too:-) Star Trek and Babylon 5... how many of you out there have done both?

The Multiplayer tactics manual for the computer game SFC was just written for fun, as a player of SFC. Most who played that game online have read it, it taught that entire community how to play SFC. that's why I wrote it, for the first couple weeks I was like a living god in multiplayer and had taken to challenging 3 people at a time... and still winning. And I am a "rules lawyer" not an "ace, in SFB lingo. That changed in just a couple weeks after I wrote that tactics manual. The tactics manual for SFB is not the same thing. That is an SFB product, although there are things in there I wrote just like many other staff members.

There is an article about IKNFL on my blog. The ratings of all sports games since are based ENTIRELY on IKNFL. I don't need to defend this, either, lots of people actually knew this back then. Sierra wanted to hire Indra and I to design FPS:FB99, but we went to GameFX instead.

I don't want to reply to any of the rest of this, because it would just degenerate the thread into a bunch of meaningless bantering. Why don't you set up my Territories land combat system on a table and play with it for a little while, Mike. I think you will discover some actual game design magic in that, that's why I used it as an example. To show an example of the magic that is the SVC/SFB/Kavik Kang way. And once you start to see that... then realize that if you were playing the full game Rube might be including any type of support imaginable through "the future that both players had planned" for this battle. Anything. Anything at all. More units, a pre-emptive airstrike. Long range artillery or rockets from the attacking nations. Cruiser/sub launched cruise missiles. Intelligence agents, special forces. Chemical and/or biological weapons. My alternate universe Al Qaeda might even happen to strike in that nation as well. Absolutely any type of "support" that could possibly happen in the real world might happen. "Represent Everything!!!" Our motto, remember. It should all be there already, but if it isn't... if it can be written on a card and expressed through the Active/Passive Map, anything I might of missed would be easy to add. You are looking at combat taking place within a very primitive version of "The Matrix", and Rube can summon anything that exists in his world into this fight.

This is part of the reason I posted this... just play with the land combat system a little and see what you discover... Your first glimpse of a little of SVC's magic... and my re-interpretation of it to bring it into your world.

As for SFB, I really don't need to say anything there. I am a legend in that world, almost anyone who has played the game knows my name.

That still doesn't answer on whether you were part of the team that *made* SFB. As I said, I found your name on the tactics manual for it, which was written by "top players". So, granted, you are well known in the SFB community, *as a player*. Here, reposted:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/37061/star-fleet-battles-designers-edition/credits
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/29663/star-fleet-battles-captains-edition-basic-set/credits

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1589/star-fleet-battles/credits

I don't mean to sound harsh, or start a fight. I sincerely believe you know your stuff. But it seems to me you have a very skewed idea on how to communicate effectively your accomplishments to people, or even what constitutes an accomplishment. And also, to be completely frank, you haven't done much work to build your portfolio, if you want to be hired as a videogame designer. You could have made dozens of mods for all kinds of games all these years, showcasing your ideas, for profit and great glory, but you preferred to post about how unfairely unrecognized you are by the game industry.