Skip to Content
 

Helping in making a video game

213 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Online
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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
Quote:1.I need to make sure

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

Ok, my basic calculation shows that the normals win in any practical way possible. I need to change this for sure.
So, the original is very bad. Even if I take 25% of the linear portion and 75% of the alternative calculation.

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.

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

Still need to see if the balance improves with number 2. of the previous post.

I can simply copy/paste the 2 graphs. And then change the calculation of the body and weapon part.

So, what did I calculate? And what do I need to calculate?

X
is a portion, the total is always 100%. In my graphs, I can alted this and over 10k numbers change.

B
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.

W
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.

C
is the "balanced" value. It can vary between 0% to 100%. (1/C) is used to recalculate B and W for the combat tests.

Tested:
Linear to Rooted (partly board game friendly)
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*2*sqrt(B*W)
Linear to Factored
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*4*B*W

Yet to test:
Linear to Squared
C = ( (1-X)*(B+W) + X*2*sqrt(B*W) )^2
Alternative (also board game friendly)
If W>B;
C = (1+X)*B + (1-X)*W
Else;
C = (1-X)*B + (1+X)*W

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
X3M wrote: Tested: Linear to

X3M wrote:

Tested:
Linear to Factored
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*4*B*W

A reminder to myself.
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.

This is in contrary to the other test.

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
To understand what I mean

An unit like the rocket soldier from C&C.

Let's give the body 50 points and the weapon 450 points.

500 Linear.
300 Rooted.
180 Factored.
100 Alternative.
400 Linear to Rooted on a 50%-50% basis.
350 Linear to Rooted on a 25%-75% basis.
320 Linear to Rooted on a 50%-50% basis and squared.
245 Linear to Rooted on a 25%-75% basis and squared.
340 Linear to Factored on a 50%-50% basis.
260 Linear to Factored on a 25%-75% basis.
300 Linear to Alternative on a 50%-50% basis.

Now, compared to a unit that has a body of 250 points and a weapon of 250 points. This design always costs 500.

Linear seems to always have the normals on its side.
Rooted seems to be on equal grounds in a 1 on 1 fight.
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.
The alternative is just plain weird.

I think I should have multiplications for sure. Since this would boost the glass cannons and paper poppers a bit more.
The alternative is now discarded again. It also had some wrong favoritism located between the normals and the 1 to 9 designs.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
Squared might not be enough

I changed the alternative calculation a bit.
I compare the 2 values body and weapon. And subtract the lowest, twice from the highest.
Then the remaining value is multiplied by a factor, to make this value lower. And the lowest value is added to it twice again.

With a factor 0.5, you get the same calculation as above. But it is a bit more understandable.

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.
67% in the alternative calculation for the factor gives the exact same root cost.

Suffice to say, I do favour designs to be more effective than normal designs.
And the 1:3 design is most optimal here for 1 on 1 battles.
While the 1:2 design is most optimal for 2 on 2 battles.

I seek a difference in effectiveness in various situations. Purely on health and damage value only.

***

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.

50-100 units would cost
125 or 121.5
50-150 units would cost
150 or 144.5

Hardly a difference. And thus, squared here is of no concern?

50-450 unit would cost
275 or 288.8
And here things go the other way around...

This made me think.
A first step calculation gives graphs that go from good to bad or the other way around.
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.

So, perhaps I should see if I can find a third step calculation???
But how would it look like?

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
A plan?

Well, it is all math. But I am trying to put it in layman terms here.

To calculate the costs. I used several ways.
My boardgame uses a simple addition of the body and weapon.
And this works because I have a clear rule on how to take cover in a squad using allies.

In RTS, this is different.
Here I tried the following. While having the simple addition. It will be taken on average with another calculation.
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.

Factoring, which means the same. But I don't apply the root.
Here I actually see that other designs than normals can be on top of a battle.

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.

Then I figured, that there is always only 1 top design.
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.
This is a good thing.

