Forums

they're also the only map the MP boys like to play  Habbanya Erg and nothing else. lol me? we've got uncrushable infantry in d2k now. it was done via a really janky workaround during Summers' Solstice's inception, but Klofkac added proper support for it relatively recently. mostly though, I lean on map design for that and just try to leave infantry rock in lots of places sure dude, feel free to hit me up then SC1 still has quite a large following. if you make something for it, I think you can be very confident it will be played

Personally, I would like to recreate my single player campaign in Brood War with my "C&C" RPS. But who would play it?

That, right there. Is a victory point for you designing the game. As for mission design balance. Money maps are the best way to test balance for multiplayer. Because players spam units and choose what is best for them. You only need to record how much units are used. You see, if the map is entirely covered with big armies. Their effects will shift. Then after that, if you have less money. Armies will be smaller. And certain units will pop out that are better at micro. You want to balance it just right that when players play that money map. The "micro" units come out first. And then the macro units. I think that a failure is a good example here: Consider Red Alert 1. Where all players always try to spam tanks as fast as possible. And yes, on smaller maps an infantry spam with some engineers within is also good. But in money maps. Tanks only is best. And of course, spamming tesla coils. But other units aren't used that much. As soon as there is less money. And a lot of defences. The V2 launcher might pop up. But no one can see a Ranger unless it is trolling. Or an APC (worse trolling). Artillery? Yip, certainly a trolling. Because the opponents always build tanks. If the designers didn't balance from their campaign point of view. But from multiplayer. The tanks would certainly be weaker than their td counterparts. I mean, Tiberian Dawn is waaaay more balanced than red alert 1. And I did play money maps on that one. Buggies, Bikes, mass light tanks, MRLS (for the buggies and bikes), Medium tanks, Noobs build mammoth tanks, the APC is dangerous, the stealth tank is good for scouting and hunting harvesters with more ease, flame tanks ftw against defence structures. Only the humm-vee, I see less use as well as the artillery. And those 2 are actually for single player good due to the enemies training infantry there. As for getting a balance between infantry and tanks. This one is much harder. And the reason why in Starcraft you see much more fodder units is because there is no squishing there. Squishing is a weapon!!  Makes me wonder, how are you going to balance squishing? Also, I wonder if it is possible to apply a certain matrix calculation on unit effectivness in 1 on 1 battle's. Obviously, a con, walls do not count in that method. But the root balance kinda shows up. In a way. This matrix calculation shows how much the root factor is needed. The pro is that all value's are good. and the "cost" comes out rolling for those value's. Some value's like attack range don't really matter. Unless you put in the effectivness of micro. I could try to see if a damage matrix with durability matrix can be combined now. Either way, I got a simple example AND a true art of work as example on my pc. I can share screenshots if interested, but only in a PM. As for 1200 on that Siege Tank.... it wasn't because of the attack range. No, I used the following value's: Tank Mode: 96 Health, 24 Armor, 36 Damage Siege Mode: 192 Health, 0 Armor, 48 Damage You only siege mode when dealing with defence structures or having a very good position. Marine: 96 Health, 0 Armor, 6 Damage And I put the weight factor of 24 Armor on x12 So that the Marine would be an all rounder.

1200 resources in Starcraft for Siege Tanks? 💀 ik range is, like, the most powerful stat, but doesn't that just mean you gotta mess with how the economy works so the player's income can keep up with that kinda inflated price? my father likes to play on easy mode just to blow stuff up, and aarmaageedoon says my missions are "too easy" even with multiple restarts 😆 can't please everybody I'm not the worst at d2k, and my focus is on mission or campaign design - player versus AI - so my process is testing crap on hard mode / fastest game speed, then scaling it down for normal and easy modes. it matters for the maximum difficulty since players on hard are looking for a challenge. it should be both fair and engaging. normal and easy, those are where some theoretical scaling should suffice to nail the target difficulty as long as hard mode is done up nicely the metric I look to primarily for determining if a mission is balanced how I want it is how long it takes me to complete it, including compared to its neighboring or counterpart missions. players will inevitably have a variety of experiences, but how closely in time it takes for me, knowing them in and out and optimizing for them, to complete them does a lot to illustrate the sum of whatever balance decisions I made for them already that doesn't mean I don't consider how things might work out in a hypothetical multiplayer game though. I passed an MP compatible version of my stuff over to the boys, and some unexpected metagaming came out of it, like... walls and concrete were useable. lol micro potential is a big deal in determining units' viability. take Blink micro for Stalkers in SC2 for example. you can have a unit with relatively weak stats, but with good player control, it dominates. over here in d2k, in ArkDebut, the Keravnos Laser Tank's shield system has revealed some interesting interactions already and suggests great micro potential. needs more testing. there are innumerable complex interactions in RTS, even in a simple one like d2k. makes theoretical balance pretty messy when the rubber hits the road wym money maps? like, macro-heavy, macro missions? there are a lot of differences between how macro and micro missions need to be designed and how a player will use units just thanks to that fundamental difference. or do you mean how the resources are painted on macro missions? at some point we get more into mission design theory as opposed to unit balance theory 😛 different things

True. I remember 3 moments where I had to adjust my calculations as well. 1. The formula all above in this topic has movement speed and attack range on the same side. That is wrong. Because 0 damage with infinite attack range would make the unit infinite expensive. And a lot of formula's on the internet do the same. Why was it there in the first place? Many thought that a longer attack range would add to the durability of an unit. While true, it is movement speed that truely adds to durability, simply by moving away. 2. Attack range on equal grounds as movement speed? That didn't stay too long. Many games showed that the attack range is taking place on a 2d field. While movement is 1d. What I mean is that if you have a terrain. And you want to reach your target. Using movement, would need you to move to every spot possible on the map in case of the most crowded map with impassable terrain. As for attack range, a simple direct trajectory is the case in 99.9% of the RTS games. This means that the average terrain creates a factor between the movement and attack range. You only notice the effect of long range weapons if the designers did it wrong. I noticed this in Red Alert 2 with the Prism Tanks, but also the sniper and the GI inside a IFV. 3. The size of units. The combat density is one that is done wrong more than other value's. And this includes a limit on units as well. I started to look into this a lot more when I was making Starcraft/Broodwar maps with an altered RPS. The Siege Tanks in there are actually super small and packed together. Especially when I applied my own rules. According to my calculations, the Siege Tanks would cost 800, while marines cost 100. First, I thought it was the cumulative versus squared rule. But I quickly could rule this out. I discovered that due to the size effects, eventually I had to ram up the cost to 1200. This is over 10 years ago by now. As for theory and practise. I never said that you make it with theory alone. There are still aspects like: - Player Skills Slow/fast, dumb/smart, where do you place your balance? - Resource managment Testing on money maps, show the best results - Visuals How much can players see? Highest attack range, like in Warcraft 2? Or lowest tier attack range, like in Warzone2100? What about fog of war? - Special designs/Unique functions Some units, you need only 1 or 2 of. Maybe 3. Or a dedicated squad. If you build too little or too much of them, they don't serve their function anymore. Sounds like the Flame ATV from KKnD  But, the buggy/bike from the C&C games is similar. Which are great example for the 3 practical balances regarding the Flame ATV: A player needs to be smart. As for being fast, not sure, maybe? Resource managment in the map has to be relatively low. The unit is cost efficient, but only at a small number. Spamming has no use due to short range attacks. Visuals is not a key here. 1 can do the job. But if the enemy defends properly, Build like 4 to 6. No more. Or use 2 squads of 4. It depends on the map layout and defence structures. Their purpose? Find unquarded enemy structures. Preferably the resource managment of the enemy. As for the Buggy/Bike: A player needs to be fast. Resource managment requires the player to have decent defences as well. where it matters. As for attacking, a nice mix of buggies and bikes is what matters. Visuals is key here. There is a lot of FoW in C&C3. While in C&C td the vision for the player is simply small. You attack all over the place. In C&C td, 6 bikes. Or you spam them. In C&C3 you spam them anyways. The buggies are there for being fodder and dealing with some infantry if needed. But also to create even more chaos for the enemy. You poke all over the place. Until you get the upper hand and snowball your way into the enemy. In KKnD it is more of a tactical move, part of a grander strategy. In C&C3, clearly it is RTS all the way with that tactic. The player simply needs to see for when it needs to switch tactics at the right time.