Edit: Check out Romeo's translation for concision and precision: http://www.coh2.org/topic/32981/relic-s-poorest-design-contrary-to-all-reasonable-thought/post/311339 Edit 2: Marcus' take on Relic's design philosophy: http://www.coh2.org/topic/32981/relic-s-poorest-design-contrary-to-all-reasonable-thought/post/311647 During yesterday's livestream, the question of tank critical strikes and plane crashes was raised and addressed, if unsatisfactorily. They were defended in a cautiously wistful, if not blasé, manner by Quinn. Yet, anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the game must feel some tension beneath those words. Relic seem to know at some level, even if only intuitively, that their position is running directly contrary to the wishes of the playerbase.Their position is directly contrary to all reasonable game design as well. The maximization of enjoyment, which is the virtue of good design, is ignored. With some assistance of other games, and a description of the CoH2 mechanics themselves, why we enjoy them will be sussed out, and the general character of a player's reaction, a lack of enjoyment, will be examined.It is conceded that dramatics, which are the cornerstone of Quinn's argument, are important to the enjoyment of the individual; that which is predictable is thus solved, and thus solved then more boring.[1] Even in the more rigid games this is true. Just as flow of enjoyment is derived from the logical rote of clearing Minesweeper, or employing the technical skill required to micro units in Brood War, or the degree of control one exercises over their character in Melee, the games still retain their uncertainty, as with Mindgames and prediction and far more in Brood War and Melee, and the sheer chance involved in some Minesweeper clicks that cannot be solved from the given information. It is that flowing mode of consciousness for the sake of solving uncertainty later.It is a consistent inconsistency. The penetration and armor system falls neatly into this category as a beautiful gameplay mechanic. Both sides know the risks and rewards, and know the various ways to improve their chances, this makes the engagement typical in that both players have a fair amount of control as to whether an engagement goes favorably or not. For, though RNG is in effect, its uncertainty is mitigated by being roughly expected, and its small degree of what feels like unfair arbitrariness. It is that norm which drives the player's expectation.These expectations are spat on by plane crashes killing units and critical strikes causing the survival of a tank. Frustration is the emotion when this norm is dishonored. Often it occurs the noble minded are sympathetic towards those whom it happens upon, the unsympathetic derive little enjoyment from that which they may feel they did not earn, and those whom it happens upon are not wont to feel glad for their opponent.[2]Relic has succeeded in making squad/unit preservation an important and entertaining mechanic. Those that preserve more often win than those that do not, and often it is deserved. However, as with a tank and its penetration system, one expects that if he has made the better choices, he capitalizes on the failure of the other, to destroy the target within an expected time frame. Penetration, being so normal, and being of predictable and middling percentages, with tanks being hit upon often enough to come nearer the law of large numbers, feels fair, therefore it is more often that one feels he or his opponent deserves the preservation or deprivation of that unit. Thus, enjoyment of the game largely unaffected. Tank criticals fly in the face of the penetration system as an added layer of protection, where expectation would have them not be.[3]The uncertainty provided by the other systems described is more than enough for Quinn's want of randomness, in his ill-defined analogy to real-life sports, ill defined because he does not explain the system comparable to RNG that makes it so 'compelling' to him.[4] Frustration is heightened because the plane crashes and tank crits can often decide a game, while feeling entirely undeserved on both sides. If removing these poor design choices means not feeling like Company of Heroes any more, then Company of Heroes as Quinn sees it ought not to exist.Footnote:[1] By a "binary existence", Quinn means an effect put on the tank that forces it to operate in a sort of in-between state. Presumably, this also means a plane does not simply live in usefulness and die in uselessness, but that its in-between state is something, again, qualitatively unique. But a gun becoming non-operational, for example, means nothing but the absolute survival of the tank, or the frustration of having to spend extra valuable time and risk pursuing it to finish it off. It is only one small degree removed from the penetration system in that the pursuers have less apparent risk of being shot back at, disregarding any support one may have around the tank. A plane's in-between effect is comparatively shallow, since it means either the absolute death of some random unit, or absolutely nothing, thus it feels just as numbers-based and arbitrary as the chances of shooting a plane down, but far more frustrating.[2] a. Mind, it is not the arbitration itself which causes the frustration, it is the degree and significance which it defies expectation in. It does well to point out that this is the reason many are as passionate about balance as they are. It seems that things ought not to be as they are, and that a faction or unit has enough advantages that there is little reasonable one can do against it. It does well to point that out, because it demonstrates that plane crashes killing units and tank crits aiding preservation is a universal sort of imbalance. It is a universal imbalance, because it is so significant an arbitration, and so advantageous to one player or the other.[3] Just as plane crashes fly in the face of the expected and entirely deserved outcomes of the chance-to-kill system delivered by flak. It would be likewise ridiculous, from a gameplay and not immersion perspective, if dead infantry models randomly exploded under the pretense that 'he pulled his grenade before he died'.[4] I would challenge him to find a system comparable to the effects and relative predictability of penetration, and another system analogous to tank crits or plane crashes, then critically analyze the degree of arbitration involved in each. He will find there is nothing quite like the latter systems that is a significant feature in real life sports narratives.