Option 1:
(note: There may be more than 2 pages because I have included the lenses’ description. Without the pictures and my own text, the description of the lenses already filled up 2 pages)
An analysis of Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances
Game website: https://www.tiberiumalliances.com/home
Gameplay video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K73eoCLY55Q
[Waiting to insert figure here when temp folder is working]
1.)Lens #18: The lens of flow
1.1) Does my game have clear goals? If not, how can I fix that?
The goal of the game is to move you base towards the center of the world map and hold down the position. While not particularly mind-blowingly exciting, the circular shape of the world map meant that as a player gets closer to the center, they are bound to encounter competing players and engage in player versus player battle. This is the main focus of the game.
1.2) Are the goals of the player the same goals I intended?
Gaining levels and building the strongest base and army are natural goals of the players. Since players require increasingly larger resource income to maintain the pace of progress, they will seek out areas can keep up with their consumption demands. The re-spawning artificial intelligence (AI) enemies become progressively stronger towards the center of the map and this attracts the players. This falls in line with the developers’ goals.
1.3) Are there parts of the game that distract players to the point they forget their goal? If so, can these distractions be reduced, or tied into the game goal?
The goals are very natural and clear to the players. There are no distractions from this goal.
1.4) Does my game provide a steady steam of not-too-easy, not-too-hard challenges, taking into account the fact that players’ skills may be gradually improving?
Yes. As players progress towards the center of the map, they will encounter stronger AI enemies as well as other players who are capable of defeating the AI enemies in the region.
1.5) Are the players’ skills improving at the rate I had hoped? If not, how can I change that?
Unfortunately during the earlier servers, the players were progressing far too quickly than the developers had hoped. As a result, the game has seen patches that consistently slow down players’ ability to progress.
[Waiting to insert figure here when temp folder is working]
2.) Lens #32: The lens of meaningful choices
2.1) What choices am I asking the player to make?
Players have to plan the use of their resources, the armies that each of their bases contain, the position of their different bases and their armies’ formation of attack and defence.
2.2) Are they meaningful? How?
Each player generates a particular resource required to attack other bases. Since there is no way to increase this income(not even through the in-game real-money purchases), players have to plan their course of action in order to maximize their efficiency. Additionally, players have to commit a set of military equipment and personnel to each base as the cost of reassignment is prohibitively high. Thus, players have to observe enemies in his or her region and move their set of bases to best defend their positions.
2.3) Am I giving the player the right number of choices? Would more make them feel more powerful? Would less make the game clearer?
The number of choices feels comfortable. Suitable for fans of strategy games.
2.4)Are there any dominant strategies in my game?
Unfortunately there are several dominant strategies that discourage alternative playstyles.
[Waiting to insert figure here when temp folder is working]
3.) Lens #37: The lens of cooperation
3.1) Cooperation requires communication. Do my players have enough opportunity
to communicate? How could communication be enhanced?
The game places heavy focus on team work. There is an “alliance” feature where players can come together as a group and share their territories or work together to attack and defend against other players. There is an in-game forum as well as each “alliance” granted their own forums.
3.2) Are my players friends already, or are they strangers? If they are strangers,
can I help them break the ice?
Unfortunately little is done to help break the ice. Players have to depend on themselves to make friends. However, the nature of the game results in many “alliances” seeking to recruit players, which helps a little in breaking the ice.
3.3) Is there synergy () or antergy () when the players work
together? Why?
Yes. This is because as players work together, they share their territories and allow other friendly players to move across the region much quicker and easier. Furthermore, friendly bases that are near a player’s base will automatically help defend the player if his or her base comes under attack.
3.4) Do all the players have the same role, or do they have special jobs?
The roles are entirely defined by the “alliance” they belong to. Typically some players will be assigned to push towards the center, some will be “spies” to infiltrate enemy alliances and some will travel across the map to capture bonuses for the entire alliance.
3.5) Cooperation is greatly enhanced when there is no way an individual can do
a task alone. Does my game have tasks like that?
Yes. Through cooperation, players will be able to manoeuvre easier, gain larger bonuses that apply across the “alliance”, protection from attacks and teamwork to defeat much more powerful enemies.
3.6) Tasks that force communication inspire cooperation. Do any of my tasks
force communication?
While certain situations due to player behaviour (of the player and others on the server) may encourage player communication, there are no situations whereby communication is forced.
[Waiting to insert figure here when temp folder is working]
4.) Lens #82: The Lens of Inner Contradiction
4.1) What is the purpose of my game?
The purpose is to let players engage in player versus player combat.
4.2) What are the purposes of each subsystem in my game?
The attack and defence subsystems provide strategic gameplay.
4.3) Is there anything at all in my game that contradicts these purposes?
The game is very straight-forward and does not have any elements that contradict the purpose of the game.
4.4) If so, how can I change that?
N.A
[Waiting to insert figure here when temp folder is working]
5.) Lens #87: The Lens of Griefing
5.1) What systems in my game are easy to grief?
Since the majority of resources is awarded when a base is destroyed, it is possible for players to wait until another player weakens a high-resource base before jumping in to do the last attack and get the reward.
5.2) How can I make my game boring to grief?
The developers have implemented a feature that locks down a base when attacked. This lock-down prevents other players that are not the original attacker from attacking the base.
5.3) Am I ignoring any loopholes?
The developers have acted to close certain loopholes while some are ignored.