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.
And another was is to multiply with the new cost, then divide by the normals cost. Which never can reach 0.

The latter too, does give interesting results. But not 2 top designs. No, this time it goes back to one top design.

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.

***

The plan(s)
I have 2.

One
I still look for a 3 step calculation.
1. I calculate costs in a primairy way.
2. ?
3. I square or subtract from the costs.

Point 2 and 3 can switch places.

? 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.

Two
I manually fill in the costs, starting from the normals. Then expand to the glass cannons and paper poppers.
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.

Let's say, I am reverse enginering here.
But it will be very hard. And has a lot of work.

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.

***

I seriously am going for plan 2 right now. Because it would also show if plan 1 has any possible results.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
X3M wrote:Two I manually fill

X3M wrote:
Two
I manually fill in the costs, starting from the normals. Then expand to the glass cannons and paper poppers.
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.

Let's say, I am reverse enginering here.
But it will be very hard. And has a lot of work.

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.


So.....
I got a list of numbers.
But am not sure what to do with it.
I got at least 9 numbers after the decimal. And the graph still shows some balance.
The walls and rogue projectiles are removed to make certain everything goes well.
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.

It shows I need to have at least one division by 1 of the parameters. But that's it...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
You've taken it to ANOTHER level...?

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???

It's all beyond me... So I cannot help because it all seems so "technical"!

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.

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.

Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:I guess

questccg wrote:
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???

All me. I just wanted it to be done.
I had the 1 on 1 battle's to toy with on how I wanted to analyse the more complex battle's.

Normally the really smart RTS designers use matrix calculations. Let's just say... I am to stupid for that.

questccg wrote:

It's all beyond me... So I cannot help because it all seems so "technical"!
It is beyond me as well. Altough, I got a list of numbers and I learned from the proces as well.

questccg wrote:

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.
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...
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.
The numbers for it show there is a system for sure.
It just.... goes beyond my comprehension atm.

questccg wrote:
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.

Cheers!

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.

Fun fact, asked some wizkids from a 4d gaming platform. So far...the problem is my explanation I guess.

Either way, once I find the formula. I can link it to my 1 on 1 formula. And probably to a linear system too.
My goal is to have RPS, through only body and weapon points.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
I found it!!!

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.

I already have a perfect balance of 1 on 1 battle's. They differ here and there.

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.

Still, this would mean that they are much cheaper than the normal sum of the body and weapon.
And they don't differ much of each other. Just a small margin. This includes the glass cannons too.
I need to discuss the 1% and 2% health units.
In regards to the 1 on 1 and the 2 on 2.

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
The big 5

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.

1.
The sum of the body and weapon.
Is used to keep base destruction balanced.
The normals are the strongest here.

2.
Two times the root of the factor body times weapon.
Is used to have a perfect balance in 1 on 1 battles.
Once a 0 is introduced, this formula breaks.

3.
Is used to have a perfect balance in 2 on 2 battles.
Here the meat unit is targetted first.
Surprisingly, it is not a real opposite of the next one.
(And I now ponder if I shouldn't make another type of graph for these)

4.
Is again used to have a perfect balance in 2 on 2 battles.
This time the support unit is targetted first.

5.
Four times the body times Weapon.
Then divided by the sum of the body and weapon.
Is used to boost units like glass cannons to a consideradeble level.

***

The current system is an average of 1 and 2.
I consider having a new system that is an average of all 5.
The value of units decrease on the far edges by a small margin.
If we consider something to be more important in the game. Then we can increase its weight.

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.

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.

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
Intermezzo

For my boardgame. I can use the "altered".

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.

It is all well balanced. Within the chaotic randomness.
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...
Obviously, dividing this by 10 would still leave me with 18 dice... But that is a full proto-type game.
Warhammer uses sometimes more.

Enough of that. Back to a Real RTS.

***

Still tinkering with some new ways.

Right now I have the root combined with factored and altered.
And the results are that:

- Normals are bad in general in 1 on 1 battle's with support or meat. Except the glass cannons and paper poppers.

