Skip to Content
 

Helping in making a video game

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

There is need for them...

So, I guess I use the safe and simplest way:

Unit / Structure

Biological / Mechanical

These attributes are going to be factorial.
Meaning that for example a weapon that only hurts biological units. It would be 0% on mechanical units.

The abilities that are going to make use of this for certain are:
- Taking over the alien buildings is possible, but not the defences. I plan to have engineering to be Structure and Mechanical. This means, the defences of that alien race can either be none moving units or biological structures. I think, the latter.
- A special sniping ability that will deal damage solely to biological units. This attack would be 2x2 more powerfull.
- Squishing... well, we got something different. It would be used on units only.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
More special stuff

The current goal is to think of special abilities for every unit. As a unique thing you want. This will trigger players to get a body from a set that has lost functionality in the chaos.

What I mean is that a player wants either quantity or quality. In between is often not picked.

***

The special abilities that should be unique to units are:

- Engineering/Taking over
- Squishing/Crushing
- Impact Hammer (Also pushes units away)
- Cargo (It is possible to use attributes here)
- Combat Cargo (when the cargo can help shooting)
- A sniping action (The ability holds until released, can be any weapon)
- Projectiles cost credits (and deal extra damage)
- Mines
- Mine sweeping
- Extra Piercing (The ability holds until released, can be any weapon)
- Trasformation; Artillery, Flying, Submerge, or any other statistic changes.
- Cheaper weaponry (but the unit chooses the most optimal one)
- Extra Vision
- Camouflage/Stealth/Cloaked
- Detectors for detecting the above
- Warping (The ability holds until released, distance is not linked to the normal movement speed)
- Jumping (The movement is a higher tier than standing still)
- Construction (Build a base and defences)
- Training (Train units)
- Magnet (Pulls in units)

I still need more. And some will be used multiple times.
But any idea is welcome. Just keep it short so that I don't miss them.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
About the Tech Tree... (AGAIN!)

I like the idea of "Experimenting" with the game. What do I mean? Instead of a Tree like in Civilization, You would have to ALLOCATE what a "Combination" produces. I'm not too familiar with your team's plans, but I will add that this IDEA has a LOT of merit.

You said anything of "Value" can be Traded in the Store, right?

Well IF I experiment and UNLOCK some real neat "weaponry" for Soldiers (infantry) well this means that I could TRADE my Units to other people who don't know the "Secret" combination allocated to PRODUCE these Units.

Basically it could create a form of Trade given some advancements which are NOT known from the start of the game.

Imagine this: in Infinite Control (Dark World) I could be a MERCHANT/TRADER!

Because I have this AMAZING Machine Gun with a HIGHER ROF that many people WANT to use but don't know HOW I got it from the Tech Tree. So they need to TRADE or PAY me in Commander Points or Credits, etc. to get these VALUABLE sought after Units.

That to me is SOMETHING worthwhile... Being a MERCENARY TRADER offering AMAZING Units (at a price) such that I can continue to PLAY and TRADE with many people who want MY Units.

Do you see how EXCITING this would be??? Obviously you can't make any monies but you can progress quicker in the game as you are able to make credits or points off the Trades.

That would be EPIC. At least in my own mind... Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Imagine this:

questccg wrote:

Imagine this: in Infinite Control (Dark World) I could be a MERCHANT/TRADER!

Because I have this AMAZING Machine Gun with a HIGHER ROF that many people WANT to use but don't know HOW I got it from the Tech Tree. So they need to TRADE or PAY me in Commander Points or Credits, etc. to get these VALUABLE sought after Units.


That would be a good idea indeed. I too offered this some time ago. But I am not sure if it will happen. I did say, units should go into the trademarket as well. So far, did not see it happen.

In the meantime. I wonder what special abilities I could gather. I have around 19 to 20. Sure I can double some over multiple units. But I rather see it as unique as possible.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A reminder

A lifestream where I too will be answering questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8CHQrcQ_s4

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
EMP in Warzone2100

I researched it.
I used it.

Yet it didn't come to mind. It could also be used in the new game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
sorry I missed the Livestream...

