Jump to content

RTS, is it even possible to balance?


X3M
 Share

  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it possible to find a balance for any RTS? (You can have multiple choices)

    • Yes, there is. By applying a huge load of math.
      4
    • Yes, there is. By trial and error and adjust and trial and etc.
      5
    • It is impossible.
      1


Recommended Posts

I have posted stuff about this before, but lets throw everything on one side now.

Let's ignore the fact that I am using maths to calculate stuff for my board game, and observe RTS as a whole in computer games.

 

Back to the question. If you think so, please tell me how.

For me it is more of a "how much variables can I add until the game can't be balanced any more?"

After all, Rock/Scissors/Paper is balanced, but not an RTS. For an RTS, we need to add some adjustments so it becomes real time.

 

Before you continue posting in this thread. And to prevent weird discussion items where you only talk out of personal experience of just a few games. I suggest to read these articles to know more about it.

A little warning, they are long, very long. And that's how RTS balancing works.

 

http://gamebalanceconcepts.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/level-1-intro-to-game-balance/#comments

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can balance most RTS - depends on the RTS though. First if u got a rts with only 1 playable faction there's no need for balancing whatsoever.

However it gets tricky the more factions u add - because they should differ in something (so u need more variables on which they should differ). Then it starts depending on what variables influence the game.

It's really hard to balance a RTS with a lot of "exotic" attributes to the units. For 1 thing it's really hard to balance things that don't have much in common - if u had to balance a game with 2 factions - 1st one has more attack dmg, 2nd has more attack speed - it won't be that hard to balance this. But if u had to balance a faction with units with high dps and a faction with units that are usually faster (meaning just speed  bonus) - u wouldn't really be able to balance the whole thing with only math - u can't really calculate it without setting some rules (example: 2*x speed= y dmg) - the problem is u need to set the rules by which u "balance the game". So I'd say it's really hard and u can't do it only with math (even if the 2 factions differ only by attack dmg and attack speed - even if u made them to actually have equal dps there will be differences - so u can't do it with only math). Also even if u think something is balanced it may actually prove not to be - let's say 1k+ people play ur game - usually there would be a site with strategies - so most people would use these strategies and ur game will be "balanced" - if people played with these strategies  - but it can happen so that somebody devises a new original strategy that actually makes the game unbalanced (let's say the strategy fully exploits the possibilities of the faction - and this faction would prove to be op - even if it was not before). All in all - balancing in games is a really complex thing - especially rts. It's kinda like chess - there are infinite possibilities - u can't really fully balance a RTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first and froemost it would be nice to have a clear definition of "balance" in the context of an RTS game. If by "balance" you mean that none of he playable sides/units/strategies is overpowered to the point of being a game breaker, and/or that it is possible to win by playing any of the sides in the game, then I fancy it's quite possible either by using math of whatever level of complexity or by mere trial and error.

If on the other hand by "balance" you mean some impeccable, polished adjustment of stats and variables that makes each and every side and strategy absolutely equal in terms of winning potential, then I guess it's much harder to give a clear answer on that.

Would also be nice to have some (preferably detailed) overview of existing games that are supposed to be balanced (like Blizzard titles) and analyse how and why they are balanced enough (or not) in the sense that interests you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting replies. I have a lot of answers or opinions to them. :)

(Since the quoting is failing lately and too hard to use. I am forced to write this reply in word before posting here on the forum)

I’ll begin to reply to MrFibble since he has some main points. While criver goes into detail.

 

Well, first and froemost it would be nice to have a clear definition of "balance" in the context of an RTS game. If by "balance" you mean that none of he playable sides/units/strategies is overpowered to the point of being a game breaker, and/or that it is possible to win by playing any of the sides in the game, then I fancy it's quite possible either by using math of whatever level of complexity or by mere trial and error.

 

Yes, this is the easy side of the job. So lets break this up into segments.

- Balanced races: Each race needs to have a way of winning, that is balanced with the other races. Since 1 strategy needs balance in those units, at least 2 strategies are required for this balance. A strategy can contain 1 specific unit amass.

- Balanced units: Where each unit has a way of winning, in any way, by speed outranging damage squashing etc. Using just this unit amass is a strategy. If each specific unit (amass) is good against at least 1 other specific unit (amass) the beginning of this balance is there. For better balance, we need just as much winning as losing situations. Unfortunately, each specific unit has a “same” type in other races, so there is a minimum unbalance in this by 1 specific counter, plus or minus. To avert this, you might want to have an even number of specific units each race. Where 1 has a plus, and 1 has a minus each duo.

- Balanced strategies: Here it begins to become tricky. Specific units can be combined with others for a certain strategy. There are a lot of strategies, one of them is having meat in the front and support in the back, or vice versa. This increases the strength of that combo insignificantly. This can also be done in different ratio’s with different results in defeating the counters. This is one of the most complex balancing issue’s there is, since not only you have to balance your units, but you need to keep track of if the army in total is balanced.

 

If on the other hand by "balance" you mean some impeccable, polished adjustment of stats and variables that makes each and every side and strategy absolutely equal in terms of winning potential, then I guess it's much harder to give a clear answer on that.

 

This would be the Walhalla of each RTS balancer.

This is what I tried to do in my board game; but it seems like if every time when I do a step forwards to hit a wall of completion. I then do 1 step sideways, what forces me to do 2 steps backwards. Then I need to do like 4 steps forward before I hit the wall of completion again. And each step sideways has the same effect growing somewhat exponentially. With armour, damage, multiplier, range, speed, size, build times, income rate and even different terrain’s (water/rocks/sand/forrest), or different dimensions (space/air/ground/sub), I have to balance 9*9=81 different combinations. And some of these variables have different classes which are more factors. And then I kept it easy too while using math.

 

Would also be nice to have some (preferably detailed) overview of existing games that are supposed to be balanced (like Blizzard titles) and analyse how and why they are balanced enough (or not) in the sense that interests you.

 

Well, I can do this. But first I put up a rule.

 

I consider reaching a certain balance by trial and error to be my goal, since super math only gets me close. But using math is only a trial as well. What would players do? This means: Each specific unit has 1 or more situations that it is useful in while not having better choices for that situation. Also, the less choices you have for a specific situation, the better that specific unit will be. This has to be at any time during the game(No discarding in high tech). Thus the balance that I seek, and it would be best for any RTS. (This also proves that having to much choice will imbalance your game).

 

This concludes my reply to MrFibble. I hope it’s complete and has answered his questions. I also realized that my choices in this have to be expanded.

 

You can balance most RTS - depends on the RTS though. First if u got a rts with only 1 playable faction there's no need for balancing whatsoever.

 

Not by the rule that I have set up for myself. Units need to be useful even against their own kind or race. Dune2 is a great example in this (pretending a multiplayer game, atreides vs atreides). Has the quad use? It’s slower then the trike, it does less damage then the tanks, it can’t run into buildings, its use is the same then the trike against a missile tank, only faster in killing it. But players back up missile tanks by default with plenty of tanks, so the last bit doesn’t really count. This would be a discussion on itself. And in WC2, you stop training footman/grunts after achieving the tech for knights/ogre’s, which are complete replacements.

 

However it gets tricky the more factions u add - because they should differ in something (so u need more variables on which they should differ). Then it starts depending on what variables influence the game.

 

Absolutely true. Even if you only use 1 variable to be different, things get very complicated when you divide the differences amongst the races. This is due to any other variable that has influence directly or indirectly by the different one.

 

It's really hard to balance a RTS with a lot of "exotic" attributes to the units. For 1 thing it's really hard to balance things that don't have much in common - if u had to balance a game with 2 factions - 1st one has more attack dmg, 2nd has more attack speed - it won't be that hard to balance this. But if u had to balance a faction with units with high dps and a faction with units that are usually faster (meaning just speed  bonus) - u wouldn't really be able to balance the whole thing with only math - u can't really calculate it without setting some rules (example: 2*x speed= y dmg) - the problem is u need to set the rules by which u "balance the game". So I'd say it's really hard and u can't do it only with math (even if the 2 factions differ only by attack dmg and attack speed - even if u made them to actually have equal dps there will be differences - so u can't do it with only math).

