Forums

Very well. If there are any questions, feel free to ask. This balance theory looks at the fact that in RTS, players can attack those with the lowest ratio of body points to weapon points. And that synergy between 2 different designs, is not an option for the players. First I explain without the balance. First some basics. When you design an unit. The design consists of value's that belong to a body. And value's that belong to a weapon. I am not going into detail of all the value's that can be in a RTS game. But the most important ones, for explaining this, would be: Body: Health Weapon: Damage That is all we need for understanding this. We are not going to look at movement speed, attack range, size or other stuff. Just the 2 mentioned above. Of course we need to shoot an X times with Damage before we get to Health. The cost of Body is Health. The cost of Weapon is X * Damage. Most designers initially add the 2 together. What you get is that a well balanced design had 50% Body and 50% Weapon points. 50%+50%=100% In case of the above, lets say we have 72 health and X=12 with 6 damage. The cost here is 144. If we now design a support unit. One that deals more damage. We could design the following: 36 health and 9 damage. The cost...? Would still be 144. But while this unit deals 50% more damage on anything. It is much weaker compared to the balanced design. It has only 50% health. What do we get when we look at a 1v1? 72 health / 9 damage = 8 hits 36 health / 6 damage = 6 hits The balanced design here, has 33% more durability. *** This is all fine if you have a game with the rules that one unit blocks projectiles for another. You see this in games like Warzone 2100 (Yes, it happens, look it up ) And designing like that would be ok. Because you get this synergy: The tank would have 108 health and deal only 3 damage. 2 Normal vs a tank and a support: Normal: 72 + 72 health. Tank + Support: 108 + 36 health. Both sides deal 12 damage before one of the 2 dies. If there is no micro, except for one player putting the healthiest one in front. 72/12=6 hits 108-72=36. Now, the normal are down to 1. And can deal only 6 damage. 72/12 =6 hits. 36/6 = 6 hits. Clearly the tank takes the bullets here. And voila, the support unit is still at full health after this exchange. *** What happens in RTS? The player with the normal units first focus on the support unit. 72/12= 6 hits. 36/12= 3 hits. Clearly we remove the support unit here. And the normal units take only 12 x3=36 damage. 36/3= 12 hits. 108/12= 9 hits. Clearly we now also remove the tank unit. And the normal units take only 3 x9=27 damage. The normal units here have 9 health remaining on one, and the other is at full health. This is the reason why most support units have more attack range. Because you need to move further into the army in order to destroy them. A RTS that I think fails here would be The Frozen Throne. Where the support units have weaker armor, compared to Warcraft 3. But also, the rocket soldier in C&C td seems to be much weaker. And is not used that much in direct combat at all. It melts vs most tanks. *** The root factor? If we look at the cost calculation. We can balance tanks and support units with normal units with one simple calculation. Instead of body + weapon. We do 2 * sqrt ( body * weapon ) We get for the normal: 2 * sqrt ( 72 * 72 ) = 144 We get for the support: 2 * sqrt ( 36 * 108 ) = ~125 (ok, not the most perfect number, but my time was short) But if we keep the health the same and increase the weapon or damage value. We get: 2 * sqrt ( 36 * 144 ) = 144 And for that 144 in weapon value, we have a 12 in damage value. A normal has 72 health, divided by that 12 = 6 hits. A support has 36 health, divided by that 6 = 6 hits. The support and normal are equal now. And the same goes for the tank. The tank would keep the 3 damage, but have 144 health. 144 / 6 = 24 hits. 72 / 3 = 24 hits. And a tank vs support? 144 / 12 = 12 hits. 36 / 3 = 12 hits. When a tank or support face a normal, the battle takes longer. But when a tank or support faces each other, the battle takes the same time. Of course, a tank vs a tank is super slow. And a support vs a support is super fast. Ok, so, to finish this formula. Let's design a wall then, the ultimate tank in a game. How much health should it get? The formula breaks here. Because we have 0 damage. 2 * sqrt ( ? * 0 ) = 0 It depends on the game how much micro players can apply. Thus, how fast would a player attack the support units first, before taking on the tank units? What a good design does is: a * (body + weapon) + b * (2 * sqrt ( body * weapon ) ) / ( a+b) You can see the results in KKnD for this one. As for the walls, they are not free anymore. But support units and tank units are now more balanced compared to the normal units. And depending on how much micro the players can use. You can shift the bar between a and b. If you use Excel for this, it can be an easy factor at the top of the list. My favorite a and b are: 1+1 and 1+5. With the 1+5 I have walls being 12 times more durable than their soldier counterparts. In a sense, I have 600 for body, 0 for weapon, costs is 100. A rifleman has 50 for body, 50 for weapon, costs is 100. A support type of rifleman has 30 for body, 80 for weapon, costs is 100. -20 on the body for a +30 on the weapon is a good exchange already. And once you add in attack range and movement speed. You can make the support units even more effective or better said, immune to micro managament effects. Either make support units slower, thus more durable. Or faster, can hit and run. And you get this RPS between units, based on the root factor, movement speed and attack range. This RPS is a natural one. If there are any questions, feel free to ask. I understand if it is a bit too much to get in one go. So, as soon as you get a question. It is better to answer that one first. Before you continue the read.  

try running a game just against AI via CNCNET. that might rule out if it's display issues, renderer problems, etc... I also recommend ensuring you and your son have the same game version. Gruntmods and Dunemaster are the two nowadays, and if one doesn't appear to be working for you, try the other it's also worth noting that due to the way the Mission Launcher works, if either of you have run modified single-player missions via the Mission Launcher, it could result in desyncing issues in multiplayer. a fresh / separate install specifically for multiplayer would prevent any related problems I hope that helps!

lay it on us, brother 👀

I see people pop up. Making their own RTS. Then calling it quits again because their playtests fail.   I don't see it anywhere. The "root"-factor. It is a god tier way of theoratically balancing a RTS game. Anyone interested in me explaining this?  

Hello, I install latest version of dune 2000, I want to play with my son. When I create game on CNCNET5, and me and son connect. After launch game I see time 00:00 on right corner and game finish not started. Any can help with this?