But I did a quick view in 30 minutes or so...

Sent you some PMs (Private Messages) for you to review. I think Seth and his TEAM (including YOU) have a good chance ... Of course you can PLAY with the NUMBERS that I sent over to you...

I'm sure Seth should be able to FIND a "Video Game Publisher" to help with Year #1 of the project (developing the BETA).

Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some minor comments on the presentation

Those BUTTONs where Seth said you "Click on them and it selects ALL units in the ENTIRE map of the same type to be selected and controlled."

I would CHANGE that to:

"Click on them and it selects ALL units in the CURRENT VIEWPORT of the same type to be selected and controlled."

That makes more sense that controlling units ELSEWHERE not part of the current BATTLE or may be RESERVES for a 2nd Wave (perhaps)...

I will see if there are any other issues that come to mind.

Best!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
PPC in Mechwarrior

X3M wrote:
EMP in Warzone2100: I researched it. I used it.

Yet it didn't come to mind. It could also be used in the new game.

Plasma Particle Cannon (PPC) would generate a ton of heat so the Rate of Charging is very HIGH but it deals a HUGE amount of Damage... Could destroy a leg or two with just a couple shots, sometimes only one!

If you had DUAL PPC cannons ... And aimed accuratly, you could definitely do some serious damage and destroy the legs of an enemy Mech... And you wanted to do that AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE to recover damaged Mechs as "salvage".

Of course that was an early FPS game where you were the driver of a Mech and it was a 1st Person-Shooter (for the most part). Anyhow "salvage" has nothing to do with an RTS, let alone "Infinite Control"... But PPCs now that might be an interesting weapon to examine and see if this is a ultra rare research in the Tech Tree... Hehehe.

Regards.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:But I did a

questccg wrote:
But I did a quick view in 30 minutes or so...

Sent you some PMs (Private Messages) for you to review. I think Seth and his TEAM (including YOU) have a good chance ... Of course you can PLAY with the NUMBERS that I sent over to you...

I'm sure Seth should be able to FIND a "Video Game Publisher" to help with Year #1 of the project (developing the BETA).

Cheers!


He planned 2 hours.
It almost is doubled.
And we where missing a person or 2.

We are going to cut the video into smaller pieces.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Those BUTTONs

questccg wrote:
Those BUTTONs where Seth said you "Click on them and it selects ALL units in the ENTIRE map of the same type to be selected and controlled."

I would CHANGE that to:

"Click on them and it selects ALL units in the CURRENT VIEWPORT of the same type to be selected and controlled."

That makes more sense that controlling units ELSEWHERE not part of the current BATTLE or may be RESERVES for a 2nd Wave (perhaps)...

I will see if there are any other issues that come to mind.

Best!


Tap and double tap can easily fix that.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
X3M wrote:I researched it. I

X3M wrote:
I researched it.
I used it.

Yet it didn't come to mind. It could also be used in the new game.


I decided to make an even bigger list.
However, the maximum of abilities per unit should be 2.

This means, some will have no abilities at all.
And this makes sense, since there will be more designs than abilities.

2 abilities is the maximum for now.
They are still optional though.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Do like in MtG: make a rule and then break it!

X3M wrote:
I decided to make an even bigger list. However, the maximum of abilities per unit should be 2.

Make a RULE: 2 abilities per unit. And then Break it: If the player researches "Overpower" abilities per unit are 3.

X3M wrote:
This means, some will have no abilities at all. And this makes sense, since there will be more designs than abilities.

I went the OTHER way with the "researching". Yeah everyone will want to research "Overpower" because it gives their units more "punch" but at the price of (maybe?) more heat build-up and therefore slower ROF.

X3M wrote:
2 abilities is the maximum for now. They are still optional though.

I'm sure everyone will be tweaking their units... But there is another approach too... Allocation Slots: means unit can have "X" Slots. Each ability or weapon (or armor) takes up "Y" Slots... You can configure as many "X" Slots with smaller "Y" Slots until the unit is at max (of "X" Slots).

That's another approach too... Best!

Note #1: I really like the "More Options = Slower ROF" so that a TRADE-OFF. You could have better/more weapons of different damage... But because you have 1/2/3 abilities, the ROF for EACH "Weapon" is diminished. That could be very interesting and REASONABLE in my mind!

Note #2: Or as a third option you could have a "Coolant System" which causes your ROF to increase: like 1.1 to 2.0 (in 10% increments) depending on the coolant's Level... Hehehe. Cheers...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I am waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of

I am waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of you.
Weapons come in 1, 2 or 3 weaponry points. The bodies can carry only so much. This is also upgradable. But there is a minimum.

The light infantry goes from 1 to 2, as example.

You mentioned something like slower fire and stuff. But that is put in the research etc.

No, what I am searching now are abilities.
The abilities are special things that are linked to 1 or 2 bodies. A lot are tools. A lot are very special appliances for weaponry.

Here is an example for the ROF thing you mentioned.
In Starcraft and other Blizzard games, you got energy needed for a special ability.
Some other games, you got a timer.
The ability needs to charge up. But since it takes so long (like the ION CANNON) It will not automatically fire.
Instead, the player can decide when and if it is used.
Normally a specialist will fire with the sniper constantly, 1 shot every 3 seconds. But with the SNIPE shot, it can suddenly deal 3 times more damage. Which is very effective if you know an enemy can run away. But you need to charge this every 15 seconds. And you need to manually activate it.
Of course, since this is linked to the specialist. Other weapons can get the same thing. Then the charging time might be different too.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Tools used so far

Well, i got 2 pools.
Unused and used.

The used has:
Cargo (passive, passengers cannot shoot),
Impact Hammer (launches a lighter target),
Engineering (takes over mechanical structures),
Cargo (active; passengers can shoot)

I am mapping out several games now. Starcraft and Warcraft 2 already gave me a lot of idea's.
I might use some in a different flavour.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
ToDo

List....

No, this is a ranting instead.

OCD, or double/tripple/quadrupple work?
Well, first I should say that balance is very sensitive to unit sizes.
I have no idea what "they" have in mind after several times asking. I guess I should burn the initial balance. And just churn numbers then.

Traditions are in?
Another thing that just keeps bothering me is that there is no base building in the first 20 ranks.
I am thinking over and over. And having your army wanting to survive for an entire match. By just standing there and defend. Is not my cup of tea. So, there are points to conquer, you need to get out for that. Again... not really my cup of tea. After all, once you see your opponent, it can already be awfully clear that you got the match or not. And if the armies are challenging to each other, attacking each other is also a double edged sword.

There will be traditions...but when?
Later you can build defences. And even more later, you can start cloning unit that are still on the map. But the game will surely not be traditional at the start. Which is something that the current generation actually likes again. And they have to wait and wait....yeah, waiting is still not what players want.

Practise...?
There is just too much discouragment during a match.
Players stop if they:
- Loose to much units. There is no rebuild.
- See an enemy army waaaay stronger than themselves.
- See an enemy army waaaay weaker than themselves.

The third option is simply a sign that your opponents will leave if they are smart enough. And all AI will come for you. You might get hurt.
Ok, so everyone leaves in 5 minutes, while the map offers a time for 30 minutes.
Such wasted potential on a fun match.
Even in my over complexed and the simplified board games. The players want a build up. They like spending time on building up. Its.... tradition.

What do players even need?
Another thing would be the Ant. This guy will be the guy that also allows for engineers to be in the field.
Ok, listen....these will be the most used designs in the whole game. You need to conquer AI buildings. And while I am going to keep them as cheap as possible. It might be so that a normal player will eventually put half of the credits into these little shits.
In a sense...unique gameplay, not less.

What looks cool, will not be cool
The stream that showed a startup of a battle. Showed 6 beetles, 3 scorpions, 3 gators, 3 vipers and 1 kraken. The total initial value would be roughly 6x150 + 3x600 + 3x600 + 3x770 + 1x25000. A lot of credits for a first match for sure. AND Yeah, the kraken will be overkill compared to the rest in terms of costs and power. And for what? It can't go on land. And is supposed to be super slow. On the shown map it will be one of the most useless unit imho. So, bye bye credits, new players.
Either way, the shown army could destroy itself in roughly 30 seconds.

Whoop the poopie dooo!!!

First contact...?
No contanct with the rest of the team bothers me.
It bothers me now to no end.
2 would be there.... 2!!!!
Not even our number 1 youtuber was there in the stream.
Speaking of which.

Useless again
The shown information on the Scorpion was very, very useless. The other units where not shown. This due to planning of time.
But also due to the fact that I put something together to get an idea. Players don't get an idea of the game with numbers. If you get to see only 1 number.
1 unit was shown, not all 5.
There was no comparison. Alright.... so they know there is 180 damage with the cannon. And the health is 22500 in total. The ROF was also shown. Now they might think, this tank needs 6 freeking minutes to kill itself...

So, I said, don't worry about the damage. There is a factor build in that is not shown here. After all. The 9x and 25x where not shown here....
That 180 will actually be 4500 on a tank. And now you can see, it will need only like 5 proper hits....
Well, there is accuracy, micro and a salvo size.
So, it is a bit more than 5 hits.
And a hit takes a bit more than just 1 second.

If both sides move. Then what? 0,65 x 0,5.
Alright, and I forgot the salvo size at this moment. But let's say, the tank shoots once every 3 seconds. The total battle can last for 45 seconds now.
Not 5 or 15.
Very.....VEEERRRYYY important knowledge for the players.

Oh, by the way, the uselessssstttt info where those percentages behind the main numbers. WTF was that?

***

Well, I don't really have a todo list anymore.
I think I will make a table of the units with their most balanced weapons. And then make them 50-50. The support and meat simply follow up from this.

Then, we got the issue with transformations. Which will be reversed engineered by the game...

First contact...?
No contanct with the rest of the team bothers me. AGAIN
I don't know what they need from me. And what I can apply.
I am really talking here about the calculations. Do they expect me to roll out fixed numbers for in a table? Or can they build in calculations? Which, if the latter, they need to have contact with me. Or else, they will NOT KNOW what they are doing.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Holy Crap!!! I can sense the "frustration"...!

So NO CONTACT != First Contact. Ask Seth what they need... You can also say something like: "What does the rest of the Team need as input for the units???"

And in terms of Bases, I would choose the "Earth Base". IDK, it just talks to me in terms that I don't want "Water" and you said "Air" was going to be All-Rounder and that to me sounds "sucky". So for me, the only option is "Earth"!

Or you can go the other way: "Hmm... I was wondering if the Team could ask what they need from me when it comes to units?"

And imagine if there was money involved! Hah.

I hope you just take a "Chill Pill" and "ASK" smart questions. I must admit the fact that you BUILD before "Battling" and then you could have like 100 units vs. 10 ... (From your explanation) While you have spend 100,000 Commander Points and the opponent spent only 20,000.

You just need to be COOL, CALM and ask questions. Maybe Seth will act as a buffer between the Team and your contribution, IDK. They may just be BUSY on other ASPECTS of the game. Look LoL (League of Legends) just finished the 2022 World Finals in November (and that's a real cool RTS game with lanes). I'm sure you know that game.

So don't panic... Like I said they may be VERY BUSY coding, modeling and making all kinds of code, models, and testing the map-editor, the other aspects of the game too...

I know you like RTS games... Just be patient. I know it happens to me too. If I don't get news for a week, I wonder WTF is going on?! And then only to find out there was a delay but some progress, etc.

You're a smart dude. Don't worry too much... Just ASK what THEY NEED. And see if you can provide what is missing. Start small and maybe you might get access to the Team.

Sincerely.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Sometimes i need to vent

No worries.
But at least I mentioned all my worries.

In summary, I think they are a bit in over their head. It is their first RTS after all.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
There is a lot to work on... Not just units.

X3M wrote:
No worries. But at least I mentioned all my worries.

They all sound VALID to me!

X3M wrote:
In summary, I think they are a bit in over their head. It is their first RTS after all.

Remember there is more to designing a RTS than just the UNITS and their STATS! You need an area to BUILD them (like choose units, what weapons, what items, what abilities, etc.), you have a store (to trade), you have the daily rewards, you have a map-editor...

About COMBAT ... Instead of choosing an Opponent... There is an AI that matches and pairs up players with similar Commander Point armies. So if I spent like 100,000 Commander Points, I may at best play against a 90,000 Commander Points opponent or a 125,000 Commander Point (the worst case). Something like that could make the game more "intelligent".

And then when you play and only have like 40,000 Commander Units left over ... Well then you can maybe play against a 25,000 to 50,000 opponent, etc. Like multiple match-ups.

So maybe some of these ideas address some of your concerns. Not all... But some. Just send some "questions" and see if Seth can get you the answers. The more he feels confident you won't put too much pressure on the rest of the Team the more likely he will feel comfortable to have to engage with them.

Sincerely.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Current progress

None...

What I want is knowing the environment in which the units will move around. A bit better.

But also show the big guy what kind of game I am imagining.

But he wants to look in the middle of a week.
I simply had to say, sorry, but no can do due to my rl job.
1 weekend was avaiable to me. But man, do Inhave a good social life (don't be offended please)

Either way, I picture the maps to be relatively small. The example map didn't show much room for a nice strategic environment.
And the game that I wanted to show has it all.
For a 3D RTS game from pre 2000. There will be many similarities.
One of them, the absurd scaling of support units in regards to attack range.

What I have in mind are attack ranges of roughly:
3.5
5
7
10
14
20
28
40

Something like that. Might be:
3
5
8
13
21
34

My major plan here is that each next generation of attack range has a strategic advantage of the one before. And maybe 1 more in front.
But it certainly need to have trouble with short ranged units that hide in the shadows.

I well, gona be patient here and wait.
If time, I will reverse engineer transformations.
The file is easy enough for me to re-understand. I kept logic and order.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Rethinking stuff

Not sure if they are ever going to add the levels of weaponry.

What I intended was that an unit could have several different versions of the same weapon.
For example, the rifle.

The rifle shoots 3 bullets in short succesion.
But placing this weapon on a super strong tank doesn't make much sense in the long run. Probably.

It should be possible to have a heavier version. That is still the same rifle.

The points could range from 1 to idk. 11 or something.

***

Now, I did something similar in my very first prototype games. Just to check on which unit would be the most usefull to a player.

The units would cost the same.
But the armor would go down while the damage would go up.
While I did it as a joke. Back then I discovered that all units where useful in their own ways.
The tank versions did well in combination with the support versions.
The all rounders had their own little RPS mechanic going on, just like the tank and support versions.

In expectations of this new RTS. The fact remains that players can be very selective. There is no tanking, and support is often targeted first. But I am countering this with another calculation. It is just that...players still need to show the practical balance to me.

Thus I hope that the weight of a weapon can be altered for the players.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here's another idea for you!

In the original game HALO (developed by Microsoft), the players would run around in a First Player Shooter (FPS). But there were VEHICLES and one of them was a TANK. The tank was cool because not only was it a TANK, it could move around and PLAYERS could sit on the tank while it moved around.

Maybe you could borrow such a CONCEPT: instead of using a RIFLE on a TANK, maybe your RIFLEMEN can become a part of the TANK and carry players around. Obviously the riflemen on the TANK can SHOOT too... So maybe you could add 2 or 3 Riflemen to a TANK and then the logic of the TANK having "rifles" makes more sense.

What do you think about that???

Cheers.

Note #1: In a more GENERAL sense, you could possibly ATTACH "X" soldiers to any Vehicle. So a TANK could take "4" soldiers and a Jeep could take "3" soldiers, etc. Be it Riflemen, Flamethrowers, Missile Troops, etc. So depending on the Vehicle, some may have "0" others may have "4"... And you can CONNECT the soldiers to the vehicles for EXTRA firepower while close range or semi-range (thinking about Missile Troops), etc.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
We already have something like this...!

questccg wrote:
In the original game HALO (developed by Microsoft), the players would run around in a First Player Shooter (FPS). But there were VEHICLES and one of them was a TANK. The tank was cool because not only was it a TANK, it could move around and PLAYERS could sit on the tank while it moved around.

Maybe you could borrow such a CONCEPT: instead of using a RIFLE on a TANK, maybe your RIFLEMEN can become a part of the TANK and carry players around. Obviously the riflemen on the TANK can SHOOT too... So maybe you could add 2 or 3 Riflemen to a TANK and then the logic of the TANK having "rifles" makes more sense.

What do you think about that???

Cheers.


We already have that, lol. There are 2 variants:

1. A bigger unit can carry 1 or more smaller units.

2. The same as 1, but the smaller units are able to fire as well.

questccg wrote:

Note #1: In a more GENERAL sense, you could possibly ATTACH "X" soldiers to any Vehicle. So a TANK could take "4" soldiers and a Jeep could take "3" soldiers, etc. Be it Riflemen, Flamethrowers, Missile Troops, etc. So depending on the Vehicle, some may have "0" others may have "4"... And you can CONNECT the soldiers to the vehicles for EXTRA firepower while close range or semi-range (thinking about Missile Troops), etc.

It is depending on the size of the carrier and the ones being carried. There is an entrance "cost". And there is a total cargo "cost".

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Glass Cannons

Not sure if I should make a new topic for this. It is gona be short I guess.

Well, this is regarding that RTS we are making for the PC/Mobile. And of course RTS in general.

But the most important thing would be that players can design Glass Cannons. Not right away. But in the future for sure.

What is a Glass Cannon?
It is a very powerfull weapon that can be destroyed by a pebble.

How do you feel about Glass Cannons?
They are like more extreme versions of a Flamethrower from C&C td or like the Siege Tank from Starcraft. I am talking about the ones that really....just die by a pebble or two.

Would you design in such a way that you actually would choose between 2 Glass Cannons?
Only if a game permits it. The player could design multiple Glass Cannons. But if you really want to see the difference. 1 Glass Cannon would have only 1 health. Another could have 2 or even 3 health.

But why would a player even choose this?
I am working on making this choice happen. Obviously it is a math trick. But would players even care?
And I am NOT talking about the choice in terms of RPS. No, this is a choice of the output of damage.

The Goal
My goal right now is to see that if a Glass Cannon can only take a pebble and thus can do much (like really much) more damage than the Glass Cannon that can still take at least a grenade or two.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A small update

It was very difficult for me to calculate this due to my workload in my rl job.

***

The difference of Glass Cannons with a 1 linear to 3 root, are roughly:

A, 10 Hp, 25 D
B, 20 Hp, 18 D
C, 70 Hp, 7 D

C needs 1.4 shots on A. While A needs 2.8 shots on C.
C needs 3.0 shots on B. While B needs 3.9 shots on C.
B needs 0.6 shots on A. While A needs 0.8 shots on B.

Clearly, closer to the Glass Cannon. The design gets worse in 1 on 1 battle's.
Still, if it comes to dealing with a stationairy object. Of a same value, 560 Hp. We get the following:

A needs 22.4 shots.
B needs 31.1 shots.
C needs 80.0 shots.

It is the complete opposite.
And the difference between the 2 Glass Cannons is very noticable. A factor of 39% faster destruction.

The real issue will be when players cannot apply practical balance.
Meaning, they cannot attack the Glass Cannon for some reason.

***

Reasons that players cannot attack Glass Cannons, summarized is that they are unreachable:
1- Attack range is too far
2- They can move too fast
3- They are hidden inside another unit or structure from which they can shoot
4- They are in an advantage point by terrain

Especially number 1 can profit from taking from the damage points.
Number 2 is linked to the Hp instead.
3 is also a player favorite. If you can use the same bunker and then choose between 18 or 25 damage points. The choice is easy.
Number 4 is kinda like 1 and 3. But can be overcome by something that is able to move to that same advantage point.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A bit more clarification

I am trying to find a way to make it worthwhile for players to choose the following:
They reduce the health of one of their support units. In order to gain so much more damage.

Originally we had:
70 Hp, 7 D
20 Hp, 12 D
10 Hp, 13 D

As you can see, for every 10 health, we could get 1 more damage back.
This is a false balance for RTS games. Because you then always go for normal units. The 70/7.

I also have this 1 linear to 1 root.
Then the designs are the following:
70 Hp, 7 D
20 Hp, 15.0 D
10 Hp, 18.4 D

And it is what we currently apply.
So, We probably want to make the difference bigger.

I am making a program in excel, to see how stupid it can be to make a meat/support team. Where we actually use a wall and glass cannon.
The main goal is to see, if this is imbalanced while we apply practical logic by players.
In other words, the players attack the glass cannons first. Then move on to the less DPS while with more health.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
What the heck is a "Glass Cannon"???

Nevermind ... I went back a couple posts and it's a VERY POWERFUL unit that can be defeated by a Pebble... Or a very WEAK DEFENSIVE unit.

Sorry... I had to go back and see if you had offered an explanation.

My BAD... All good now!

Cheers.

Note #1: Something like a 15/1 Magic: the Gathering Creature. If you have the chance to strike FIRST you can deal a LOT of DAMAGE... But you also can be beaten by almost ALL other units in play...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Indeed

Yes, exactly that.

In MtG terms...
Well, the same numbers can be used. But divide the health by 10 for the defense value.

So, if our balanced card is a 7/7. And costs 7.
Then the original values that we look at are, 2/12 and 1/13. Which also would cost 7.

Obviously, that 1/13 is just as good as a 1/12.
Because both can tie easily by a 1/1.
It is that when the player needs to make the decision in using that double defense card while sacrificing on the attack value. That decisions are made differently.

Why going for less defence? From 2 to 1...?
Why having less defense anyway? Well, the player wants more offense in return.
Of course without the risk.
But the risk is ridiculus high.
And the risk simply doubles on the highest end of that spectrum.

I feel that gaining 7 more offense while sacrificing 1 defense is a nice trade.
The current design has this 3 to 4 more offense. Which is way smaller. But still better.

And RTS games kinda only work with trades that are practical for the player.

I have one more system to calculate and balance.
It works as an extra layer on top of the current layer.

The balance method I currently use is simple (for me):
Body + Weapon = Linear value
2* Sqrt(Body * Weapon) = Rooted value

Then both are added up in some ratio for an average.
1:1 is the current ratio.
1:3 is the other ratio that I see value in.
But I need to test it.

My boardgame has 1:0, since I have a cover mechanic there.

Now, what are the values in all calculations?
This is for C&C lovers out there.

A heavy support unit, close to glass cannons.
Has a body of 50 and a weapon of 450. (Might be an engineer)
Linear is 500 C&C games
Rooted is 300
1:1 gives 400 Dune 2000
1:3 gives 350

The ratio also seems to be linked to the number of units in the game. And perhaps tanks vs fodder as well.
1 on 1 games are solely Rooted. And one might notice this is perfectly balanced as well.

Infinite on infinite are solely linear.
Given, that both sides use a mix and spread out perfectly.
When normals are used against a mix, the normals win by practical attacks and loose by impractical attacks.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Mistakes and intentions switched

Seems I made a mistake in some calculations in the big bad datasheet. I recorded some testing of numbers.

And it turns out, I found some new ways to balance a game by simply calculating the costs of an unit differently.

Yet the glass cannons and paper popper tanks are nowhere close to being usefull. Unless they get protection.

While this is good. The same attack range and same movement speed types. Simply mean, they can be targetted.

And the result is that in practical balance. They are worthless. You really need to give them 1 other ability.

Either a higher attack range, more movement speed or some sort of protection that practical balance is negated.

***

The "3d" graphs look cool. But also show something interesting.
It seems there are also most optimal support and meat designs. When used against normals. In 1 on 1, the normals loose (except against glass cannons and paper popper tanks). And in a teamgames the normals win. Even against these most optimal units.

I need more research on this. But for now, Cheers.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stil some tests, with 3d graphs

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut