Critical hits and short-term variance

One of the things that poker and Team Fortress 2 have in common are that encounters are often decided by short-term variance while the game goes to whoever is better on average. In poker you're trying to merge your own range as well as playing against your opponents range and you'll run into the top of your opponents range every once in a while. In TF2 critical hits (especially crockets) will decide the outcome of a fight, even if it's not as extreme as in poker.

I've noticed that as I've become better, I like natural criticals (as opposed to kritzkrieg etc.) less and less. The reason for this is the same reason why criticals are also a good idea: it allows a worse player to beat a better player through randomness. As I wrote in my post on transparency, this is one of the things that make it harder to improve but also keep players in the game. So if new players want criticals and better players don't, you need to implement a system that reduces variance as skill level increases. Something like the resilience stat in World of Warcraft.

There has been a lot of talk about resilience gear in WoW and while I haven't been an active PvPer I think it's a great way to reduce variance to acceptable levels. Playing 3vs3 in arena when you could get killed instantly by two damage dealers on the other team wouldn't be much of a skill-based PvP system. Instead as you move up in the ladder and gain gear you will have a larger health pool as well as resilience to reduce critical hits, letting you live long enough for skill to be a bigger factor.

The only issue is that it becomes really hard for new players to get into the PvP game from PvE since you start with no resilience. This has been fixed with later patches as you can now get PvP gear from badges awarded by killing bosses. It is a MMO after all and Blizzard wants you to keep paying.

If poker players had the opportunity to reduce variance I think they'd like to, losing actual money and not just in-game points can wrench your heart out. In the end, the random factor is also what lets new people into the game. Instead of reducing short-term variance, poker players live on playing more hands and not looking at their account balance too often.

When designing games, considering if and how the game will change between low- and high-level play should be considered, whether it be critical hits, damage spread, spawn locations or some other random factor. What you decide on is not as important as making sure you make informed decisions.
Click for full post

Dynamic scaling of multiplayer maps

Playing multiplayer games off peak hours can be a frustrating thing. My current games of choice are Starcraft 2 and Team Fortress 2, both having issues when at lower player numbers (but SC2 is still in beta).

Joining a server in TF2 with a small number (<10) of players removes most of not all of the teamwork. Since one or two of the players on either team are also respawning at any given time, the game degenerates into something close to a team deathmatch game. If the offensive team ever has 2 more players than the other team they can also capture the point/intelligence/cart to move on to the next stage.

Instead of being forced to play on the big sized maps even with 6 players, why not create a system that lets you open and close off parts of the map depending on the number of players? TF2 might not be the best game as an example for map scaling, I'll use it here just because I'm intimately familiar with the maps and game mechanics. A better suited game might be Unreal 3 deathmatch but the concept still applies here.

The technology for creating this kind of maps is possible and almost but not quite possible to create in the current version of Hammer. Using models to block off entrances and using trigger_hurt to kill everyone in the enclosed areas works and is used for a single area on cp_egypt. Being able to tie terrain and geometry to a func_door to be able to lower and raise them is not possible, probably because the compiler can't sort out how to bake the lights. The biggest issue is of course that the map doesn't react to players on the server and the map doesn't respond to settings (choosing to play on full-size maps should be available).

Just closing off existing maps isn't the best solution either, maps will have to be designed from the ground up to support this. I still think it's a good solution instead of making separate maps for few and many players. That way you'll be able to switch between all maps no matter the number of players instead of only playing the small number that is catered for your preferred playing style. It might be worth looking into. Click for full post

Electronic distribution and pricing models

The latest comment on PC game piracy comes from Blizzards Frank Pearce. What they will be doing with their new Battle.net 2.0 is very similar to how Steam works. You need to use an internet connection once to activate your game and after that you can play offline. Instead of going for a number of installations like SecuROM, they're hoping that by providing a good community (with Facebook integration) and a fun game, most players will want to buy their game to get to use those features.

This is not a bad idea, I've been playing Starcraft 2 for a few months now and it's a really solid product that will sell ten million copies or more. I have already pre-ordered my version and even though I doubt I'll use many of the Facebook features I will enjoy the game.

Making a good game will definitely help you sell more copies but something I think more companies should look into is alternative price models and easier digital distribution.

