Helping in making a video game

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.

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.

I researched it.
I used it.

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

We are going to cut the video into smaller pieces.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.