Leaderboard

I like your train of thoughts. I like that you also considered balance around resource managment. But also allow for turtling. That is a very awesome approach. I am glad that you called them RTS enjoyers. It is true, campers on RTS are enjoying their line of defence. I had this in Warcraft 2, Starcraft and also in Tiberiun dawn and sun. Would be funny though, if you slip in 1 mission that requires the player to camp first for an hour or something. Like, being stuck in the mountains with limited resources that grow slowly overtime. I did something similar in regards to resources. Although resources were limited. And expansion should be done if you are an agressive player. A turtle player could camp. till the resources were depleted. Then all the forces should move. That kind of deal. That was a so called mission 8 I once made in Starcraft. (It is lost forever ) In short, you could camp with the correct defenders. And for an attack, you could either repair/heal them almost indifinately. And after defeating 1 of the 2 bases, you got that expand. I literly made that mission with the goal in mind. Defeat 1 base, and you could spend the remaining resources entirely on only half your units. As for secondairy objectives. I feel like they should be there from time to time. Especially in later missions. But they should be there for adding a reward for the player, during the mission. Which would help the player. One such secondairy objective was often the capture of enemy structures in C&C td. But the resque of units or whatever, are also valuable options. Unless, you have secondairy objectives being part of the primairy one. Then it is simply all primairy though. Perhaps, when the campaign is almost done. You could test the different difficulties, together with the resource managment. Where on easy difficulty, expansion is not needed. On normal, recommended. And on hard, a nessesary objective. Something like that. It is very hard to achieve though. So, if you manage, you can consider it as a trophy as designer. I will come back later on that editor. I never used it. But you mentioned it by name specifically. Once I have more time. And after playing the mission. I might ask for the other stuff. Wow, you can allow the player to select their start location? That is awesome! I always liked that. Ehm. you mentioned theoratical balance at the end for multiplayer. I meant that theoratical balance is solely based on numbers and formula's. For all the other balances to grow on. An example would be that the bazooka infantry in C&C td costs 300. But testing already showed that they are too weak that way. Practically speaking, they needed more health or cost less. This was even the case for single player. In multiplayer, they are only used as anti air units at the start. They were....tested very late. You can see the result in tiberian sun. Where the Nod rocket soldier has A. more health, and B. costs 250.

I will put it in my todo list. Although, it is one mission. I understand you need proper feedback on it. Since I did one on Barkhan, why not. Right now, I am in a flow, right before a very busy month. So, earliest would be December I think. Would love to poke around. But it is new territory for me. Still, it is similar to how Forge looked like. So a traditional editor. I will find my way. (I mis Forge) I got some insights on balance. It can be a tricky thing. There are several steps (not in order). - Theoratical balance; all designs follow the same formula. This formula is based on the combat mechanics. Unique to every RTS. All numbers that I like to crush. - Practical balance; some designs might be a bit too unique, or are part of a group of similar designs. Uniqueness means less choice. And it depends on how it can be countered, thus a buff or nerv would be required by mapping the RPS between designs. Practical balance is also depending on a map layout. Personally, I like adding new units to cover this section. Or redesign others. - Skill balance; due to certain players being extra good. Some units might be overpowered. If they are bad in the hands of noobs, you are all good. But if they are also good in the hands of noobs, they certainly need a nerv. - Single player balance; can often be different than the multiplayer balance. All steps are important. Most discussions appear around the practical balance. But their true roots are in skill balance. I had one a couple of days ago about the new axethrowers and archers in the remaster of WC2. The skilled player felt it was too powerfull for now for him. He mostly plays chokepoint maps. Yet the balance that Blizzard had in mind was for the single player campaign. The balance that YOU pick, is YOURS. You can ask for Feedback from others. But YOU as the game designer are never wrong in this for YOUR own game. Meaning, no matter what I or others throw at you. The decision is yours. You need to feel comfortable playing your own game. Well, having said that. Consider Feedback as advice. And you can organise advice. So, if you want to collect the massive feedback in landsraad. Perhaps make a simple tickbox poll. Not sure if it is possible. But a table per unit design would be usefull for you. The columns could be: cost, health, damage, firerate etc. While the rows cold be: way to low, to low, good, to high, way to high. People could change the tickboxes. Maybe prepare an excel file with this and some explanation. Firerate....i know it as Rate of Fire, Cooldown, DPS. Well, people gave it all kind of names. But make sure that you and the one filling in the questionaire are on the same wavelength. Because some think of Rate of Fire as Cooldown, yet they are each others opposites. Rate of Fire in physics means, the rate, on firing. Thus higher is faster. Cooldown is the time between shots. I don't care if people still get it wrong and strongly believe they are right, just make sure you are on the same wavelength. I also spotted time between shots, this is good, there is salvo. I could explain to you in a PM/DM how salvo balancing works It is theoratical though. Well, cheers, X3M