Entries by Sirlin (333)

Wednesday
Aug252010

Work in Progress

Here's a picture of several of the proofs for the upcoming Puzzle Strike second printing and Yomi first printing.

I just thought I'd show you guys what it looks like to make all this stuff. All those logos, boxes, rulesheets, and chips have to be laid out, aligned, color corrected, and so on. This picture doesn't even include the playmats that come with Yomi, or any of the cards for Yomi. Also, all the physical construction of boxes, cards, and rulebooks is another matter entirely, this is just a picture showing the proofs for print quality of some of the various graphics.

It seems like this formatting and reformatting of boxes, chips, cards, rulebooks, and so on is never-ending, but hopefully you'll be able to see how it all turns out in November.

Tuesday
Aug172010

Interview on Fortress Ameritrash

Ken from Fortress Ameritrash did a big interview with me about Sirlin Games. He asked all sorts of stuff about what's been going on, what my philosophies are, and he got me to talk about the difficulty of being a publisher. Also, I think he really likes Puzzle Strike!

You might have an easier time completing your mission of reading the interview if you click on the + text size button at the upper right in the link.

Saturday
Jul312010

Starcraft's Essence in Card Form?

A Puzzle Strike player named BT mentioned that he thought Puzzle Strike captures what Starcraft is about better / more elegantly than the Starcraft board game. I thought it was an interesting statement, so I'll explain what he meant.

First, I should say that I have not played the Starcraft board game, but a quick look at it shows that it comes with about a thousand pieces, and looks complicated and long to play. My guess is that it tries hard to capture literally what's going on in the computer game, but that is generally a dangerous approach. Computers are good at keeping track of all sorts of numbers and resources that would be tedious (and yeah, "inelegant") in a physical game. Sorry if my impression of the board game is unfair though, I stress again that I have not played it, but BT said this is part of what he meant.

Meanwhile in Puzzle Strike, you have choices that basically amount to "expand," "tech," and "army."

Expanding

In Starcraft, you ideally would like to invest as much as possible in your economy, as a way of being weaker now but very strong later. In Puzzle Strike, this means spending your money to buy more gem chips for your deck. Gem chips basically are money, so buying them will make your economy much stronger later, but at the expense of not building "tech" or "army" now. In both games, you have to keep an eye on how much the opponent is threatening you with his army to know how much you can safely invest in your own economy.

 

Tech

In Starcraft, investing in tech gives you the potential to do powerful things. For example, building a Templar Archives gives you the ability to build High Templars and researching Psionic Storm gives your Templars access to that powerful spell. In Puzzle Strike, the analog is buying what players call "engine chips." These are chips that all work together to produce powerful combinations. For example, chips that give you more actions and chips that let you spend those actions drawing more chips. Building an engine in your deck is sort of like teching up in Starcraft, as it gives you access to powerful turns, but it's not the "tech" itself that wins--that's what your army is for.

Army

In Starcraft, your army is your set of attack and support units. It's your army--not your economy and not your tech buildings--that actually apply force to the enemy and win the game for you. In Puzzle Strike, your "army" is your set of purple chips, the ones capable of combining gems in your gem pile and crashing them so they leave your pile and go to your enemy's. Filling up his gem pile to 10 is how you win, so these purple chips are what allow you to directly attack the enemy and to defend against his purple assaults.

Putting it all together

It would be nice if you could just sit back and build economy, but if you take too long to build any tech or army, you're going to lose before you get to use all that money. Having just a bit of army early can let you hold off incoming attacks long enough to let your economy kick in. How much tech and when to build it is also a hard question. It's possible to completely overwhelm other players if you build a solid tech engine, but you could very well be overwhelmed by an opponent's army while you're trying to get that together.

Asymmetry, Build Orders, and Maps

In addition to the expand vs. tech. vs army concept, Puzzle Strike also has asymmetric starts (3 races in Starcraft; 10 characters in Puzzle Strike) and it has the concept of build orders and maps. A build order in Starcraft is a combination of moves that results in a certain level of expansion / tech / army and a certain composition and timing of that army. Doing a Zealot / Stalker rush is a very different build than putting up some static defense and going for air units like Void Rays. Likewise, trying to clog up everyone's deck with useless wound chips while yours stays tight and efficient is a very different "build" than a draw engine or a mono-purple rush.

In Starcraft, your choice of builds depends partly on the map you're playing on. While any given map allows for many viable builds, some builds become stronger or weaker--or even possible / not possible--on certain maps. In Puzzle Strike, the "map" is set of bank chips you can buy for your deck in the current game. There are 24 types of these chips total, but each "map" consists of a set of 10 of these, so that there are millions of possible starting conditions. Your build depends a lot on which of the millions of possible maps you're playing on.

Conclusion

Puzzle Strike certainly isn't the same game as Starcraft, and I'm sure you can easily think of differences, but BT's point is that it's striking how many core similarities there are. None of it was even intentional except for the inspiration of using 4-gems to fill a similar role to Protoss Carriers that I mentioned in this article. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the game, it's got a lot of really interesting dynamics.

Sunday
Jul252010

Puzzle Strike Launch

This first copies of Puzzle Strike are shipping this week, though inventory is very limited at first. Here's a puzzle to commemorate the launch.

 

Saturday
Jul242010

Analyzing Starcraft 2's Ranking System

Updated on Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 3:03PM by Registered CommenterSirlin

Updated on Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 4:33PM by Registered CommenterSirlin

Let's talk about Starcraft 2's ranking system, specifically the bonus pool system, the focus on ranked matches, and the division system. Before we get into all that, I'll give some background info from three years ago when I talked with Rob Pardo (VP of Game Design at Blizzard) about me possibly taking on the role of ranking-and-tournament systems designer at Blizzard. I ended up having to back out of that race because the Street Fighter HD Remix project suddenly became a reality, and I couldn't pass that up.

The reason I want to tell you about the ranking stuff from back then is to illustrate two points of view--mine and Pardo's--and to explain how it took me three years to understand that his point of view is probably best after all.

TrueSkill vs. Monkeying With Rankings

He asked me to come up with a ranking system for a game, we'll just call it Game X. My first response was that this is easy because it's already a solved problem: Microsoft solved it with what they call TrueSkill. TrueSkill is a refinement of the well-known ELO system used in Chess. One of TrueSkill's main features is that it can apply to games with more than 2 players, while ELO can't. Also, TrueSkill uses a bell curve rather than a single point when referring to a player's skill level. As the system gets more information about the player, it becomes more "certain" that the skill ranking is accurate, and that player's personal bell curve shrinks.

More important than any of those details though, is Microsoft's philosophy about rankings. The premise of their whole system is that players will have the most fun if the ranking system can give matches as close to 50-50 as possible. Yeah it's fun to have to have a few matches that are easy and some that are hard (and you will because of the inevitable variance), but you really do want the ranking system to try to give you close matches. Consider a matchmaking system that simply gave you random opponents, and how from the perspective of a bad player, he just gets stomped repeatedly then probably quits. He is better served by getting evenly matched with other bad players. Over time, he might become a good player rather than quitting.

Microsoft makes another good point here that ONLY winning and losing can be allowed to affect these stats. You can't adjust the matchmaking stat by "experience points" or even by any skill-based stats such as headshots, number of kills, time to finish a lap in racing, etc. All those stats can be gamed, and you will end up trying to get more headshots or something instead of winning. Any formula that equates number of headshots (or any other stat besides wins/losses) with how likely you are to win or lose introduces a layer of imperfect simulation. If we want to know how likely you are to beat someone, we should only consider your wins and losses, and not any in-game stats.

Short version: Microsoft's philosophy is correct (or is it...?), our ranking system should only consider wins and losses and should maximize close matches using TrueSkill, or a close implementation.

But Pardo was not quite on board. Such a ranking system is harsh and while hardcores are ok with it, regular people just get crushed and discouraged. They don't get to see any real progress, he said.

Click to read more ...