A point that few game developers are willing to admit is that from a pure usability standpoint, piracy is easier than buying games. The trackers are organized on torrent sites no matter what company the game is from and you will not have to install software like Gamers gate or Steam. I think that Steam is a great product and use it every day but I will not install something else that does the same thing because it has other games, I'll just not buy them instead. A single distributor having world domination is actually a good thing from a user point of view.

From the economic perspective that is not quite the case unless the distributor is nice enough to keep their prices low. Right now they aren't, a new game on steam usually runs at 50€ or 10% more than what you pay for an actual physical copy. With the purchase of the physical copy you also receive a box with DVDs that has to be shipped across the world as well as the vendors themselves making a profit. Digital distribution is all about data transfer costs and bandwith can't be that expensive so I guess they just don't want to compete.

Digital distribution doesn't just open up ways to get your games easier and publish smaller, cheaper games it also gives you the option of being paid in new ways. One example is Telltale games releasing Sam & Max adventures as episodes where you can buy just one, an entire season or all three seasons. I think this sort of pricing model will work great for other types of games as well.

Instead of putting up your 50€ at once with the chance of feeling cheated when it's not as good as you hoped, you can pay no money up front and instead pay per hour until you reach the 50€. If your single-player campaign is supposed to last 25 hours, just charge 2/hour. Once you reach the price point for that game you own it and can play it as much as you want, no extra charge.

Using an hourly price model like this would also allow you to have instant demos. Just allow the player to play the first few hours free and then let them have a confirmation box when they have to start paying. Instead of feeling cheated you can play as long as you are entertained, essentially being able to choose how much you think that game is worth.

Will the players stop playing a game because they have to start paying or will they keep playing because they want to see what happens? I don't know but I think it's worth trying.
Click for full post

Transparency and learning

I came upon a concept in a poker video that I've never heard before, humans as a self-correcting system. What it means is that as long as you get punished for doing things wrong and rewarded for doing them right, everyone will improve over time. The reason why poker is so hard to adjust to is that it is also a game with a high amount of short-term variance, you just don't always get rewarded for doing the right thing, which might make you mislearn things or apply them incorrectly. This is also a reason why it's possible to make money in poker. It is more likely that bad players stick around longer because they feel like they are really good or "just got unlucky".

The two primary ways of improving at anything is by doing it (playing) and studying (reading strategy, watching videos etc.) but not everyone is interested in meta-gaming. If you're making a game which is based more on skill and has less short-term variance, what you need is transparency. If a player does the right thing, he needs to be rewarded instantly so that it's blatantly obvious what is happening. While playing a FPS game, you might occasionally kill the entire other team in a round or die as soon as you meet the enemies which makes for variance. But if you just run into an entire team and get killed in one second, you will probably learn pretty fast not to do it again.

So if having good feedback and a transparent set of rules should make players be better and better at a game over time, they will also probably notice that they are suddenly crushing some opponents over and over again. This will make them happy. Noticing that you're suddenly able to do something you used to fail at over and over again is in my opinion one of the greatest rewards.

This is why it bothers me so much when game designers put in non-obvious things in games. At the release of Left 4 Dead I played it a decent amount. In this game there are tanks who can take a lot of damage. There are also molotovs, which make things burn. What is not apparent is that if you set a tank on fire, it will die in 30 seconds no matter what happens. Doing the amount of damage to kill it over 30 seconds would be fine with me, but if you're playing the tank and run into some fire, you will still be surprised if you have 6000 hp and die instantly after a while for "no reason". It was patched after a few months but I still find it amazing that it was in a shipped game to begin with.

Having a high amount of transparency is easier the shorter every encounter is. In a fps game, an encounter is usually only a few seconds long, in a beat 'em up maybe half a minute, but the real problem comes when in a strategy game a match is 30 minutes. It might just take such a long time before you actually know that you're beaten it's too late to do something about it. If you watch a super good player at for example Starcraft, when they lose a game in a tournament, they have to go back and watch the replay to see what actually made them lose. And those are the best players in the world.

All of my examples here are based on games that depend a lot on hand-eye coordination. Of course if you dominate your opponent here, given equal strategical "skill" you will win no matter what. This is only somewhat lessened in strategy games, but not entirely unimportant and in some cases critical.

Shooters
A fight one on one in a shooter is very easy to make transparent and very dependant on preparation. If you show up with the most powerful weapon and three times as much health as the other guy, you're probably going to win no matter what he does. Fortunately this is offset by the fact that duels are more about playing for total map control, but having the map being designed to not allow for total domination. And in my experience, people mostly play shooters in groups of people, where you only have time to maybe grab one weapon before running into your first encounter or maybe not even that.

Since the game mechanics are so easy most players manage to grasp it on an intuitive level. If you click when you have an enemy in your sights, he will bleed. If he bleeds more than you do, he dies before you. Bigger guns make your opponents bleed more.

Fighting games
If you play a fighting game, a fight is probably half a minute, or divided into several rounds of that length. But the encounters themselves are usually (unless one is dominating the other) only a few attacks, and then the players split up to catch their breath. This allows for much more adjustments in-game trying to find the perfect play before you run out of health.

Transparency is usually not a problem in fighting games. You can't hide from your opponent, all your moves are given but adapting to the situation, dependency on hand-eye coordination and reflexes is what makes the game interesting.

Strategy games
This is where it gets interesting. Most strategic games are games of incomplete information and the difficulty lies in adapting fast to unexpected challenges. Thus you strive for complete information and using a strategy that is superior to what you expect your opponents to do. Coming mostly from a Warcraft 3 background, I have been in a lot of situations where I just tried building my army in a quiet corner of the map and then being ran over, having no idea what hit me. While nearly all strategy games (that I've played) build on this concept of slow adaptation and incomplete information, alternatives are not inconceivable (though in this example balanced with a certain lack of control).

The biggest problem with slow adaptation is that if you do the wrong thing at the start, you might be doomed later and having to wait half an hour to find out. For example, the start of a Starcraft (and SC2) game is designed around the premise that rush > expansion > defending > rush. This means that if you defend and nobody shows up because he chose to expand instead, you've already lost a major advantage. This also means that lack of information or choosing one option because of faulty information will lose you the game.

However there is no way of knowing that you're supposed to lose if you just defend at the start if you only play the game. In the single-player campain, most of the maps are based around defending early just because the AI already has fully developed bases. Going online after finishing the single-player mode and then being stomped into the ground (you will be, especially if you start playing now) is not a lot of fun. You just don't get any feedback.

An example for a solution
Save the replays after a game and adapt the AI to be able to run, telling you what it would do, updating only every few seconds. Since it should be able to read a situation and the actions are mostly there already, the only thing that's missing is a way of putting it up on screen. For example "Expand" and then give a green area that should hopefully be safe from enemies. Scout, attack, build a unit, research, all are things that the AI would do given the same starting conditions. The micro-management will not be there and it would not be perfect in every condition but it would probably improve the games for people interested enough to play but not interested enough to meta-game. Starcraft 2, the newest RTS game I've played (still in beta) does this decently well in how many spectator tools it provides. If you lost a game you can check if you just had worse economy, less units than you thought or your opponent just had better upgrades. You still have to know what to look for, that is why an AI-based guide would help you do.

Of course, this would make things seriously difficult for programmers. I said it was a solution, not that it was a very practical one.
Click for full post

Versatility and weapons in FPS games

When picking up a new FPS and jumping into the campaign, you're usually handed a generic weapon and thrown against the enemy. I've been playing a lot of shooters in my life and it wouldn't surprise me if 90% or more of all the enemy kills in single player games have come from either 1: a machine gun or 2: a shotgun.

My biggest issue with versatility is not that you're almost always using a weapon similar to the ones used in other games, it's that they make you revert to using the same playing style. I've mostly been using the same strategies against NPC enemies since Doom and it usually goes like this: peek out with your machine gun, kill an enemy or two then hide behind a corner. Use a shotgun or similar to kill the stupid enemies that come charging towards you. This is not interesting gameplay, it's abusing bad AI.

In cases where the AI won't mindlessly charge you as soon as they've "seen" you, you might have to be a bit more clever but the basic weapons will still suit you extremely well. They are just so versatile.

Versatility depends on several different factors but these are the ones I think most important: accuracy, clip size and reload time. A weapon with decent-to-good accuracy and large clip size, like the machine gun, gives you a big margin of error in short encounters. It also makes it possible to conserve ammunition, using only the necessary number of shots to take out low HP enemies instead of using overkill weapons. In most games you will have enough ammo to use the first weapon throughout the game and with a high damage upgrade like the grenade launcher in Half-life it will work against bosses and several enemies at once.

Later on in a FPS you will usually receive more powerful weapons that are meant to work in one situation and that situation only, like a sniper rifle or rocket launcher. Since there generally is no way to use them cost-efficiently I tend to save them for boss-fights and cases where I don't feel my first weapon is strong enough. Once I've run an encounter that's meant to be beat with one specific weapon I tend to hang on to specific types of ammo for the rest of the game, effectively turning the weapon into a key for a challenge. If there is no more similar challenge, I will have carried around a weapon for the most part of a game and never used it.

Instead of giving the player one or two weapons to use the entire game, I'd like the other way around: you start with a weapon that limits you to a specific type of gameplay and as you progress you will receive upgrades that let you tackle all kinds of challenges. Then at the end you can find a super weapon that works for all situations but has a limited supply of ammo (will probably be unbalanced for multiplayer). Depending on the size of your enemies, the size of the area where you're fighting, your own cover vs. the enemies' cover, range etc. there are enough ways to create different types of encounters that making the weapons reliant on different situations should be no problem.

Less versatile weapons will not create excellent games by themselves though. One of the major problems is enemy AI. As long as hiding with a shotgun in a corner will make the enemies run up to you, people will keep hiding. In games like Gears of War where you're even supposed to hide behind walls and anything that runs up to you will just get chainsawed to death. While giving players too versatile might make a game stale, making the enemies more versatile will make it less predictable. The first time I had a grenade thrown at me in Half-life I was shocked that just hiding behind something didn't work. I needed a more advanced strategy. The new one was hiding and running away if I heard "grenade" but still.

By giving a specific enemy type two separate attacks and then mixing enemy types you will get very complex patterns of attacks with only three or four different enemies. If a player has to keep track of what weapon to use to take out the most dangerous enemy in that group composition, enemy encounters will become more difficult.

Limiting the player, forcing them to be creative and clever in coming up with their own strategies and adapt to situations creates good gameplay. Having a simple solution for every situation doesn't.
Click for full post

Diablo 2 and attack patterns

After having played Diablo 2, it's hard not to notice how much it's focused on projectile attacks. Projectiles that travel in a straight line (for the most part). While watching the trailer for Bloodline Champions, I noticed the same trend and I'm not sure if I like it.

Now I've been playing player vs player games for quite a while and I believe that strategy and counter-strategy is more fun than the World of warcraft style where crowd control and healing is key. Not just because it doesn't take control away from the players but also that it allows everyone to adapt more easily. The games I'm going to talk about today all have one thing in common, movement is the only defense. By changing the attack patterns, the players will have to move in different ways, changing the strategies.

The linear attack game
Let's say we have two players, A and B. Player A has only one type of attack moving in a straight line, X. There is only one way to counter this, moving to the side. Player A will not really have any strategy in this game, he will only use X as often as he can.

Player B will only have one type of counter to this, moving to the side all the time. This causes movement but is also quite a shallow game.

The 2x2 linear game
In this example, Player A has two different attacks, X and Y. Y does more damage but also has a recharge rate of 5 seconds. To maximize damage, there will be four X's for every Y attack. Assuming both attacks have the same attack pattern, this is the only adjustment to A's strategy.

Player B still can't do anything to counter this except try and move to the sides and try to inflict more damage than he takes, basically by being more accurate than A while dodging.

The 2x2 mixed attack game
Instead of the linear attack, let's say Player A has X and Y again but this time attack X moves in a straight line but Y arcs around the sides of player B. When the only defense is to move, the attacks that are made to deny areas make you have to change the strategy. For simplicity's sake let's say player B will always get hit by X if he's dodging Y and vice versa.

Now what is Player A's optimal strategy? If he will use four X's to every Y again, maximizing damage, the perfect counter will be extremely simple. Move to the side for four seconds, then stand still. This counter only works against the player who is trying to maximize damage. This is first level thinking.

And if the counter is extremely simple, then the previously optimal damage rotation will never hit, making perfect strategy completely different. If player A stops using Y every five seconds and is instead preemptively countering the easiest counter strategy, that will be second level thinking.

By giving A two moves and B two moves, we have a 2x2 symmetric game where both players can affect their payoff. Assuming both A and B have the same attacks X and Y, there will be two different 2x2 games running. If we remove the simple attacks where X and Y will always hit and instead make it so moving will protect you against the powerful attacks but also make it harder to land your own, things will be getting interesting.

Diablo 2
The enemies in Diablo 2 are rather dull, they are usually either melee (single target attacks only), ranged (single target line attacks) or casters. The casters have a couple of different spells but they are mostly line projectile (fireball) or line damage over time (inferno).

There are also a couple of area of effect type spells that are divided into three categories, novas which are expanding circles, randomized projectiles (Charged bolt) or damage over time area effect spells (meteor/firewall).

Assuming that you play a character that is not dependant on the random AoE projectile spells like Charged Bolt and Tornado, you will probably hit with every single attack. Since the majority of the enemies only use melee or line attacks, you will only ever need to do two things: move back from the melee and move to the side against the ranged.

While this is generally fine since Diablo 2 tries hard to put enough monsters on screen to make you have to move your mouse around a lot, it's still just a twitch game. To add strategy you need to add different options.

Diablo 3
While I'm trying my best to keep my high hopes for Diablo 3 up, rewatching the gameplay trailer with this specific subject fresh in my mind, I can't help thinking it's all the same. Most of the attacks seem to be based upon three basic types, line, arc (melee) and AoE.

The only skills that seem different are probably Zombie wall (area denial and damage) and Carrion swarm which is a chain type attack, hitting enemies nearby but not quite AoE.

While the attacks themselves seem to be quite simplistic, the fights are organised a bit differently. Since enemies are supposed to be tougher and there are several scripted events in the gameplay demo, you will not have such an easy time of clearing an area then moving on. Instead you will get thrown into fights with enemies on several sides, having to pick one way to go. This is one way to get away from Diablo 2's gameplay but I feel it's a bit too easy. Sure you will have to evaluate which side you will run to but the attacks are mostly the same. And if the attacks are simple, you can never really chain them to show your awesome teamplay.

Different types of attack patterns
As I've been discussing before, there are a few different types of attack patterns that are commonly used and a few I would recommend at least thinking about. In games where movement is the only defense, area denial is a really powerful tool and should in my opinion not be left to environment alone.

Most of the different types of attacks will have the possibility of travel or activation time. This is usually balanced along with damage and ease of use. You don't want a spell that's easy to hit with to also do massive damage. Another modifier is also if it is direct damage or damage over time. The direct spells will usually not provide any area denial, instead you will have to make it a projectile with a high travel time.

Line
The line is the most basic of all attacks. Since it's so easy to hit with, it usually has a travel time. While the damage is usually point-based direct damage (Firebolt), having some AoE is not unheard of (Lightning bolt)

Arc
The arc is usually used in melee only. As a ranged weapon, a fast moving arc doing direct damage will be too easy to hit with. That said, as an area denial move it can be really powerful. Let's say you have an attack that shoots an arc at an enemy. As soon as it hits something, it stops and turns into an damage over time effect. While not completely limiting player movement, depending on the curve it might block three or more of the eight directions.

Circle
Like the arc, the full circle is easy to hit with (Frost nova), requiring either a limited range or travel time. Since a ranged circle effect might completely block movement in all directions, it should be very hard to use as an area denial attack. If it stops movement and damage, it's essentially a crowd control ability.

Cone
Like arcs, the cone is usually a close-combat weapon. There is no reason to not add an extension to it though. Let's say you get the ability "Scatter bomb". With your first mouse click, you fire a projectile and with the second click you detonate it, making the cone damage originate where the projectile exploded. You can even make it more advanced, firing a projectile and then pointing in the direction you want it to explode, making sure it will always do some damage. If you add a minimum detonation range this could be a really interesting ability.

Random particle
While the random particles (Charged bolt) are useful at close range, at long range they are just too unreliable. Assuming you use it many times, it essentially turns into a weak cone based damage. For simplicitys sake and game balance, you can probably just scrap this type altogether. Too random damage is not fun.

Area effect
Most of the area effect spells are usually either circle damage over time (Meteor) or random particle damage over time (Blizzard?). Since most of them have a huge AoE they usually don't do a ton of damage. This is one of the most boring ways to add damage to your game, either keep it small and hard to hit with or make it have some kind of utility. Big area effects need to be so powerful to work as area denial attacks that they will be quite overpowered.

Some less used attacks that might be worth looking into:

The sine wave
Use one or two mirrored, it doesn't really matter. Assuming you have the curves far enough from eachother, players might be able to stand in the holes between curves. That way, moving forward or back will make you take damage from both beams, moving to the side only one, but if you stand at the right distance, you won't take damage at all.

X marks the spot
As an area denial effect this is really interesting. Let's say there is half a second delay between a big X showing up and it actually starts doing damage. Then you have that half a second to decide which quarter you want to be in. After picking one, if you decide it's not the right one, you will suffer for it.

Increasing damage
While more of a modifier, let's say you add increasing damage based upon travel time. That way, you can have attacks that do more (or less) damage close or far away from you. If added to area denial effects, you basically give the opponent a short time where the penalty for crossing it is not so bad and then increases as time passes.

The fan
While not quite a cone, it works in much the same way. The closer your target is, the more damage he will take. If it has a bit of travel time, you can also choose if you want to aim directly at your opponent, hoping he stands still or slightly to the side, hoping he will keep moving.

Controlled effects
Making attacks take more effort from the user, you can also make them more powerful. This works a lot better when you need the mouse to both move and attack because then the player might have to stand in fire to make that last killing blow. Examples could be the extended cone, an area of effect spell getting bigger the longer you target it etc.

Boomerang
For everyone who has played DotA, Rexxar's wild axes. One (or two) projectiles, moving in separate arcs, meeting at the point where you targeted the spell and then returning to the caster.

Spread patterns
Again, mostly a modifier or combination of other patterns. Two lines can be parallel, crossing or forming an L, area effects can form basically any type of pattern, depending on which of the directions you feel you want to block.

PvE vs PvP
The 2x2 game and other game theory strategies only apply to games between players that can adapt to different situations. Since trying to pay attention to player habits and working out strategies in real-time is quite a task, the number of enemies and their different attacks must be limited. Let's say 3-5 for number of attacks and 2-5 for different enemies. This way you will still have complexity far beyond any human real-time computation.

The enemies in a PvE game will usually be limited to one or two different attacks though on the other hand there will be more of them on the screen at any given time. Since the player's own attacks will require less focus as the AI monsters don't have enough common sense to evade, there can be more complex area denial, forcing the player to work out more patterns.

In a PvP setting, most of the fights will also usually take place in a mirrored arena, letting the level designer decide how some battles will play out. Combining static maps with blocked areas and real-time area denial attacks will make the combinations endless. Since I have limited myself to mirrored games and mirrored maps, everyone will have the same possibilities of using the map.

In PvE though, the players will have to adjust to the areas as they go along. There will be choke points that are easily defensible and there will be open areas where some attacks will be less useful. As long as there are always a couple of different attacks that are useful, players will hopefully adapt.

Discussion
Notice how fast things get to the point where it's getting hard to calculate? Even if we make a chart where every player gets a certain payoff for making an action, the 2x2 game can get quite complex. But players can't just move in one direction. Let's use the standard D-Pad or arrow/wasd keys. That's 8 different directions. It's not all that hard to come up with attack patterns that correspond to those directions. You can even add attacks that are easier to land but making them do less damage and seeing if versatility truly is power.

Even though every finite game has a stable Nash equilibrium, that doesn't mean it can be solved in real-time. Even if you do, it will not be a perfect counter against a non-perfect opponent. And what if you add more players?

Line, cone and circle attack patterns are fine, but what about boomerangs, tornados and firewalls? You don't need to get fancy, just make a ton of squares, take a pressure-sensitive pen tablet and make dots and lines. Most will be junk, but some can correspond to actually useful patterns.
Click for full post

Phoenix rising

While I used to have posts on this blog, I deleted them all because there has been no action on this blog for almost a year now. I'm not sure what I've really been doing for so long but I've been thinking more and more about game design lately. Writing things down both helps you remember them and makes you have to put vague abstract ideas into sentences that actually makes sense so I'm back.

Since a blog with just a couple posts looks really empty, I'll be posting updated versions of my old blog posts to get some volume before I get into the new stuff.

Instead of just writing something when I feel like I have to update, I'll be trying to stick to one single quality post per week with design discussion as well as making posts about games I feel help move the game industry forward, usually through gameplay or visual design.

And the title? It's just the name of my current photoshop project. Click for full post