- 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.

- 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.

Now for the fun part
I was struggling with glass cannons and paper poppers being relatively expensive. And there was not much merit in having one of these.
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.
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!!

The factors for the body:weapon ratio's are:
1:1 = 1.00, which is 50%:50%
1:2 = 1.13. which is 38%:75%
1:3 = 1.27, which is 32%:95%
1:4 = 1.40, which is 28%:112%
1:5 = 1.52, which is 25%:127%

Where the 1:1 units are most likely to be compared with riflemen and the normal tanks from C&C.
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%.
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.
Then the 1:4 units still have not dropped under half their hp. Yet the damage surpasses the double already.
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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
What is going to change?

Nothing!!!
But I am happy I did some more testing.
This is what I compared and thought was good:

Old system:
50% Normal calculation; body+weapon
50% Root calculation; 2*sqrt(body*weapon)

New system:
33% Root calculation; 2*sqrt(body*weapon)
33% Factored calculation; 4*body*weapon/(body+weapon)
33% Altered calculation; if body is lower than the weapon; 2*body+0.5*(weapon-body); 2*weapon+0.5*(body-weapon)

The cost of a wall goes from "1/2" to "1/6".

This means that if you have a rifleman costing 100.
And you take away its weapon.
The cost went down to 25.
But now even down to 8.3.

A wall costing 100 had its health being 4 times that of the rifleman.
But now even up to 12 times that of the rifleman.
It all makes logical sense. Since in RTS, a wall would only be able to block movement.

***

Some actual group vs group testing happened. With a continues beam dealing the damage if you will. So it would be purely dps, no other effects like a cooldown, charching etc.

Ratio's (of infantry) and their costs according to the various systems.

1:1
100.0 normal
100.0 old
100.0 new

1:4
250.0 normal
225.0 old
178.3 new

1:9
500.0 normal
400.0 old
260.0 new

1:16
850.0 normal
625.0 old
354.4 new

1:25
1300.0 normal
900.0 old
464.1 new

***

With a 100% dps per 10 seconds.
It would take a normal infantry to take out any other in 10 seconds.
The last ratio mentioned here would be killed in 2.15 seconds with an equal cost opponent.
While itself is able to deal damage enough to kill 5.38 normal infantry in that time frame.
Which is higher than the 4.64 normal infantry being present.
In a sense, this support unit is a way better choice in one on one battle's.
And I didn't even include the triangular effect.

I am thinking practically now. And I am considering the meat/support team test to be rather....invalid. Since players would choose solely the better unit.

The old system shows 1.11 seconds against the normals. While in that time frame the unit would only be able to kill 2.78 normal infantry. Whilest 9.00 normal infantry are present.

The 1 vs 1 battles seems expandable to X vs X battles. And the root calculation is still the most balanced choice there.

Still more testing is needed.
But so far, the portion of the calculation needed to get glass cannons being more valid is still too strong.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
Best possibility so far?

New system:
50% Root calculation; 2*sqrt(body*weapon)
50% Altered calculation; if body is smaller than weapon; 2*body+0.5*(weapon-body); 2*weapon+0.5*(body-weapon)

The cost of a wall is "1/4".

This means that if you have a rifleman costing 100.
And you take away its weapon.
The cost goes down to 12.5

A wall costing 100 will now have 8 times more health than a rifleman.

***

Some actual group vs group testing happened. With a continues beam dealing the damage if you will. So it would be purely dps, no other effects like a cooldown, charching etc.

Ratio's (of infantry) and their costs according to the various systems.

1:1
100.0 normal
100.0 old
100.0 new

1:4
250.0 normal
225.0 old
187.5 new

1:9
500.0 normal
400.0 old
300.0 new

1:16
850.0 normal
625.0 old
437.5 new

1:25
1300.0 normal
900.0 old
600.0 new

***

With a 100% dps per 10 seconds.

The last ratio mentioned here is now to be killed in 1.67 seconds with an equal cost opponent.
While itself is able to deal damage enough to kill 4.17 normal infantry in that time frame.
Which is lower than the 6 normal infantry being present.
In a sense, this support unit is a worse choice in one on one battle's.

As for a triangular effect?
0.4 seconds are needed per kill.
Every 0.4 seconds, the group deals damage starting from 6*0.4. And ehm... the support unit will actually still win here. With 16% health remaining.

A double team already switches this to the fodder side. With 2 out of 12 normal infantry surviving with full health.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
a NEW chapter

This time, I have been rewriting the salvo calculation mechanics.

What did I do?

Well, I use a worksheet in order to quickly calculate how much a design should be worth.

I used several colums, called a block. I used a block for 1 projectile, there are 4 columns per block. And for each projectile, I used a negation block too. Again... 4 columns. I allowed a maximum of 4 blocks per salvo. Thus 32 columns.
If I wanted to have more projectiles, I simply needed to add more blocks.

I replaced these by calculating differently. Yet I get the same outcome. I want to thank my 23 year old Texas Instrument 92+ for helping me with this.

Now I don't need multiple blocks. This time, I have only 4 columns for any negation effect and 12 columns for any size of salvo.
That's right, I don't need to add more columns/blocks for more projectiles.

My todo list has 2 things:

1. The design needs to be able to choose the best weapon by itself. Meaning I need to add 2 calculations and compare them for 2 weapons. If this is 3 weapons, I need to add 6 calculations and compare them. This is complicated for sure. Since the RPS not only has armor tiers. It also has.... armor levels. So, while I say a calculation. We actually get several columns...

2.Attributes... Yeah, better add these before I do number 1.
Organic/Mechanical, Unit/Structure, No Shield/Shield.

Most weapons deal damage to everything for 100%. Except Shields.
So we get this 1,1,1,1,1,0 in the columns by default??? Well, that sucks. Not sure why the big guy wants it like that. But I don't like it like that....

I need to ponder on how to do this correctly.
Well, not saying he wants it exactly like how I put it in this example. But lets say, if we want the first 2 twins to be depending on themselves. The third twin would work like the following:

***

Each weapon does 100% damage against any attribute.
When it is effective against shields. It will do more % damage. Let's say 150% damage against the shields. This automatically means that it would do only 50% damage against the No Shields.

If we want weapons that can't penetrate a shield. It would mean they do more damage on the normal units and structures....organics and mechanics.

Well, if we want normal damage by default. But have them all having trouble against a certain type of shield. Then we could say that this attribute takes 0%. And while the other attributes have 200% to share within a twin. All the weapons have only 100% to share on the "no shield/shield" twin.
Yeah, I should have a different weight to this... But that is ok.

So, perhaps, I should have 150% to share on the S-twins. In that regard, by default, we have 100% on No Shields. and 50% on Shields.
This means, special anti shield weapons deal 150% instead of special whatever attribute being 200%.

Thus if we want a weapon to have no effect on Shields. This weapon is 50% stronger than all other weapons....

THIS, is the only way how I can make the Shield/NoShield twin valid in expansions.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
A third thing to add

3.
They want command points...
Not sure how to do this without breaking the game...

Divide an unit cost by 50?

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
Todo list as of today

All that remains is the "choice" of weapons.

The game calculates which weapon is the best. I leave this to the programmers.

As for balance, I simply need to have each weapon attack each possible target that the other weapons are optimal to.

As I am typing here. I realized that this will be a matrix of X * X proportions with X being the number of weapons to test.

Each result will be a number. And the highest number wins.
Not sure yet how to get from here. Because 3 different weapons that are balanced, will each have their own highest number. So, which one of them will be the true primairy weapon? And then which one will truly be the secondairy weapon?

Then, the secondairy will have its highest number reduced by subtracting the number the primairy offers.
And the same is done with the tertiairy weapon.
The secondairy "bonus" is then multiplied by 50%. And thus also divided by the highest by the primairy.
This value will be a factor between 0 and 0.5. And multiplied with its weight value. Which gives us a choice value.
With the third weapon, we need to do the same. Of course compared to the primairy weapon.

I need to test if mistakes are possible with this. If they are. I need to rethink on my calculations.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
AI making the decisions

The AI can make a bit more decisions than I can calculate.

Still, my calculations will be a close approximisation for roughly 90%. So, that is well within the margin of practical balance.

*I need to look at the salvo effects:
- When both attacker and target stand still.
- When the attacker moves.
- When the target moves.
- And yes, when both attacker and target moves.

The latter made me realize I had to add another golden factor in the entire calculation. And change the weight of when the attacker moves.

*I need to look at the piercing AND tier effects.
In both directions.

*I need to look at 3 weapons.

*I need to look at the attack ranges.

In total, I have already a lot of things to think of. But now that I have a plan to at least test which weapon does best. I still need to make a plan for re-calculating the design cost in the game.

Certain value's will be replaced once the box of "choice" is to be checked as yes. This is going to be difficult.

---1 step at a time---

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
(de-)(The) Test

It would be a bit of relieving my heart by explaining the stuff. Almost ranting...So i try to keep it short. In fact, I think I figured it out already and am on the right track?

Here is a short and clean explanation of The Test...

The test I do is based on:

the piercing ability (factor)
weapon tiers (factor)
weapon true salvo damage (basis)
attack range (sorting)
accuracy depending on the situation (factor)

The accuracy, I determined per situation:

nobody moves
attacker moves
target moves
attacker and target moves

So, i prepared a set of 3x3.
W1 vs W1
W1 vs W2
W1 vs W3
W2 vs W1
W2 vs W2
W2 vs W3
W3 vs W1
W3 vs W2
W3 vs W3

The testrun is for 3 weapons. 0 damage simply removes itself.
The same test is used for a second test with the lowest attack range removed. These damages are simply set to 0.
The highest attack range will not need a test.

Costs are 100 percent on primairy weapons per range segment.
33 percent of the bonus for the secondairy and tertiary weapons.

Why 33%? Because we also apply 33% to the weapons that can hit both ground and air (most of them)

If done correctly, I should be able to reproduce the same cost for a normal weapon and one that attacks ground only, but has AA as an option.
That would be the test, to see, if my test is good.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
i still need a lot

I am sure that I can combine columns in the future. making longer calculations in 1 cell, the combination of multiple cells.

However for now...I am stuck on the prioritising the weapon.
I, somehow, need to tell my program which weapon is primairy. I got the 3 numbers for the 3 weapons.
But with this, I then need to tell the program what the 2 replacement additions are.

And I need to have the program track to which weapon these replacement additions count.

So:
- What is the primairy weapon?
- What are the 2 replacement additions for the 2 other targets?
- What is the new value of these 2 other targets, by tracking them?

This is slightly above my head. I need to keep writing things on paper to keep a good overview.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
Weapon attributes!#!$@%@$!$

Ahhhhh, !#!$@%@$!$

Yesterday I re-added weapon attributes that tell my program if a weapon can hit ground, air, and there are 5 possible targets. Maybe even a 6th one in the future.

(We can have less effectivness against targets that are in a different spot)

For now, this results in 5 attributes to check as well. And at first, it would sound easy enough to add them to the bigger picture for choice in weapons.

But as a whole, it is confusing.
What happens is that the program needs to check if both weapons can hit the same targets. If not, it would automatically be a complete choice regardless.

But here comes the problem:
If a weapon can hit both ground and air. And the choice only air. Then it needs to check for only the air portion. And to check if this is an option. It needs to check the ground too.

So, whatever test I make, it has to be for multiple attributes.

I already have 3 weapons, which asks for 9 columns.
I already have 4 situations with different accuracies, which asks for (9*)4.
And now I get 5 attributes that are separate, which asks for (9*4)*5 columns per block test.

180...

I need multiple blocks to keep things easy enough to track.
But that 180 is a hint. I am doing it wrong.
On paper, it is so easy. But trying to get it working in a worksheet is even harder than a simple program that checks every combination.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
Main problem with choices

The unit prioritizes the best option.

The balance for this was included.

Primairy weapon would be 100% in costs.
And the secondairy and tertiary would be (I prefer,) 50% (or 33%) or less in costs.

The prioritising is the problem. Every factor that can change this, needs to be included in the matrix.
If I remove the prioritising. I don't need all those matrixes.
In fact, then I only need the effects calculated by a 1 path of factors.

But.... I am not sure how to do this without getting the total below the most expensive weapon, or above the total costs of "no choice" combinations.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
It worked perfect for my boardgame

When trying to compute something for my boardgame, years ago. I said that the same projectile, being able to hit any dimension. Would gain 50% more costs.

And having the bonus for damage would be the extra costs in case of ground works. So, at most, this could be an extra 50% costs as well.

I wanted the same for the video game. But prioritising the weapon is a NoGo. This is impossible with so many factors that depend on the gameplay.

And for the calculation, you NEED to get that priority.

You automatically get the discard of a weapon that is too weak too.

***

I need to reconsider the calculations.
I need to look at older RTS.

What did they do there?
Well, C&C for example took a look at all possible damages and simply added them up. We are talking theory here, not the practise.

If you would have 2 weapons. You simply picked the best results for the table.
Just giving a simple example here:
For a rifle, we have 4-3-2-1-0 And this costs "20"
For a cannon, we have 2-6-5-4-3 And this costs "60"
For having them both, we have 6-9-7-5-3 And this costs "80"
And finally, having the unit choose the best weapon...
We get, 4-6-5-4-3.
Thus the rifle is only used against infantry. And we end up with "62".

I can't dooooooo thiiiiiis!!!!
My list is "infinite" long.

But should I use still try something similar?
For my boardgame, I simply made a table as long as the best possible targets.

MY finest example has always been the machine gun being worth 250 and a light cannon being worth 250.
The damages are 5-5 and 1-25

That 25 is a result of 5^2. Since I intergrated RPS into the damages and health.
We use the same for our RTS.

***

Options that I am toying with. But no decent results yet:
- Still looking at the bonusses. But another way to recalculate this without a priority. No results yet.
- Looking at the "total" damage and then what is missing. Ridiculous expensive versions... It tells me to get priorities again?
- Not looking at the damages. Just toying with the costs instead...

I also test these with a anti ground only weapon compared with a weapon that either hits ground OR air AND a weapon that can hit ground AND air.

No results...no real pointers...NOTHING!!!
And I do want to add. It has to be automated. Not simply given.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
The "this is it" mechanic

So...what if we simply make things more obvious to ourselves?
I tried a suggestion of simply telling ourselves what the primairy weapon would be.

Then the game would calculate the other weapons effect on terms of bonus anyway.

The result is a new cost AND telling us if it has a bonus effect. Which is a request for the game anyway.

Anywaaayyyy..... with this, it is it!
And then, only then, after several painfull weeks.
I discovered that switching the 2 weapons would also yield a cost.
And the most expensive one does automatically set the weapon that has priority 1. As priority 1. And the rest are secondairy or tertiary.

This is what we need to do.

Now to retrace back my steps. And see how much needs to be redone, removed or recalculated.

X3M
X3M's picture
Online
Joined: 10/28/2013
I succeeded

Period.

:)

Only 1 thing remains.
Anti ground and anti air attributes through choice.

By the set up I currently have, I can already tell that the choice by choosing a weapon, will make the unit heavier than simply have the projectile choose the path by itself.

This means that there is a difference in cost, and some other stats.
It is ok. Since it is very logical if you think about it.

***

Another thing that I need to think about.
The usage of Production Points.
Do I really have to use them?
They make things akward at the lower costing units for certain.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut