Skip to Content

Experience, earning and spending

9 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Ugh, I don't know where to put this one. It is a mechanic of some sort. But it is also part of the design to begin with. Eventually this problem comes forth from play testing.

---

Any way. In my war game, you earn experience points by finishing of enemies. The value of the enemy is the XP you get.

You may put all these points on 1 particular unit in the squad that just had fought. So beating a big army can get a lot of XP for your little rifle infantry.

This unit is now able to upgrade one of the 4 upgradable statistics;
Health, Damage, Speed or Range.

- These upgrades however have different costs.
- And each unit has its own list of XP prices.

According to my calculations. Every thing would be balanced out. How ever...

Damage upgrades are the cheapest. They often equal the value of the weapon that your unit carries.
But 6 levels have the same XP costs and effect as 3 levels for Health upgrades.
Thus on the chart, Health appears to be twice as expensive on average. Even though the effects are also twice as big.

Speed is cheap when Range is low to start with.
And Range is cheap when Speed is low to start with.
However, both are based on a default unit. Thus having 1 level as "default" level. And that level equals the costs for 6 levels damage and 3 levels health.

Speed and Range appear to be even 6 times as big as the damage upgrade. And only for the basic units.
The long range units and fast speedy units have higher costs for these XP. This can become very extreme.
While one unit has a Speed XP cost of 300, another might have 5600 (well, it is a gooood unit). Average XP by killing an average unit is 600.

***

The first effect is that I see my friends buy more damage upgrades at first before even attending to health and the other.

In a logical (brain dead) next step, my friends spend XP on Health.

After that, they might add a little bit of speed and range. But notching more.

I do know that health and damage upgrades eventually become so expensive that they beat speed and range at a certain point. And this happens more often than I thought.
So eventually, everything will be upgraded at a certain point.

However, I wonder if it is possible to balance things more out? In a way that (beginning) players would have a clearer choice. But without harming the balance of the XP spending.

Let's just say, the XP spending is a bit to much deterministic.

Masacroso
Masacroso's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
When you says "clearer

When you says "clearer choice" what are you talking about? Are you wanting a more wide range of valid strategies?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The current path most players

The current path most players follow, for upgrading their units, is:
first Damage
then Health
then Speed or Range

I rather see
Damage or Health or Speed or Range

Masacroso
Masacroso's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
X3M wrote:The current path

X3M wrote:
The current path most players follow, for upgrading their units, is:
first Damage
then Health
then Speed or Range

I rather see
Damage or Health or Speed or Range

Yes, I understand... this was what I tough: you want increase the number of valid (=competitive) strategies. This is a common problem with many games. You want that choices really become useful chocies and not just pseudo-choices.

Well... first you need to test games starting with different upgrades to see if they are useful or not. When you test it, to know they viability, then you can start to balance the options to do all of them playable (=viable).

But isnt a good idea change rules following statistics of play... you must know, by yourself, they real viability before to do any change.

A key idea to balance things, as viable choices/strategies, is understand if the game rely too much in a variable, e.g., death of "soldiers". If death is the main factor to win a game you must change the way statistics work so they are all useful to kill or survive.

If you dont want that the evolution of the game mainly rely on kill/survive then you must re-think the victory conditions for the game to make viable strategies that dont focus on the kill/survive factor.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
X3M wrote:The current path

X3M wrote:
The current path most players follow, for upgrading their units, is:
first Damage
then Health
then Speed or Range

I rather see
Damage or Health or Speed or Range

I'm not very familiar with wargamers, but in gamebooks such as "Destiny Quest" speed is an opposed test and the winner is that gets to strike that round. Perhaps you should make it so Speed can give very strong advantages, but aren't as reliable as flat out Damage increase.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The game is like C&C or

The game is like C&C or Starcraft.

Well, the statistics are balanced to begin with.
The game without XP spending is balanced.
And so is the game with the XP spending.

Only some units have very high, for example, damage.
The XP for the upgrade on damage is on its turn high as well.
But the result is a high upgrade. So the upgrade too is balanced.

However, players don't see it that way.
Players play differently then when AI would play.
Could it be that the players are still in experienced?
I often get the comment; "why did you upgrade the range of that rifle infantry? That has no use?"
I know the use, because I know the game to its core.

When I look at the Rifle Infantry:
Health is 3, after 3 upgrades it is 6.
Damage is 1, after 6 upgrades it is 2.
Speed is 2, after an upgrade it is 3.
Range is 2, after an upgrade it is 3.
The costs however are:
100 for the first 3 Health levels.
Then 200, 300 etc.
50 for the first 6 Damage levels.
Then 100, 150 etc.
300 for the first Speed and Range level.
Then 400, 500 etc.

I do have to say, Speed and Range are already further ahead then Health and Damage.

When you have 300 XP to spend, well, I could choose for a micro unit since I like to annoy. That is why I choose Range and out range an enemy Rifle Infantry. The very next upgrade is not really that more expensive.
But my friends always go for the "cheap" Damage. While the effects are different, they are balanced.
Actually, if they spend 300 XP on Health, the effects are exactly the same. But they don't, they choose "Damage".

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
I think people choose Damage

I think people choose Damage upgrade most because with all games in general Damage is usually the best choice. Better to kill an enemy first and fast before they kill you

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, there are situations

Well, there are situations where you want to outsmart your opponent with range.
You know that the enemy has to go through a pass before reaching you. So you make sure you have sufficient range for shooting them. +1 range here means 1 to several shots extra during the closing in.

It is a fact that in this version, every unit has 3 health and 1 damage on average. So 1 more range at best means a 3 health versus 2 health fight.
If they however do 2 damage, than it is equal again since 3/2=2 shots and 2/1=2 shots.

So, mathematically, it is balanced. But I guess, it is simply not visible unless I tell players on before hand.

The same goes when you want to shoot towers. +1 range often means, you win without retaliation. :)

I got thus far with explaining to my friends, the defeating towers thing. But one rather walses in.

Masacroso
Masacroso's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
So you dont need to change

So you dont need to change anything then. Just people dont know how to play it, this is all.

A historic example are the openings of go. On this game the openings on the 4th line was created on the XX century in Japan... but the game of go have more than 2000 years of age.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Right, that sounds most

Right, that sounds most logical until now.

I guess I will include some extra strategies to the unit descriptions, regarding XP spending.

Those who understand will be having an advantage in certain situations. Just like how some one who understands certain MtG cards will be having an advantage.

***

Then one thing remains.

The speed and range upgrades where designed when they only meant running around faster and shooting further.

However, in the mean time, I added 2 more rules regarding speed and range.

When someone runs around, anoter player might want to shoot already. This happens when the running player hides behind rock after rock, reducing times when you can shoot him. (This is the best way in how Rifle Infantry can defeat Snipers). Behind a rock, the unit can not be shot (nor shoot back). But in between the runner can be shot. Players often want to do this since there might be no other option at that moment.

The rule to this "intercepting" is that speed is compared to range. And the lowest number counts as extra dice rolls of 5/6th. Meaning a range of 3 against a speed of 4, means, 3 extra rolls. If all 3 are 5 or lower, the projectile can hit. If there is at least one 6. The projectile misses.

Of course, with 0 speed, there is always a hit. But hey, they don't run around either ;)
With 0 range however, there is also Always a hit. But hey, who dares to run close by?

The main reason why this intercept rule was added:
Mines! And it does wonders to begin with.

So, when long ranged units might have an advantage in open fields. When there is debris, they will be having a disadvantage with intercepting. Don't worry, with high grounds etc. units need to run longer distances before even reaching the ranged units.

Fast units have an advantage when trying to get somewhere. They also can make use of the terain much better if it comes to hiding.

The newer results regarding XP spending are:
When Speed is upgraded, this helps not only running faster around on the map. But there is an extra "durability" bonus against the longest ranges. Until the speed surpasses the range, then it has no use upgrading for that purpose.

However, range actually gets more disadvantages? Less hit chance with intercepting. Although, if the speed of enemies don't change, this is not a disadvantage at all.
And to remind myself. +1 range is a larger ring of possible guardpoints.
0 range guards 1 (to 7 regions).
1 range guards 7 (to 19 regions).
2 range guards 19 (to 31 regions).
Although, in a single line of sight, it is only +1 region.

So the speed and range upgrade might both seem useless as well if it comes to getting advantages. With a capital SEEM.
I guess, I have to put this story somewhere in a trivia. Or in the manual.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut