An Intro to Game and Mod Design
by Blbpaws
from cnc generals world

An Introduction to Game and Mod Design is a piece written by Blbpaws, the Mod Manager at Generals World, and the Lead Designer of the All Stars mod. In it, he aims to give a perspective into the basic design process of a mod, what goes into a design document, and how to create a balanced and interesting mod or game. For the last section, he uses C&C All Stars and Command and Conquer 3 as case studies to illustrate various points. Even if you're not a game or mod designer, you still might find this article interesting because of how it explains the design process and important concepts, and because of how it offers a window into C&C All Stars and C&C 3 in terms of how product goals affect the design of the final product.

An Introduction to Game and Mod Design by Blbpaws
Part One: An Introduction to the Elements of Game Design
Part Two: An Introduction to Balance
Part Three: Creating Variety: All Stars as a Case Study
Part Four: How Goals Affect Balance: C&C 3 as a Case Study
Part Five: The Art of Playtesting

《设计游戏及改造概论》的作者是blbpaws，Generals World（将军世界）的MOD管理员，全明星MOD的首席设计师。在本文中，他让大家透视一个MOD的基本设计过程，涉及设计文档，以及如何建立一个平衡和有趣的MOD或游戏。在最后一节，他用C&C明星MOD和命令与征服3作为案例研究，阐明各种观点。即使你不是一个游戏或MOD设计师，你仍会发现这篇文章的趣味，因为它如何解释设计过程及重要概念，因为它提供了一个窗口窥探C&C全明星MOD和C&C3，探讨产品目标如何影响最终产品设计。

设计游戏及改造概论
作者：Blbpaws
第一章：游戏设计要素概论
第二章：平衡概论
第三章：创造多样性：以全明星MOD作为案例研究
第四章：目标如何影响平衡：以C&C3作为案例研究
第五章：游戏测试的艺术

Disclaimer: First, let me say that this is most certainly not the only way to approach game design and balance. All I am presenting here is my approach to game design, and specifically how I approached the design of C&C: All Stars. The following are the principles that I’ve used in guiding this mod, or, maybe just the principles I’ve tried to use (the team and the fans will ultimately determine how successful they are and how successful I was at implementing them).
声明：首先，我要说，这当然肯定不是唯一的方法来处理游戏设计和平衡。我在这里写的所有东西只是以我的方法来游戏设计，具体我如何设计的C&C全明星。有以下几个原则，我已经用于指导该MOD，或者，也许只是我尝试使用的。（开发团队和爱好者将最终决定这些原则是否成功，还有我是否成功地实现它们）。


Part One: An Introduction to the Elements of Game Design
第一章：游戏设计要素概论
Teamwork and Organization
I have yet to meet a person who has exclusively good ideas. This is especially true in game design. Sometimes, you just need someone with an outside perspective to raise their hand (figuratively or literally) and declare that what you just suggested was the stupidest idea they’ve ever heard. It is better to have that said to you during the design stage when you can do something about it than during the postproduction stage when you really can’t. As such, my number one rule for good game design is to never have it occur in a vacuum, and to involve as many people as possible. Just because someone is an artist, or an INI coder, or a webmaster, or a tester, or whatever, does not mean they don’t have something to add. As a lead designer, it was often my role to start the conversation, and to decide what gets discussed when, but it should never be a lead designer’s role to prevent a discussion.
团队与组织
我仍少不了需要其他人的绝妙好主意。这尤其是在游戏设计。有时候，你只需要有局外人来举手发言（借喻或字面上），并宣布你刚才的建议是他们已经听过的最愚蠢的想法。在设计阶段的批评总好过后期制作阶段的建议，因为在对在设计阶段你还能做些什么，而在后期制作阶段你真的无能为力。因此，好的游戏设计第一规条就是从不闭门造车，并让尽可能多的人参与。因为那些人会是艺术家，或INI编码员，或网站站长，或测试员，或其他什么人，他们的意见不无益处。作为首席设计师，我的角色常常是发起会谈，并决定讨论的内容和时间，但绝不应当制止讨论。

Of course, eventually, a decision must be reached, and, inevitably, if you are ultimately in charge of the design of the mod, it’s your decision. Also inevitably, some people will be happy with what you decide, and others won’t be. What I basically always tried to do was to give some sort of rationale for my decision, but to still make it clear that the decision was the decision, and for the time being, it was going to remain that way. For a minor issue, like a balance tweak late in the design cycle, it’s quite easy to playtest after the change and adjust further. For a major issue, like the composition of the side in the pre-production phrase of development, it’s a lot harder to reverse yourself and to test your decisions. For this reason, All Stars had a very fluid design for a long time, and team members were always discussing it. These conversations were not necessarily bad—indeed, conversation is better than no conversation—but as a lead designer, ultimately it becomes your job to shift the conversation and actually make progress.



The Design Document
The Design Document is the most important part of game design because it is a statement of intent. It manifestly moves an idea from the “wouldn’t it be neat if we tried this?” stage to the “we’re going to try this, with the intent of keeping it.” For those who don’t know, the Document is essentially a written out version of everything a game is going to have. For a total conversation mod, maybe it will be a few dozen pages, outlining the units, structures, upgrades, Generals Powers, etc, that are going to be added for each side, and why. If applicable, it also outlines the story and any missions that are to be added. For a commercial game, it is usually much longer, because things like 3D engine programming, art techniques, and more have to be added into the equation. The underlying similarity is that the design document has to stand by itself. Someone who is relatively well informed about games should be able to read your design document and know exactly what it is you are trying to create.

In reality, though, words are not enough, since computers do not really speak English. When you say a unit is “better than another unit x” and “fast and mobile” in your design document, for example, you need to ultimately follow that up with some more details. This involves introducing yourself to the relative number based systems used by lots of games these days. The principle is simple: the game engine renders an attribute of a unit based on an arbitrarily defined system that has meaning when it is used in a relative way (comparing one unit to another). In the design of the system, the scale doesn’t matter. As long as all units obey the same scale (that is, the units you want to be weak have the relatively worse values, and the stronger units have the relatively strong values), there shouldn’t be a problem. Of course, if you’re working with someone else’s engine (as almost all mods do), then you’ll want to figure out what scale they are using and what relatively good and bad are and adapt your numbers to that. Figuring out the scale of all the attributes can take some time and experience (I was lucky to have an experienced SAGE engine modder, CommieDog, work with me on this aspect of All Stars while I was still figuring this out).

Once you do figure out the scale you’re working in, though, it’s time to begin speccing out the unit attributes. Of course, the attributes a unit or structure has vary by engine and game type, but common ones include things like speed, health, armor, weapon type, weapon damage, etc. For every possible unit/structure attribute, you’ll want to begin quantifying and tabulating all the ideas in the design document. For All Stars, we created a series of tables based on the structure of the SAGE engine. One table, for instance, delineated every type of weapon we were adding and all the weapons’ attributes, such as range, projectile speed, damage, damage radius, etc. Of course, we had to research all the possible attributes supported by the engine and what we could do and couldn’t do in the SAGE engine before we could finish this table. We did many tables, each for a different set of attributes and each quantifying exactly how the mod would play. While it is impossible to truly get a feel for what the mod will be like in the end when it’s actually coded and ready, creating all these tables allows you to truly flesh out your design and view it from a ruthless numerical perspective. Quantifying the vision of the design document and understanding the relativistic sense of balance are two imperative parts of the design process that are important moving forward.

Part Two: An Introduction to Balance
What Balance Really Means
There is no concept more important to game design than the sense of balance. All of the above—the design document, teamwork, discussions, organization, tables—will mean nothing if the underlying goal of everything is to achieve balance in a game. But what is balance?

In theory, something that is balanced is equal. Two absolutely identical sides are indeed balanced; the player who plays better will always win. But that’s really not a lot of fun, and often quite boring because it turns into a clickfest in which no player can really get the upper hand and everything turns into a long drawn out draw (imagine playing lots of Tic-Tac-Toe—not very fun after a while).

A term I like but rarely hear used in game design is equilibrium. It, too, conveys a sense of equality, but also, at least scientifically, implies a state of constant change or motion. Essentially, what it means is that in one circumstance, something might be slightly unbalanced or tilted in favor of one extreme, but in another circumstance, it might be slanted in the other direction and then everything will even out in the long-term. A skilled player, therefore, is not just a person who can click very quickly and micromanage (though, good game design definitely brings that out in players), but one who can tilt the existing system to gain an advantage, meaning that they win more games. This is why designers add variety to games; they want to make things interesting. Things are interesting because a good player is always looking for a slight advantage or something suited to them, knowing full well that an equally skilled player of a different mindset will give them a fair match picking another side because the system is designed to be even in the long run.

Variety is also important to create an appeal to all sorts of players. Some people are naturally inclined to play with a certain style, and if your game or mod accomodates that style and lets them play with it and, presuming they play well, succeed, they'll have more fun. What you don't want to do is force players to conform themselves to how you want them to play. If someone likes fast gameplay, and you only have sides that dictate battle at the pace of the Hundred Years War, they're not going to like your game very much. The bottom line is that you want to give the players control. They should be able to scale the tempo of the game up if they rush, but you don't want everyone to be forced to rush. They should be able to win through deliberate, methodical strokes, but you want them to have to earn their victories and not have every game turn into a tedious deathmatch of attrition--unless both players dictate that it should be that way with their styles. In this sense, a sense of balance and variety also must work in tandem with a sense of flexibility. You don't want to force players to have to conform too much to your demands, because, odds are that they won't; they'll simply go play something else that is more attuned to their liking, designed by someone who took the time to think through the factions and bring out variety and equilibrium with flexibility.

This dynamic equilibrium and the necessity of variety at the faction level is the first principle of balance that I like. This principle is evident in C&C games and also ties in nicely with the story; for instance, GDI is known as being overpowering, while Nod is known for attacking stealthily and relying on deception rather than brute force. Certain players will gravitate towards one side or the other. In itself, though, that concept is simplistic; Nod should be able to win through force if the conditions are right, and GDI should be able to use more than just tanks. The designer must find a way to actually bring that dichotomy out and still make the game fun and at equilibrium. This is where faction composition comes into play. Since I think something like this is best discussed with an example, I'll use one. The example I'll use here is C&C All Stars, the most complex mod I've led the design of to date.

Part Three: Creating Variety: All Stars as a Case Study
Composing Factions to Create Balance and Variety
For C&C All Stars, I was limited to the units and structures of past C&C games, which meant that I couldn’t really add my own ideas for units into the mod (generally, they will be some limiting factor in terms of design, whether it’s the engine, the story, or something else). What this meant, though, was that I had to bend the mod’s concept a bit to create full fledged sides. Sure, no one would ever consider a Minigunner an “All Star” unit, but if I wanted the design to be something other than Mammoth Tank vs. Apocalypse Tank vs. Overlord (see above about creating variety), I needed to create full fledged sides, which meant including everything from basic infantry to the best units in C&C lore.

The first step is to try so give each side a sense of character. Because I was combining sides across games, I would have both deception-based and force-based units to choose from for each side, though the details obviously varied (deception vs. force being the main distinguishing principles that Westwood and EA use in all C&Cs). This also meant that I couldn’t use those two principles for my three sides, because each side would, quite naturally, have elements of each. Ultimately, what this forced me to do was to use the natural variety across the games—since I each series was a side, there was a progression of technology across the games which meant that there was some evolution of the units—to create variety within the factions, and to use more nuanced elements than just deception vs. force to create a higher level of variety.

For example, a unit like the Titan was an excellent choice for inclusion for the Tiberian side because it was a) visually unique because mechs are only featured in Tiberian games (Medium Tanks, my original choice when I was uncertain about the feasibility of mechs in SAGE, also appear in Red Alert) b) a key building block of the GDI forces in Tiberian Sun that definitely met the team’s criteria for an All Star unit and c) easily positioned as a main battle tank of the Tiberian side without anyone feeling that it was out of place or unfaithful to the original. Once I had the Titan in place, though, I realized that there were a lot of other secondary Tiberian units that I wanted to include. Units like the Stealth Tank, Disruptor, Juggernaut, Hover MRLS, APC, and Nod Buggy all were meritorious of inclusion simply because they met the first two criteria I outlined above. The solution, therefore, was to craft the Tiberian Coalition as a side that relied on its support units very heavily. This was done through a couple of decisions. First, while the other two sides had Overlord and Apocalypse Tanks, which could be built without limit, the Tiberian side got the Mammoth MKII, which, as in TS, had a build limit of one. The Mammoth Tank from Tiberian Dawn is arguably more recognizable, but we wanted to move away from creating too much similarity between three sides. Again, creating variety but maintaining equilibrium creates entertainment value. Letting every Tiberian Coalition player know from the beginning that they would be able to build only one heavy tank at a time set the character for the side, but set a more nuanced character than simply saying “you must rely on deception and speed to win.” This was because the Tiberian Coalition couldn’t rely on speed to win; its fast units weren’t fast enough to compensate. What the Tiberian Coalition relied on, according to my original design document, was “using a core army, augmented with their support units.” This idea of mixed support units is something I’d like to see more of in games. Too often, getting to the highest tech level means that a player gets access to the crown jewel unit, which is good against everything and whose only real drawbacks are price, build time, and (usually) a weakness against aircraft, so that building as many of those units as possible is key to winning. What I wanted to see with the Tiberian Coalition was to make it a weak side, unless the player could learn to mix his units. Sure, Titans were good, but they had better be backed up with nearly every other unit in the Tiberian arsenal to be successful.

This leads me to my variety within a faction point. I think there is a tendency for designers to fall for the grandiose units—the Avatar and Annihilator mechs in C&C 3 might be examples of this—that when they are in a group, are unstoppable, except by another side’s equally large group of counterpart units. This, in my mind, is poor game design, because it eliminates all sense of variety. Almost all infantry are forgotten. Base level vehicles are forgotten. Aircraft are forgotten, except when they, too, are created in large numbers to serve as a change of pace attack force. The reason I’m proud of my work with the Tiberian Coalition side is that the player cannot do this. Sure, that one Mammoth can be created and upgraded with two different upgrades, and even flown all over the battlefield with a Carryall, but it’s still just one unit that will fall quickly if it’s not used in a mixed force. Yes, the ORCA bomber is strong, but each one requires its own helipad, so you’ll never see a fleet of 30. The base level tank—the Titan—is the only tank that can be built in any quantity greater than one, so players are forced to use it if they want any conventional armor units. Across the board, creating this variety in attack and defense makes things more interesting.

This idea of mixing works in multiple ways. With the Tiberian Coalition, no unit was singly strong enough to merit being the only unit in an attack force—variety was forced within the attack force. With the Red Alert side, I had another set of variables to work with. In general, Red Alert games are known for their huge army sizes with great numbers of tanks or aircraft. It would be unfaithful to the history of C&C to suddenly change things around so that Apocalypse Tanks had a build limit of one, or so that they suddenly couldn’t sometimes serve as an attack force unto themselves, capable of hammering land and air targets. The option that remained, though, was to create variety in the types of attack forces used; that is, if a good Red Alert Alliance player played a good Tiberian Coalition player, even if the Red player didn’t mix units within an attack force (why would you bring lots of Grizzlies with Apocalypse tanks, for instance—their speed advantage is negated by the Apocalypse tanks lumbering nature, and they are significantly weaker), I wanted him to have to use a lot of his units in some respect to fully get the most out of a side. This is why the Reds side has units like the Minelayer—you wouldn’t include one on an attack run, but it was very useful in the right hands for slowing down your opposition—and the Longbow—a pack of upgraded Longbows can set up other attacks by forcing the enemy to spend time and money on air defenses that can keep up with the Longbows mobile nature and ability to reload in the field. This type of variety is a different type than the Tiberian player; here, the Reds player has a lot of options to choose from, and simply must determine which are the best ones, and which work best together. That kind of choice can still be fun for a player, and creates entertainment value. Out of the Reds side comes the image of variety within variety. A designer wants to make each side varied and at equilibrium, like I said, but because he wants to keep away from the army-dictated-by-one-unit problem, he must vary his ways that he creates variety.

The last side in All Stars is the Generals Elite. The goal for this side was to combine the common threads of USA, China, and GLA (the Generals Elite was also the only side where I had three full sides to cull units from). The approach I decided to give this side was the basic idea of war strategy in general: avoid taking damage while dealing out as much as possible. In Generals, the USA side did this with high tech units like the Avenger and Aurora Bomber, both of which I had included in the original design (though, as an example of the excellent input of a team, the Avenger was cut in favor of the Quad Cannon because I had favored the USA over the GLA too much in my original design, something I wasn’t even aware of). China achieved this goal with units that soaked up a lot of damage and healed nearby units, like the Overlord Tank. The GLA achieved this with relatively faster units, like the Scorpion Tank. Putting all these units together allowed me to craft a side that was quite strong in the hands of a talented player, because when the units were used properly, the damage taken to damage dealt ratio could be very low, an idea I always thought was intriguing.

In theory, in a truly balanced game, the best player should win the majority of matches. The guiding principle in design, then, has to be to make this the case. The idea should never be to restrict the player or funnel a player, but rather let the sides be flexible enough so that the human element can be added to them in many ways and so that the best player can win. This is not to say that the learning curve should always be steep, but is to say that there should be depth in a game so that an experienced player who can micromanage well is given a challenge no matter what side he plays as. A simple balancing system in which one side is strong early and the other strong late isn’t very interesting, because that frustrates players who can’t get to the late game. All in all, the design has to let the sides be equal, and let the deciding factors come from the humans, not the game.

Part Four: How Goals Affect Balance: C&C 3 as a Case Study
An Analysis of Balance in C&C 3
C&C 3 is an interesting game in a lot of ways. From a design perspective, the game takes a lot of bold steps. First, the game sets its goal as being “fast, fluid, and fun.” Fun is of course very subjective, fluid refers very much to the game's interface setup and responsiveness, and fast refers to the game's pacing. These are not necessarily bad goals and the only one people can really quibble with — fast — is negated when you have two players who tend toward drawn out battles facing each other; for example, my first C&C 3 game against an opponent of equal strength lasted nearly two hours.

But what about my main principles of equilibrium and variety? C&C 3 doesn't stack up nearly as well in that respect, despite what I perceive to be attempts to do so. First, C&C 3 features three sides which are all very stereotypical in their differences. GDI is a side of brute force; Nod is a side of stealth and yet still power; and the Scrin are a side of late game dominance with the best units but early game struggles. In my mind, that is too simplistic a design. GDI wins by getting its tanks upgraded with Rail Guns and storming the enemy base. No matter when the tank roll happens — either an early game rush or a late game counterpunch — GDI will almost always win through a tank storm, because their other options are too limited. Their aircraft are expensive, and though the Firehawk is useful because it serves many roles, expensive. The inclusion of the Zone Trooper was a nice step towards variety — finally a strong infantryman that can hold its own — but proved too cumbersome to manage in large groups (most players rather build tanks and C&C 3 rewards them for doing so) and too slow to really keep up with an attack force that might need to travel across the map. GDI was billed as straightforward, and they indeed were.

Nod is probably the strongest side in C&C 3 but it again suffers from a lot of the same problems as GDI. Its forces consist mostly of three or four main units. In the early game, a rush of Scorpions is strong, especially when backed by Venoms. In the late game, large groups of Avatars with Stealth Tanks for anti-air capacity are unbeatable (except when they face an equally large group of Tripods or Mammoth Tanks). Playing as Nod, I get the feeling that as long as I use Scorpions and Venoms early and Avatars and more Scorpions later, I'll be very hard to beat. The odd thing is, Nod has a lot of attempts to bring more units into the fray. Beam Cannons can charge up Obelisks, Hallucinogenic Grenades are designed to make infantry more useful, and Shadow Teams are designed to provide an offbeat attack force (or another way to rush early). But it's not enough. At nearly every level of human vs. human play, Nod wins through Avatars, Scorpions and Venoms.

Lastly, the Scrin are stereotypical in that they are very weak early, yet very strong late. It's very hard to fend off a strong rush as a Scrin player, and it's very hard to fend off a strong Scrin attack late game. Units like the Corruptor and Gun Walker are nearly worthless once the Scrin player gets Tripods. The Mastermind is a nearly unstoppable Commando unit when it's properly used — it almost has no counter. Tripods are among the strongest units in the game once a Scrin player has them; Planetary Assault Carriers rule the sky while Devastator Warships rain down plasma discs on all that’s below. But that's not equilibrium or variety. That's essentially setting a clock of ten or twelve minutes and saying that if a Scrin player can last that long, he'll win every time because he can build loads of three or four different types of units. Once again, I view that as boring and unimpressive because it ultimately makes for tedious gameplay.

Greg Black's a smart guy. It's somewhat arrogant of me to suggest that I can critique the EA design team and that I label their work as "boring and unimpressive," right? What needs to be understood in understanding my critique is a final point of game design: know your audience. Who is your consumer? For EA, it’s their goal to make a game with a shallow learning curve that rewards competitive gamers — the best micromanagers on the planet. This is why their game design, in my view, is styled in the way it is. They want C&C 3 played by the best competitive gamers in the world, and even though the majority of their consumers might appreciate some more nuanced gameplay, most people are going to be happy (for a little while), with what they've done. All Star's audience, and the audience of a lot of mods, is very limited. C&C 3 will be bought more times in one city than All Stars will be downloaded worldwide. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to look at All Stars, think it’s too complicated or not for them, and play something else. As a designer who's not in it for money, it's mostly irrelevant to me whether All Stars get X thousand downloads or X + 5 thousand downloads. The team is creating the mod for fun, and as such, will create what it wants to create. The designers of C&C 3, understandably, are in a different boat. They do it for a living, which is at once empowering and restrictive. They are paid to make games that sell, not necessarily games that are fun. It's two different types of game design, and if you look at the design of quality mods in development across the community and the design of C&C 3, in my view, it shows.

Part Five: The Art of Playtesting
What is Playtesting?
Well, congratulations. In the time I last left you, you were still working on the design of your fledging mod or game, using C&C All Stars and C&C 3 as case studies of variety within factions and how goals affect the mod or game design. Since then, if you're at the playtesting stage, it means you've finished all the art, code, and AI scripts you'll need and that you can kick back and relax and have some fun using your perfectly balanced creation to obliterate others.

Not so fast. Odds are, you didn't quite nail it. All those tables you typed out way back with those relativistic numbers probably had some things that didn't quite bring out the vision of equilibrium you had in your mind. How will you know for sure? Just as you test things like new pieces of art and new code, you need to test your design. The surest way to do this is to play as many matches as possible and to keep a pad of paper and a pen next to you as you play. On the pad, write down how each game went, what the deciding factor was, and anything else that comes to mind. You can even create a computer based system to enter this information into, upload replays, and put it all into a database so you can look at all the games the team has played to get a sense for how everything is being used.

What will this tell you? First, it'll tell you what tactics are successful and what aren't. Is Side A really acting as you thought they would? Is the variety you introduced in Side B weakening them unnecessarily? Are you hampering players who want open, faster games by forcing them sit through twenty minutes of base construction before getting any real units? The playtesting stage requires that you go back to your design document and start the conversations again. This time, the question is not "Will this work and should we do it?" but "Based on what we've seen in actual matches, has this worked or do we want to change it?" That's an important distinction. The ability for you to test things out and tweak your new system is invaluable, because it moves the design process from what's in your head and in your document to what's actually happening in full 3D before your eyes.
It is only through consistent testing, breaking your own design by pushing it to its limits, that you can discover things you might want to change. For instance, in All Stars we tweaked our design for nearly two years based on games we played while we were finishing some art. Many of these changes came about because people tried things that were unexpected but that we wanted to know about and address — for instance, I once used a Slave Miner rush to control a map and win a game! Use every oppurtunity you can get to playtest, even if it's with placeholder art or some restraint like that. Playtesting will introduce the human elements of reaction time, boredom, satisfaction, and more into the design equation — elements you cannot really predict or quantify in your mind when you don't have anything tangible to work with.

The playtesting phase becomes very similar to the initial design phase in that you have to get the entire team involved. You want everyone possible on the team — and perhaps outside beta testers — to test the design as much as possible, and to report what they think. You want to standarize the way in which they report things, mindful of the natural differences in playing style. I highly recommend using a computer based system for reporting balance issues, one that lets you group them for discussion based on severity. More than that, though, you want to ask everyone who's played it, even if they are not a designer, how faithfully what you've created upholds the design document. Everything should perform the way you intended, or you should have a reason for changing your intention. Everything should be tested. In a good design, you'll still tweak things and change things to make a better design. You'll rarely ever be completely happy. But there will come a point — usually it comes during a fast-paced frantic battle that could be your 100th or 200th personal match of testing — when you'll realize that your pad is free from complaints and that you're just having fun. That's when you cease being a designer, and start being a fan having fun again. And that's one of the best feelings in the world.

非常感谢楼主积极转载资料，但简单的复制粘贴似乎不如像一楼直接给出链接有效，而且在一般人看来真的有灌水嫌疑。
希望能够加上简单的介绍，如果楼主是打算翻译的话就绝对支持喽，不过本站一般情况是不允许连续回帖的，所以待整理完毕后在下会负责将帖子合并排版。

楼顶有原文链接。我是打算要翻译，但因为文章太长，所以要分开几个帖子。如果BZ能组织爱好者一起翻译就最好不过了。

篇幅确实很有气势,呵呵..可惜看不懂!不知道有没有志同道合的朋友愿意和我一起翻译一下,看他到底是个什么意思,呵呵