Board Game Designers Forum - Comments for "Helping in making a video game"
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game
Comments for "Helping in making a video game"enIntermezzo
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-113027
<p>For my boardgame. I can use the "altered".</p>
<p>If I want to remove the cover mechanic. And have it more like RTS. Thus the player focusing fire on certain units. A simple 0,5 factor on the extra body or weapon points will do. There are meat and support units that are better now. But one is less likely to be a target while the other can die faster by correct use of weaponry.</p>
<p>It is all well balanced. Within the chaotic randomness.<br />
Once more though, the number of dice here are also a problem. Seeing as how a flamethrow infantry would be needing 10 dice per unit and I don't think that 180 dice to roll is an option this time. Yes, you read that right, 180 dice...<br />
Obviously, dividing this by 10 would still leave me with 18 dice... But that is a full proto-type game.<br />
Warhammer uses sometimes more.</p>
<p>Enough of that. Back to a Real RTS.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>Still tinkering with some new ways.</p>
<p>Right now I have the root combined with factored and altered.<br />
And the results are that:</p>
<p>- Normals are bad in general in 1 on 1 battle's with support or meat. Except the glass cannons and paper poppers.</p>
<p>- I start to realize that the same glass cannons and paper poppers are doomed to be underdogs in direct combat. Although, paper poppers are really just mobile walls and play a role like that. While glass cannons certainly need to have something extra to get NO attention.</p>
<p>- Normals are good in getting rid of support units in a team against team in bigger masses. It really depends on how much this will be happening. Obviously, I need to get a 3x3=9 units in the field. Each being only 1. And thus the 1 on 1 happens more often that way.</p>
<p><strong>Now for the fun part</strong><br />
I was struggling with glass cannons and paper poppers being relatively expensive. And there was not much merit in having one of these.<br />
But with the new calculation. A glass cannon can kill roughly 3 units for the same cost. Then perish. This was first roughly around 2.<br />
Not only that, but going from 2% to 1% body weight will incrase the weapon with 18%. And it actually just surpasses the 4 kills now. So, that 1 hit point difference is WORTH IT!!</p>
<p>The factors for the body:weapon ratio's are:<br />
1:1 = 1.00, which is 50%:50%<br />
1:2 = 1.13. which is 38%:75%<br />
1:3 = 1.27, which is 32%:95%<br />
1:4 = 1.40, which is 28%:112%<br />
1:5 = 1.52, which is 25%:127%</p>
<p>Where the 1:1 units are most likely to be compared with riflemen and the normal tanks from C&C.<br />
The 1:2 units are most likely to be compared with grenadiers. They already deal so much more damage. By 50% more damage while the ratio has not altered with 50%.<br />
If we look at the alteration of the ratio with 50%. We get the 1:3 units. Perhaps the flamethrower fits in this category, together with units like the MRLS and Artillery? They almost deal 100% damage.<br />
Then the 1:4 units still have not dropped under half their hp. Yet the damage surpasses the double already.<br />
It is at the 1:5 ratio that the units will have half their hp. But they deal 2.5 the damage for the same price. Is this fair? Only tests in the game will tell.</p>
Tue, 28 Nov 2023 16:37:06 +0000X3Mcomment 113027 at https://www.bgdf.comThe big 5
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-113008
<p>I have 5 formula's that give either a balance or boost certain designs that suffer the most after applying a mix of formula's.</p>
<p>1.<br />
The sum of the body and weapon.<br />
Is used to keep base destruction balanced.<br />
The normals are the strongest here.</p>
<p>2.<br />
Two times the root of the factor body times weapon.<br />
Is used to have a perfect balance in 1 on 1 battles.<br />
Once a 0 is introduced, this formula breaks.</p>
<p>3.<br />
Is used to have a perfect balance in 2 on 2 battles.<br />
Here the meat unit is targetted first.<br />
Surprisingly, it is not a real opposite of the next one.<br />
(And I now ponder if I shouldn't make another type of graph for these)</p>
<p>4.<br />
Is again used to have a perfect balance in 2 on 2 battles.<br />
This time the support unit is targetted first.</p>
<p>5.<br />
Four times the body times Weapon.<br />
Then divided by the sum of the body and weapon.<br />
Is used to boost units like glass cannons to a consideradeble level.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>The current system is an average of 1 and 2.<br />
I consider having a new system that is an average of all 5.<br />
The value of units decrease on the far edges by a small margin.<br />
If we consider something to be more important in the game. Then we can increase its weight.</p>
<p>But ehm.... it all gets too complicated. And the graphs all kinda blend together into something that is close to one of them. Which makes me also ponder if I even should continue with this research. It is kinda wasting my time that I spend on helping with the game and doesn't give progress.</p>
<p>If the end result is that my original formula is balanced. It is up to the players to design with a little bit of intelligence.</p>
<p>This mean that if they make support units. The weaponry should have a bigger attack range then the so called meat units in that team. Etc.</p>
Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:08:17 +0000X3Mcomment 113008 at https://www.bgdf.comI found it!!!
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-113006
<p>I have found a perfect formula to calculate the perfect balance for 2 on 2 battle's of the meat/support being an exact mirror. Versus any other meat/support mirror.</p>
<p>I already have a perfect balance of 1 on 1 battle's. They differ here and there.</p>
<p>Main knowledge will be that if I design them to be good for 2 on 2. Then the 1 on 1 will work in their favour. I could pick a cost for the units right in between the 2. In that regard. The support unit always needs to be protected. Or else the team looses. While in a 1 on 1 battle, the support unit simply wins from a normal as well.</p>
<p>Still, this would mean that they are much cheaper than the normal sum of the body and weapon.<br />
And they don't differ much of each other. Just a small margin. This includes the glass cannons too.<br />
I need to discuss the 1% and 2% health units.<br />
In regards to the 1 on 1 and the 2 on 2.</p>
<p>Still a lot of work. And I got mixed feeling for the fact that it doesn't matter much. But I can continue to search.</p>
Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:12:05 +0000X3Mcomment 113006 at https://www.bgdf.comquestccg wrote:I guess
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-113005
<p><div class="quote-msg"><div class="quote-author"><em>questccg</em> wrote:</div>I guess someone shared with you some further information or was it just YOU that came up with all those "spreadsheets" with the Red/Yellow/Green analysis???</div><br />
All me. I just wanted it to be done.<br />
I had the 1 on 1 battle's to toy with on how I wanted to analyse the more complex battle's.</p>
<p>Normally the really smart RTS designers use matrix calculations. Let's just say... I am to stupid for that.</p>
<p><div class="quote-msg"><div class="quote-author"><em>questccg</em> wrote:</div><br />
It's all beyond me... So I cannot help because it all seems so "technical"!</div>It is beyond me as well. Altough, I got a list of numbers and I learned from the proces as well.</p>
<p><div class="quote-msg"><div class="quote-author"><em>questccg</em> wrote:</div><br />
But feel free to use BGDF.com as a sounding board... Feel free to express your progress and your thoughts on the matter. Like I said, I honestly feel like you are well beyond the normal analysis and into some kind of deeper thought when it comes to the RTS Video Game.</div>It is kinda my own approach to the math. I could post the list of numbers here. We get this X and Y if you will...<br />
Actually, we got body points, health points, for both meat and support. The story is that the support always dies first. But either way. To have a team tying with any other team is already like a dream come true to me.<br />
The numbers for it show there is a system for sure.<br />
It just.... goes beyond my comprehension atm.</p>
<p><div class="quote-msg"><div class="quote-author"><em>questccg</em> wrote:</div>If ever I understand something to comment on... I will... But for now just keep doing what you are doing because it seems to be helpful.</p>
<p>Cheers!</div>I could show you the 3d graphs from top. In discord. From start to end. What I came up with. How it is tested. Then what I had to do to get a list of numbers...."Manually!!" And now to seek out by engineering backwards.</p>
<p>Fun fact, asked some wizkids from a 4d gaming platform. So far...the problem is my explanation I guess.</p>
<p>Either way, once I find the formula. I can link it to my 1 on 1 formula. And probably to a linear system too.<br />
My goal is to have RPS, through only body and weapon points.</p>
Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:32:38 +0000X3Mcomment 113005 at https://www.bgdf.comYou've taken it to ANOTHER level...?
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-113003
<p>I guess someone shared with you some further information or was it just YOU that came up with all those "spreadsheets" with the Red/Yellow/Green analysis???</p>
<p>It's all beyond me... So I cannot help because it all seems so "technical"!</p>
<p>But feel free to use BGDF.com as a sounding board... Feel free to express your progress and your thoughts on the matter. Like I said, I honestly feel like you are well beyond the normal analysis and into some kind of deeper thought when it comes to the RTS Video Game.</p>
<p>If ever I understand something to comment on... I will... But for now just keep doing what you are doing because it seems to be helpful.</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
Mon, 20 Nov 2023 00:34:34 +0000questccgcomment 113003 at https://www.bgdf.comX3M wrote:Two
I manually fill
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-113002
<p><div class="quote-msg"><div class="quote-author"><em>X3M</em> wrote:</div><strong>Two</strong><br />
I manually fill in the costs, starting from the normals. Then expand to the glass cannons and paper poppers.<br />
And try to keep it as balanced as possible in the 2v2 battle's. The difference in stats are going to be recalculated. And should provide me with a nice calculation for how to calculate the costs.</p>
<p>Let's say, I am reverse enginering here.<br />
But it will be very hard. And has a lot of work.</p>
<p>Then, the calculation will be a bit different in such a way. That I can created several hot spots. Such that a RPS is created in combining your forces. That is my goal.<br />
</div><br />
So.....<br />
I got a list of numbers.<br />
But am not sure what to do with it.<br />
I got at least 9 numbers after the decimal. And the graph still shows some balance.<br />
The walls and rogue projectiles are removed to make certain everything goes well.<br />
As if I am observing the 1 on 1. Where the root is pervect balance... I am sure I can find a way to make 2 on 2 practically speaking, balanced.</p>
<p>It shows I need to have at least one division by 1 of the parameters. But that's it...</p>
Sun, 19 Nov 2023 01:22:03 +0000X3Mcomment 113002 at https://www.bgdf.comA plan?
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-113000
<p>Well, it is all math. But I am trying to put it in layman terms here. </p>
<p>To calculate the costs. I used several ways.<br />
My boardgame uses a simple addition of the body and weapon.<br />
And this works because I have a clear rule on how to take cover in a squad using allies.</p>
<p>In RTS, this is different.<br />
Here I tried the following. While having the simple addition. It will be taken on average with another calculation.<br />
Multiplying the body with the weapon, then taking the root out of it. Means we also can get zero's. This is why I also apply averaging with the additions.</p>
<p>Factoring, which means the same. But I don't apply the root.<br />
Here I actually see that other designs than normals can be on top of a battle.</p>
<p>Less addition, which I call the alternate. But I should call it less addition instead. Is where the lowest value of the body or weapon. Is calculated normally. And the other value is cheaper. This too, allows for other designs to be more powerfull than the normals.</p>
<p>Then I figured, that there is always only 1 top design.<br />
With the Factoring, there is are 2 top designs. This is depending on if it is a 1 on 1 battle or 2 on 2 battle.<br />
This is a good thing.</p>
<p>So, if I want more. I thought of using any way to calculate so far. But squaring it. And with that, I mean, calculating the costs normally. Then compare to a normal design with the stats balanced out. And subtract the difference once more. This gave negative numbers too. We can't have that. Or we need to be mild with the originals.<br />
And another was is to multiply with the new cost, then divide by the normals cost. Which never can reach 0.</p>
<p>The latter too, does give interesting results. But not 2 top designs. No, this time it goes back to one top design.</p>
<p>I also realized that having the squaring once more. Calling it cubic. Does not bring out multiple top designs. But instead, makes the difference in balance sharper. In other words, the game becomes very imbalanced that way.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>The plan(s)<br />
I have 2.</p>
<p><strong>One</strong><br />
I still look for a 3 step calculation.<br />
1. I calculate costs in a primairy way.<br />
2. ?<br />
3. I square or subtract from the costs.</p>
<p>Point 2 and 3 can switch places.</p>
<p>? can be something relating not only the cost value. But also one or both of the stats again. Because that way, I could make different calculations.</p>
<p><strong>Two</strong><br />
I manually fill in the costs, starting from the normals. Then expand to the glass cannons and paper poppers.<br />
And try to keep it as balanced as possible in the 2v2 battle's. The difference in stats are going to be recalculated. And should provide me with a nice calculation for how to calculate the costs.</p>
<p>Let's say, I am reverse enginering here.<br />
But it will be very hard. And has a lot of work.</p>
<p>Then, the calculation will be a bit different in such a way. That I can created several hot spots. Such that a RPS is created in combining your forces. That is my goal.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>I seriously am going for plan 2 right now. Because it would also show if plan 1 has any possible results.</p>
Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:01:34 +0000X3Mcomment 113000 at https://www.bgdf.comSquared might not be enough
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112993
<p>I changed the alternative calculation a bit.<br />
I compare the 2 values body and weapon. And subtract the lowest, twice from the highest.<br />
Then the remaining value is multiplied by a factor, to make this value lower. And the lowest value is added to it twice again.</p>
<p>With a factor 0.5, you get the same calculation as above. But it is a bit more understandable.</p>
<p>I discovered that a 50-200 unit will cost less than the root calculation for 100%. This means that these units would be stronger than normal units.<br />
67% in the alternative calculation for the factor gives the exact same root cost.</p>
<p>Suffice to say, I do favour designs to be more effective than normal designs.<br />
And the 1:3 design is most optimal here for 1 on 1 battles.<br />
While the 1:2 design is most optimal for 2 on 2 battles.</p>
<p>I seek a difference in effectiveness in various situations. Purely on health and damage value only.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>I also checked what would happen if I square these calculations. And a factor of 0.7 here results in almost the same effectiveness graph as 0.5 on the alternative graph.</p>
<p>50-100 units would cost<br />
125 or 121.5<br />
50-150 units would cost<br />
150 or 144.5</p>
<p>Hardly a difference. And thus, squared here is of no concern?</p>
<p>50-450 unit would cost<br />
275 or 288.8<br />
And here things go the other way around...</p>
<p>This made me think.<br />
A first step calculation gives graphs that go from good to bad or the other way around.<br />
A second step calculation (squared) gives graphs that go from good-bad-good, or, bad-good-bad. With exception of glass cannons and alike of course.</p>
<p>So, perhaps I should see if I can find a third step calculation???<br />
But how would it look like?</p>
Tue, 14 Nov 2023 09:21:26 +0000X3Mcomment 112993 at https://www.bgdf.comTo understand what I mean
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112989
<p>An unit like the rocket soldier from C&C.</p>
<p>Let's give the body 50 points and the weapon 450 points.</p>
<p>500 Linear.<br />
300 Rooted.<br />
180 Factored.<br />
100 Alternative.<br />
400 Linear to Rooted on a 50%-50% basis.<br />
350 Linear to Rooted on a 25%-75% basis.<br />
320 Linear to Rooted on a 50%-50% basis and squared.<br />
245 Linear to Rooted on a 25%-75% basis and squared.<br />
340 Linear to Factored on a 50%-50% basis.<br />
260 Linear to Factored on a 25%-75% basis.<br />
300 Linear to Alternative on a 50%-50% basis.</p>
<p>Now, compared to a unit that has a body of 250 points and a weapon of 250 points. This design always costs 500.</p>
<p>Linear seems to always have the normals on its side.<br />
Rooted seems to be on equal grounds in a 1 on 1 fight.<br />
Factored seems to have the meat and support in an advantage, to a certain point. But the 2 on 2 matches still shift this back to the normals to a certain point.<br />
The alternative is just plain weird.</p>
<p>I think I should have multiplications for sure. Since this would boost the glass cannons and paper poppers a bit more.<br />
The alternative is now discarded again. It also had some wrong favoritism located between the normals and the 1 to 9 designs.</p>
Thu, 09 Nov 2023 20:14:59 +0000X3Mcomment 112989 at https://www.bgdf.comX3M wrote:
Tested:
Linear to
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112987
<p><div class="quote-msg"><div class="quote-author"><em>X3M</em> wrote:</div><br />
Tested:<br />
<strong>Linear to Factored</strong><br />
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*4*B*W<br />
</div><br />
A reminder to myself.<br />
This one shows in a 1 on 1 battle that normals are the underdog. So, in a sense, they are vital for multiple units. But in a one on one fight, you better pick a meat or support unit.</p>
<p>This is in contrary to the other test.</p>
<p>Perhaps I don't have to test the other systems. But I will still create them to make sure. Since I too make mistakes along the way like everyone else.</p>
Thu, 09 Nov 2023 18:06:48 +0000X3Mcomment 112987 at https://www.bgdf.comQuote:1.I need to make sure
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112986
<p><div class="quote-msg"><div class="quote-author">Quote:</div>1.<br />
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.<br />
Linear to rooted.<br />
</div></p>
<p>Ok, my basic calculation shows that the normals win in any practical way possible. I need to change this for sure.<br />
So, the original is very bad. Even if I take 25% of the linear portion and 75% of the alternative calculation.</p>
<p>I also took another look at the 3d grapsh of the linear to factored. And if I put this in 25% to 75%. I highlight the results. Then I add up the 2 3d graphs together. I get big area's of "yellow" despite highlighting results. This is a good sign.</p>
<p><div class="quote-msg"><div class="quote-author">Quote:</div>2.<br />
The alternate calculation should also be tested.<br />
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.</div></p>
<p>Still need to see if the balance improves with number 2. of the previous post.</p>
<p>I can simply copy/paste the 2 graphs. And then change the calculation of the body and weapon part.</p>
<p>So, what did I calculate? And what do I need to calculate?</p>
<p>X<br />
is a portion, the total is always 100%. In my graphs, I can alted this and over 10k numbers change.</p>
<p>B<br />
is the body value. In my graphs I go from 0% up to 100%. Through X and thus C, it is recalculated for the combat test.</p>
<p>W<br />
is the weapon value. In my graphs I go from 100% down to 0%. Through X and thus C, it is recalculated for the combat test.</p>
<p>C<br />
is the "balanced" value. It can vary between 0% to 100%. (1/C) is used to recalculate B and W for the combat tests.</p>
<p>Tested:<br />
<strong>Linear to Rooted (partly board game friendly)</strong><br />
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*2*sqrt(B*W)<br />
<strong>Linear to Factored</strong><br />
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*4*B*W</p>
<p>Yet to test:<br />
<strong>Linear to Squared</strong><br />
C = ( (1-X)*(B+W) + X*2*sqrt(B*W) )^2<br />
<strong>Alternative (also board game friendly)</strong><br />
If W>B;<br />
C = (1+X)*B + (1-X)*W<br />
Else;<br />
C = (1-X)*B + (1+X)*W</p>
Wed, 08 Nov 2023 17:07:18 +0000X3Mcomment 112986 at https://www.bgdf.comStil some tests, with 3d graphs
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112983
<p>Are required.</p>
<p>My last test was...<br />
Linear to Factored/Linear</p>
<p>1.<br />
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.<br />
Linear to rooted.</p>
<p>2.<br />
The alternate calculation should also be tested.<br />
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.</p>
<p>3.Other alternatives.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
Wed, 08 Nov 2023 01:16:23 +0000X3Mcomment 112983 at https://www.bgdf.comStil some tests, with 3d graphs
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112982
<p>Are required.</p>
<p>My last test was...<br />
Linear to Factored/Linear</p>
<p>1.<br />
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.<br />
Linear to rooted.</p>
<p>2.<br />
The alternate calculation should also be tested.<br />
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.</p>
<p>3.Other alternatives.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
Wed, 08 Nov 2023 01:16:22 +0000X3Mcomment 112982 at https://www.bgdf.comStil some tests, with 3d graphs
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112981
<p>Are required.</p>
<p>My last test was...<br />
Linear to Factored/Linear</p>
<p>1.<br />
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.<br />
Linear to rooted.</p>
<p>2.<br />
The alternate calculation should also be tested.<br />
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.</p>
<p>3.Other alternatives.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
Wed, 08 Nov 2023 01:16:21 +0000X3Mcomment 112981 at https://www.bgdf.comStil some tests, with 3d graphs
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112980
<p>Are required.</p>
<p>My last test was...<br />
Linear to Factored/Linear</p>
<p>1.<br />
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.<br />
Linear to rooted.</p>
<p>2.<br />
The alternate calculation should also be tested.<br />
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.</p>
<p>3.Other alternatives.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
Wed, 08 Nov 2023 01:16:19 +0000X3Mcomment 112980 at https://www.bgdf.comStil some tests, with 3d graphs
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112979
<p>Are required.</p>
<p>My last test was...<br />
Linear to Factored/Linear</p>
<p>1.<br />
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.<br />
Linear to rooted.</p>
<p>2.<br />
The alternate calculation should also be tested.<br />
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.</p>
<p>3.Other alternatives.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
Wed, 08 Nov 2023 01:16:17 +0000X3Mcomment 112979 at https://www.bgdf.comStil some tests, with 3d graphs
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112978
<p>Are required.</p>
<p>My last test was...<br />
Linear to Factored/Linear</p>
<p>1.<br />
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.<br />
Linear to rooted.</p>
<p>2.<br />
The alternate calculation should also be tested.<br />
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.</p>
<p>3.Other alternatives.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
Wed, 08 Nov 2023 01:16:15 +0000X3Mcomment 112978 at https://www.bgdf.comStil some tests, with 3d graphs
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112977
<p>Are required.</p>
<p>My last test was...<br />
Linear to Factored/Linear</p>
<p>1.<br />
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.<br />
Linear to rooted.</p>
<p>2.<br />
The alternate calculation should also be tested.<br />
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.</p>
<p>3.Other alternatives.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
Wed, 08 Nov 2023 01:16:05 +0000X3Mcomment 112977 at https://www.bgdf.comMistakes and intentions switched
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112965
<p>Seems I made a mistake in some calculations in the big bad datasheet. I recorded some testing of numbers.</p>
<p>And it turns out, I found some new ways to balance a game by simply calculating the costs of an unit differently.</p>
<p>Yet the glass cannons and paper popper tanks are nowhere close to being usefull. Unless they get protection. </p>
<p>While this is good. The same attack range and same movement speed types. Simply mean, they can be targetted.</p>
<p>And the result is that in practical balance. They are worthless. You really need to give them 1 other ability. </p>
<p>Either a higher attack range, more movement speed or some sort of protection that practical balance is negated.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>The "3d" graphs look cool. But also show something interesting.<br />
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.</p>
<p>I need more research on this. But for now, Cheers.</p>
Sun, 05 Nov 2023 20:24:25 +0000X3Mcomment 112965 at https://www.bgdf.comIndeed
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/helping-making-video-game#comment-112963
<p>Yes, exactly that.</p>
<p>In MtG terms...<br />
Well, the same numbers can be used. But divide the health by 10 for the defense value.</p>
<p>So, if our balanced card is a 7/7. And costs 7.<br />
Then the original values that we look at are, 2/12 and 1/13. Which also would cost 7.</p>
<p>Obviously, that 1/13 is just as good as a 1/12.<br />
Because both can tie easily by a 1/1.<br />
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.</p>
<p>Why going for less defence? From 2 to 1...?<br />
Why having less defense anyway? Well, the player wants more offense in return.<br />
Of course without the risk.<br />
But the risk is ridiculus high.<br />
And the risk simply doubles on the highest end of that spectrum.</p>
<p>I feel that gaining 7 more offense while sacrificing 1 defense is a nice trade.<br />
The current design has this 3 to 4 more offense. Which is way smaller. But still better.</p>
<p>And RTS games kinda only work with trades that are practical for the player.</p>
<p>I have one more system to calculate and balance.<br />
It works as an extra layer on top of the current layer.</p>
<p>The balance method I currently use is simple (for me):<br />
Body + Weapon = Linear value<br />
2* Sqrt(Body * Weapon) = Rooted value</p>
<p>Then both are added up in some ratio for an average.<br />
1:1 is the current ratio.<br />
1:3 is the other ratio that I see value in.<br />
But I need to test it.</p>
<p>My boardgame has 1:0, since I have a cover mechanic there.</p>
<p>Now, what are the values in all calculations?<br />
This is for C&C lovers out there.</p>
<p>A heavy support unit, close to glass cannons.<br />
Has a body of 50 and a weapon of 450. (Might be an engineer)<br />
Linear is 500 C&C games<br />
Rooted is 300<br />
1:1 gives 400 Dune 2000<br />
1:3 gives 350</p>
<p>The ratio also seems to be linked to the number of units in the game. And perhaps tanks vs fodder as well.<br />
1 on 1 games are solely Rooted. And one might notice this is perfectly balanced as well.</p>
<p>Infinite on infinite are solely linear.<br />
Given, that both sides use a mix and spread out perfectly.<br />
When normals are used against a mix, the normals win by practical attacks and loose by impractical attacks.</p>
Fri, 03 Nov 2023 06:36:52 +0000X3Mcomment 112963 at https://www.bgdf.com