Skip to Content
 

RPS between 3 factions

9 replies [Last post]
Fri, 05/12/2017 - 14:04
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

To make sure that a game is as balanced as possible. A faction is designed to be 100% self destructive.
3 different weapons against the same 3 armor types.
If it is about 80% good against another faction, then that faction does 80% back as well. This is how I try to safeguard balance on a grate scale.

We have come at a point. That we want to create non self destructive factions. In the past, we had a lot of paired factions that could battle each other efficiently. But that is not the issue here. We now have, THREE factions. That are not going to be self destructive.

And there was only one way to go around, without increasing the number of types and targets. And that is creating a big RPS system.

So in short: An entire faction will be the rock, paper or scissor to the next faction.

Even though, the idea sounds interesting. I don't think it is a smart thing to do...?
The catch is of course, that all 3 factions are in play. But if one dies off for a big part. The remaining 2 will be imbalanced.

That is, IF it comes that far. Somehow I get the feeling that no one is daring to destroy their opponent that much. So an impasse might occur much rapidly?

It would be a great experiment. How do you guys think about this?

Top
Fri, 05/12/2017 - 14:48
#1
ssm
ssm's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/06/2017
Sounds like an imbalanced

Sounds like an imbalanced idea, unless something is added to limit the units destroyed. I think the only time to think of an impasse with something like this is if the 3 players all want to play, not knock others out, not exploit, not, not, not. That's a lot of pressure to put on yourself or any that might play.
I don't think something like this is a good idea simply due to all the different motivations different players have & will have while playing.

Top
Fri, 05/12/2017 - 14:49
#2
spaff
Offline
Joined: 11/05/2015
Can you elaborate on what it

Can you elaborate on what it means to be "self destructive"?

I'm not sure I'm familiar with that in connection to balance.

Top
Sat, 05/13/2017 - 11:31
#3
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
spaff wrote:Can you elaborate

spaff wrote:
Can you elaborate on what it means to be "self destructive"?

I'm not sure I'm familiar with that in connection to balance.

Ok. It is like this. A faction that is focussed on itself. Has for example infantry, light and heavy tanks. Then it has anti infantry, light and heavy weapons.

Another faction has troopers, vehicles and medium tanks. This on has anti troopers, anti vehicle and medium weapons.

If it where to be imbalanced. Then the first army would also have anti trooper weapons. Etc.

But if it where to be balanced again. Then the second army has also anti infantry weapons. While the first has anti trooper weapons.

Now, for 3 factions. They are either 100 percent designed on fighting their own kind. Or in a circular motion on fighting another faction.

Either A vs A with B vs B and C vs C.
Or A vs B with B vs C and C vs A.

Top
Sat, 05/13/2017 - 11:35
#4
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
ssm wrote:Sounds like an

ssm wrote:
Sounds like an imbalanced idea, unless something is added to limit the units destroyed. I think the only time to think of an impasse with something like this is if the 3 players all want to play, not knock others out, not exploit, not, not, not. That's a lot of pressure to put on yourself or any that might play.
I don't think something like this is a good idea simply due to all the different motivations different players have & will have while playing.

The limitations are:
- only 7 AP.
- maximum per AP is 1/3th destruction on 1 region.
- on average due to rps, there will be only 1/6th destruction.
- production rate is higher than point 3 but lower than point 2.

2/3th of the army will still be sufficient to deal with the bigger fish. This is 100 percent in our normal games.

Top
Sat, 05/13/2017 - 12:32
#5
gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
give each player a choice of 2 modes in RPS

all 3 players - each can choose either mode in a combat

player 1 = R or P
player 2 = P or S
player 3 = S or R

---------------- after one player is eliminated you will have one of the following sets with the remaining 2 players --------

R or P
P or S

R or P
S or R

P or S
S or R

Top
Sun, 05/14/2017 - 09:04
#6
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I was rather curious about

I was rather curious about the effects of RPS, where one of the 3 would be the weakest eventually.

If rocks gets weaker, then that means scissors would get it easier. And paper, causing the weakening of rocks, actually gets it harder now. Since there is much more scissors around.

When you hurt or remove the player that is weaker by default. You actually make it harder for yourself to play against the remaining player.

***

Adding more complexity is an answer that I had years ago. But I tend to keep things small.
Right now, 3x3=9 different units per player. I do not intend to have 36 different units per player, for 2 players. Or 81 different units per player, for 3 players.

I mean, I could. But it would be stupid and a lot of work. Players that are new, are certainly lost.

Top
Sun, 05/14/2017 - 09:44
#7
gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
3x3(x2)

My suggestion is each player having 2 possible modes of operation - mode itself would be selected in combat.

Instead of a unit having 1 of 3 modes that it does, it would have 1 of 3 modes it cannot do.

Each player just needs a mode selection mechanism to designate in combat which operational mode it is using (a heads or tails coin hidden by a hand would work, each player would have their own coin, instead of heads and tails the faces would be R and P for one player, R and S for another, and P and S for the third player).

instead of
A=R,B=P,C=S
your players are
A<>R,B<>P,C<>S

The actual RPS would be played out in each combat.

Regarding:

Right now, 3x3=9 different units per player.

??????

If this means each player has 3 units of each type to begin with, then each player is balanced RPSwise and eliminating a player creates no imbalance in the first place.

Top
Sun, 05/14/2017 - 13:02
#8
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Quote: Regarding: Right now,

Quote:

Regarding:

Right now, 3x3=9 different units per player.

??????

If this means each player has 3 units of each type to begin with, then each player is balanced RPSwise and eliminating a player creates no imbalance in the first place.

That is right.

3x3, doesn't mean automatically balance. If a player has armor types a b and c. With weapons d e and f. And another player has armor types d e and f while having weapons g h and i. Then you have this imbalance. That is the issue.

If all 3 players have the same armor types. Then balance is indeed very easy to attain, even if the speed and range are different. The rps would be the same for all 3 players indeed. And all 3 are still selfdestructive.

Regaring you suggestion to give units a combination of 2 weapon types. This is a good suggestion.

Practical speaking. The best would be combining the 2 target types.

With a die roll, players can determine which one of the 2 weapons works.

But i have to be carefull in keeping the 2 options equal.
Anti infantry costs 1 while anti trooper costs 2. This means that this unit will have 2 anti infantry or 1 anti trooper.

The worst would be 7 with 9. Most units will be multi shots. I have to be carefull designing this. But it is doable for 3 players. 4 or more players will make this impossible.

All 3 would not be self destructive. But different in any other aspect compared to other "equal" types.

Top
Mon, 05/15/2017 - 13:43
#9
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Playtest result

ssm wrote:
I think the only time to think of an impasse with something like this is if the 3 players all want to play, not knock others out, not exploit, not, not, not.

This summs it up with what happened.
Instead of spanking the weaker player (according to RPS). We focused on getting the biggest army. We didn't even feed for XP, unless it was absolutely sure that it would benefit ourselves, over losing leverage over the other. Eventually, we reached the maximum. And saved up the remaining resources. We reached the impasse. Much sooner than in a normal FFA.

A normal FFA would flow much better. There you know that killing 1 player, would not result in the other helping killing that player. Instead, that player will certainly focus on you instead.

With the RPS, of course you kill the one who is the most of a treat to you. And if someone is accidently weakening that treat, why not help? You got less to loose that way.

So, once the bullets started flying. A snowball effect occured. The first target went out fast (me). And the one who started it doomed himself too. The match resulted in the third player winning with 50% of his forces remaining.

The cool "last man standing" effect was gone. And I even had to watch for over 45 minutes. There wasn't any diplomacy either.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut