Long time ago my friends and I played Starcraft on a dial-up modem. I often lost until I read the phrase on one of the BBS, which changed everything. The principle is very simple: in real-time strategy wins the one who constantly attacks. It was necessary to learn how to think in terms of the constant creation of threats.
Why am I doing this? There is such a guy – David Searlin. Cybersportsman, champion in Street Fighter, game designer, desktop driver, e-sports coach. He has a whole theory on how to train and play to win. Universal, applicable to all games. Below are the main theses of the first part and my comments. Read about the main things from the book will be interesting from the point of view of GameDev (in particular – balancing), and just in life.
Why play to win?
David answers this question very simply. Victory is the only measurable result of the game. Like running – you can run for pleasure, you can run for training, you can run from someone. But only the result shows whether it is good or bad. If the distance time is shortened, you win every day. If you won a hundred mark, you achieved the result. If you run away from the evil Vasya – it’s a one hundred percent victory. So, the rivalry games are good with instant feedback. Your position in comparison with other players – this is the feedback.
David believes that everything that does not bring you closer to victory is counterproductive. At us in desktop games it, perhaps, one of the most important moments. The fact is that, sitting at the table, the company simply can not enter the game as independent players. Be sure to be Anya, who sleeps with Boris (and they will most likely play as allies). There will be Zinovy, whom no one in the company knows, and therefore he is all wetted.
We have a simple rule: “Who brings the relationship from life to the game – a fool. Who carries the relationship from game to life is a double fool. ” That is, inside the game only measurable victory indicators are evaluated. But, naturally, this approach is not so very real in ordinary “kitchen” companies.