 

Yes indeed. Of course you can reach the goal that I have set, with this what you posted. Math for setting the rules and calculating the results. Then tweak until the results are good enough for balanced gameplay. Perfection is an impossibility?

 

Also even if u think something is balanced it may actually prove not to be - let's say 1k+ people play ur game - usually there would be a site with strategies - so most people would use these strategies and ur game will be "balanced" - if people played with these strategies  - but it can happen so that somebody devises a new original strategy that actually makes the game unbalanced (let's say the strategy fully exploits the possibilities of the faction - and this faction would prove to be op - even if it was not before). All in all - balancing in games is a really complex thing - especially rts. It's kinda like chess - there are infinite possibilities - u can't really fully balance a RTS.

 

If you mean reaching perfection, I agree. If you mean, an unforeseen strategy proves to be unbalancing the game. Well, then it’s back to adjusting the game. Of course with all the experience, a balancer should try to prevent this.

 

The best part of your reply is the fact that you say that there are infinite possibilities. This means that every possibility between 1 and infinite situations is also a possibility for that game. And each possibility has a new list of possibilities. To keep things easy, try balancing a number of units worth €1, 6 health and 1 damage against 1 unit worth € X, 36 health and 6 damage. With only health and damage to adjust. And the number of €1 units and the costs of the big unit to guess. This could take a while, so I give the answer. The big unit should cost €8 for perfect balance. Because the small units will be 8.

 

Now double the amount of both sides. Does it still work? A new variable comes into play, number of units maximum allowed. This one influences the ratio. With only doubling everything, the big one only is allowed to cost €7 each while the smaller units maximum is 14.

 

Trying to reach infinity would result in €6 again. So most games like to go amass where the balancing by statistics would appear to be easy. However, most games are still decided in the first 5 minutes where build up limits a players amount of units. So, this proves that only 2 statistics give a super complex situation, and only to balance this, there is need for new statistics like the maximum allowed. “Imbalance” between just 2 specific units, 1 in each 1 race where the creator hasn’t decided yet on a maximum of units. Of course this game can only be good if it's perfect.

 

To be good without being perfect, you need to add more units on each side. A 2 versus 2 would do. But then the combinations will create a winning/losing percentage. Or would that be feasible too? I mean, it's almost a rock/scissor/paper game now since you decide before hand what to do. Choice = bad? You loose.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that I didn't really make my my point clear - the problem is that you set the rules for all the calculations (ex: cost=speed+health+dps etc.) - meaning that even if your calculations are alright - ur game can still be unbalanced - the problem being the balance depends on your formulas - I mean you devise all the equations (they are not something that is totally objective ) - so in fact it actually depends on you to balance the game not on the math. Math is just a tool - of course a tool can be useful - but it depends on how u use it. The same goes for different strategies - the game gives some possibilities to the player - it's up to him how he uses them. I mean not all games are written with a certain strategy in mind (ex: wave rushing the 1st 5minutes of the game) - look at games like LOL and Tribes:Ascend - strategies are something that the players create - we can say that the game gives them some freedom. Many of today's RTS actually lack this freedom - most of them are written with some common strategies(for winning) in mind - which makes them kind of boring. I don't have anything against playing similar games, but when every 2nd rts is a Warcraft remake it gets kind of boring... :P  One of dune's unique aspects for example is harvesting spice - your harvesters need to go into the open (and not hide in some mine behind all ur defenses).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way how you harvest spice in Dune2 is really unique. You have to travel all around the map constantly, and eventually it's done. I personally like this. With SC/SC2 you have certain points where you get resources, even though it will be drained too.

The bad games are where you have infinite way for cash, and the really bad ones also gives you more cash then you can honestly build in time. They often show the most imbalance in my opinion. C&C3 is one of the exceptions on the first part of infinity cash. It's slow enough in some maps to give decent fun. And the balance and high defending abilities increase this fun.

 

Your point:

Using a mathematical formula to determine the prices of the units. Or some other variables as well.

It's like a law of physics to that game. I have 1 of those for each game that I tried to create. The best one is still for my board game, since it contains few variables and a battle mechanic that supports durability of the whole army in a whole in half of the situations.

 

The funny thing is, the formula also depends on the extra battle mechanics. Just like how the law of newton applies for falling objects. Another law is added, relativity, for the orbits of planets and larger objects.

 

My board game only uses:

Costs, Stats, Number, Size, Armour, Health, Speed, Multiplier, Damage Range and Max Damage.

 

11 variables; I think you can guess the most, if not, ask me ^^.

Costs is calculated from Stats and Size. And is the "build time", which is not a variable.

Stats is calculated from Armour, Speed, Multiplier, Damage and Range

Number is calculated from Stats.

Size is a given.

Armour is a given.

Health is calculated from Armour. And can be increased during the game.

Speed is a given. And can be increased during the game.

Multiplier is a given. And can be increased during the game.

Damage is a given.

Range is a given. And can be increased during the game.

Max Damage is calculated from Armour and Damage.

 

So 5 variables are based on the other given 6. All 11 have influence on the game itself. And all are linked to each other. Some even give each other more strength, like range and speed combined will micro some other units to death, depending on the map. Or when you have meat with support units, the 2 combined are better then 2 medium units.

Is this game balanced? No, but it helps a lot in doing so. The imbalances that might occur when changing the "given" variables.

 

As you can see, a lot of variables are missing in that list. After all, I have these, only, for a board game. There where 2 more, but testing showed that there is no need for them anymore:

ROF/Cool down is a given.

First shot is calculated from ROF/Cool down, Multiplier and Damage.

 

Ah, you know what, I post the formula here:

 

€ = Stats = Size

Stats is used as Build Time

€ * X asks a Size reduction: Size / X²

Stats = (Armour + (Multiplier * Damage)) * (Range + Speed + 6) / 10

Health = 6 * Armour² / 2500

Max Damage, is per dice/multiplier on target = Armour² /2500 or Damage² / 2500

 

The Armour and Damage are in classes of 50, The Multiplier, Range and Speed are in classes of 1.

So, 50-100-150 etc. and 1-2-3 etc. The classes of 50 actually make the prices comparable with RTS games. While RTS games have these high numbers to allow repair costs to be deducted from your cash. My game has it not.

 

The formula constants are based on the fact that 6 health is 60% costs with 0 range/speed and 100% costs with 4 range+speed. So if I consider 4 range+speed to be a default for most strategy in my game, then I only have to add armour to multiplier x damage.

 

My question of course is, with these give, can you think of a 1 race with 4 balanced units? Each still useful enough to be needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Your point:

Using a mathematical formula to determine the prices of the units. Or some other variables as well.

It's like a law of physics to that game. I have 1 of those for each game that I tried to create. The best one is still for my board game, since it contains few variables and a battle mechanic that supports durability of the whole army in a whole in half of the situations."

 

My point was not that - the equations in your game are not laws of physics - it is something you invent - hence the subjective factor - you write these equations - u don't find them in nature - meaning - your game will be as unbalanced as your equations. Math is just a tool - u can solve problems with it - but what u want is to balance the game - hence u'll be inventing these "problems" - if u can devise them well ur game will be balanced - if not - well the math part will still be right - but your game would be unbalanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, there are now unwritten rules for balancing. Yet they make sense. Putting just as much on the left as on the right of the balance. I have take these in account. You might want to check out some of my RTS board game thread regarding the 3 dune races.

 

With 2 (even numbers) or 3 (odd numbers) races;

Each race needs the same amount of armour classes. They might not be the same for the races, unless your want to reach perfection.

Each race needs the counter damages to these armour classes. Once again, both races need the same for perfect balance.

With a third race, armour and damage become complex, but can maintain the balance.

 

Each race needs about the same speed classes.

Each race needs ranges that counter these speed classes.

With a third race, the third one is medium in speed and range with most units, or a mix of both.

 

Each race needs the same multiplier classes, for perfection. But it's luckily not an issue if the other given variables are balanced, really. Unless you have a lot, really a lot of different units.

 

Each race needs the exact same number of Size alterations, and these number of alterations are needed to be the exact same. It doesn't matter if you go for good, or perfect balancing.

 

Differences in Health is not an issue, since they are linked perfectly to the Armour classes.

 

Did I get your point? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Did I get your point? :)"

No, I don't think so.

 

"I know, there are now unwritten rules for balancing. Yet they make sense. Putting just as much on the left as on the right of the balance." - there are no rules written or unwritten for balancing - the person that makes the game invents them. They can make sense to you, but that doesn't mean they are objectively applicable. Putting just as much what - and how do u decide how much is enough? - u see it's more complex that it looks like. I'll go with an example:
Each faction should have some pluses and minuses when compared to another - the problem is balancing these "fluctuations" in the stats of different factions.

Let's say we have faction1(I'll use only 1 advantage in  stats for simplicity):

plus-> speed:default+x

damage:default

and faction2:

plus->damage:default+y

speed:default

Formula for balance:

damage_bonus=speed_bonus/2

y=x/2

Just some random formula actually - so how do u invent your formulas? I mean I just pulled this thing out of the air - so how do u write a "formual that really balances"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By reading back, I think I got your point somehow, but you don't yet understand me... I think... I am vague?

I am chaotic, that's for sure.

 

Law of physics are the rules in our world. The formulas that I invent, are the law of physics in that game. If you double the fire rate of a unit, then that unit kills twice as much, that's a fact in that game determined by a law. The rules you set in a game have to be so solid, that they will act as like "a law of physics" and that you are bound to them when you add new stuff. But if you want to call them game rules, then we call them game rules ^^.

 

What do you mean with:

objectively applicable

I don't understand those words?

 

How I got these formulas? Mainly by research. ^^, step by step, starting with 2 variables only. Also watching a lot of RTS games. The most important one for me was C&Cdawn.

The formulas that I posted are the real thing, they already had over 200 main tests on them in the past 3 years. Every variable has been tested in different scales with all others set to default. Every variable has also been tested in combination with other variables. Also different battle situations have been tested in this. Not to mention; 1 third is from a natural law regarding material strength. 1 third is from a previous game where health was also adjustable, but damage types where fixed. And 1 third is "new", since it had to be a board game with simplified numbers.

 

My main goal by setting the variables 1 by 1 was: each variable has positive and a negative effects. These can be used or abused by using tactics and strategy. So adjusting it would still keep balance.

Example: higher armour means

better durability in combat, attack and defence ( + + + ),

more damage because of the lifetime ( + ),

but an easier target by event cards or insufficient space that reduces support units ( - - ),

more expensive thus less choice in funding ( - ),

and less mobility ( - ).

 

Example2: more range means

firing from a better distance ( + ),

applying more damage in open field while the enemy has to move closer ( + ),

applying more damage exponentially with the multiplier increased, while close combat units have negative effects by this bonus ( + ),

out ranging zero speed units ( + ),

out ranging low speed units if the speed is higher as well ( + ),

choke points are easier to keep ( + ),

being more vulnerable in close combat / closed field ( - ),

awaiting their turn for firing where shorter ranged units fight too ( - ),

but an easier target by event cards or insufficient space that reduces support units ( - - ),

more expensive thus less choice in funding ( - ),

and less mobility ( - ).

 

Keep in mind, these rules are really for my board game only. If we talk about RTS completely, then a double amount of variables are added.

 

The test of 1 main test expanded to the maximum:

I also searched for another way to calculate battle situations, since random figures and point in time situations, both, also will influence a game. I cam up with my first squad score with the battle mechanics that my game applies.

I got an excel that only tests the number of units that are infantry and have anti infantry weapons. Without event cards, it's just filling in. With the event cards, the very next situation can be filled in. And then a new score is calculated from that point onwards. It was very full filling to see 99,9% of the scores to be correct. So my tests went from 200 to an astonishing over 3000 already :).

 

But I understand if the formula is vague for others. So would be that list of 3000 tests.

I have yet to create one with 2 armour types and 2 damage types, but that too would be easy to implement.

So trial and error at first at a small scale, and 1 test has been expanded.

I plan on doing more of those pre-tests expanding :). So I can take a clear view of event card influences. Those really have to be done with trial and error since they are just a temporary natural occurrence, or temporary rule if you will, in the game.

 

So, if you want me to explain the basis of these formulas? Just ask. I will PM you if that's ok. And I tell you about the birth of my rules.

 

And one more thing, the imbalances due to bad designs. Well, let's say that by adjusting the units to better counter the others is a way of evolution of that race in that world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Law of physics are the rules in our world. The formulas that I invent, are the law of physics in that game. If you double the fire rate of a unit, then that unit kills twice as much, that's a fact in that game determined by a law. The rules you set in a game have to be so solid, that they will act as like "a law of physics" and that you are bound to them when you add new stuff. But if you want to call them game rules, then we call them game rules ^^." - 1) the formulas u invent are not the law of physics in the game - I mean they are artificial (a pc game rts can have a physics engine and formulas for claculating health etc of units - the "balance formulas" are artificial - the physics engine is not - it is derived from reality). 2) If you double the firerate of a unit that doesn't necessarily mean it kills twice as much - it's the same with damage - doubling the damage doesn't mean it kills twice as much. And so that's not "a fact in that game determined by a law" - moreover - it's not a law - it's merely something somebody assumed (it's not objective like mathematics) - the person inventing this rule is assuming - meaning he's not sure - so it's most likely an assumption - not a law. 3) The more "solid" the "game rules" the less freedom - rules and balance aren't equivalent - rule!=balance.

Let me set this straight - a rule in a game is something like this:

flamethrower forbidden in competitive play, reach perk forbidden in competitive play, rules for victory: destroy the enemy base without killing civilians etc.

Those are game rules, and calculating how to balance different factions by varying variables such as heath, dps, speed etc. are not rules.

 

"objectively applicable" - meaning it works - that u can apply it in practice - contrary to just being a theory.

 

"

How I got these formulas? Mainly by research. ^^, step by step, starting with 2 variables only. Also watching a lot of RTS games. The most important one for me was C&Cdawn.

The formulas that I posted are the real thing, they already had over 200 main tests on them in the past 3 years. Every variable has been tested in different scales with all others set to default. Every variable has also been tested in combination with other variables. Also different battle situations have been tested in this. Not to mention; 1 third is from a natural law regarding material strength. 1 third is from a previous game where health was also adjustable, but damage types where fixed. And 1 third is "new", since it had to be a board game with simplified numbers."

 

Of course this is the way to proceed - that's what I meant - u can't just use math to balance - u should do simulations - but I think u understand that these simulations are subjective  - u can't really say they work 100% - u don't have a formula that says this is right and this is wrong(hence this is not really a problem of math) - meaning u can't be sure 100%.

 

"

The test of 1 main test expanded to the maximum:

I also searched for another way to calculate battle situations, since random figures and point in time situations, both, also will influence a game. I cam up with my first squad score with the battle mechanics that my game applies.

I got an excel that only tests the number of units that are infantry and have anti infantry weapons. Without event cards, it's just filling in. With the event cards, the very next situation can be filled in. And then a new score is calculated from that point onwards. It was very full filling to see 99,9% of the scores to be correct. So my tests went from 200 to an astonishing over 3000 already :).

 

But I understand if the formula is vague for others. So would be that list of 3000 tests.

I have yet to create one with 2 armour types and 2 damage types, but that too would be easy to implement.

So trial and error at first at a small scale, and 1 test has been expanded.

I plan on doing more of those pre-tests expanding :P ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I call them "law of physics" for that game?

First of all, do you consider kinetic energy workings to be a law of physics?

If so, then my damage and armour are part of it. There workings in the rules are derived from physics. And thus the working is physics.

If not, lets agree that we disagree, and I call them rules instead to prevent confusion on your part. It's pointless to keep going about it while I await others to reply. I personally will consider them laws, since making exceptions is out of the question.

 

Twice the firing rate means killing twice as much. This is for my board game a fact. It's for a lot of games a fact. Unless you start messing with the ROF or cool down.

But you are especially pointing towards the overkill. Then you are right.

The only reason that it would be the case is if you have 8 or more bullets coming from your unit while you only need the maximum 6.

This is called overkill. If it's 4, and another 4, then those second 4 are also overkill.

The only overkill that my board game is going to have is when you shoot more then enough to get rid of the last units in a region. Only then, but in the end shot, it doesn't really matter any more ^^

 

Double damage works differently in my game. But you are referring to normal RTS. Then the same story as above is to be applied. And to each target independently. But then again, you might also referring to the "first shot". In that case, a lower ROF with a higher Damage means a better first shot and better damage/second until the unit dies. Yes, I know that formula for balancing as well (7 years ago). However, you need to know the basic damage and health ratio. In my game, it's 6. But there is no alternate cool down. Only multiple shots that are equal in costs to the higher damages. Cool down = 1 for all units, so there is no need for an addition to my formula. ^^

 

If you disagree on something, please show calculations as well. I understand calculations plus words better then only words.

 

This is how things go:

Fire rate factor 2:

Health target = 6

Damage = 1

Bullets is 1 or 2

Result is dead in 6 or 3 rounds, so a factor of 2.

 

Health target = 6

Damage = 1

Bullets is 2 or 4

Result is dead in 3 or 2 rounds, so only a factor of 1,5. Which is overkill since we need round numbers.

(In my game, the remaining bullets hit the next target until there are no more targets)

 

Damage factor 2 in RTS:

Health target = 6

Damage = 1 or 2

Bullets = 1

Result is dead in 6 or 3 rounds, so a factor of 2.

 

Health target = 6

Damage = 1 or 2

Bullets = 2

Result is dead in 3 or 2 rounds, so only a factor of 1,5. Again overkill.

 

Applying different ROF in RTS only:

Health target = 6

Damage = 1, Cool Down = 1 Target is dead in 5 seconds (5,4,3,2,1,0)

Damage = 2, Cool Down = 2 Target is dead in 4 seconds (4,4,2,2,0)

Damage = 3, Cool Down = 3 Target is dead in 3 seconds (3,3,3,0)

Damage = 4, Cool Down = 4 Target is dead in 4 seconds (2,2,2,2,0) (-2 if you think about it)

Damage = 5, Cool Down = 5 Target is dead in 5 seconds (1,1,1,1,1,1) (-4 if you think about it)

Damage = 6, Cool Down = 6 Target is dead in 0 seconds (0)

 

These weapons might look like they are having the same strength, but the results says no to that. It depends on the other game mechanics on how you would calculate the costs for these weapons. In this case, 4 or 5 damage should be discarded anyway since they cause overkill and thus imbalance by default.

 

I also could add now that, double health means double durability. Of course not in the RTS games on the computer, where damage of 10 defeats all units with health between 1 and 10. So doubling 5 to 10, is no difference in dying. I give you that.

 

Rules and freedom.

I balance, by using balancing rules that I have set up. Those formulas are what I am talking about. If I want to have 100 health to cost the same as 6 damage, then that's a balancing rule. Those balancing rules are even set up by rules for putting them together. But if you haven't worked with formulas yet for balancing, you can't know.

The other rules you talk about are condition rules to play by. That's for the players, not the creator.

So, we have "balancing rules" and we have "condition rules".

 

Example of "condition rules"

My event cards are "condition rules" that temporary alter some variables for a player. The card that says Assault, allows a player to move and immediately attack with that squad.

Another example of "condition rules"

If your army has no more barracks, factories and income; you loose.

 

The freedom that I have with my formulas / balancing rules / "nature laws ingame :D"

Has proven to be enormous in many ways.

This one time I altered only damage of an unit. The killing speed altered, 1 side went 10% faster, the other side went 10% slower. Against structures, it was the same. Against the target it was mentioned for, it was reduced with 10%, but since it's also cheaper according to the formulas, it could get more cover on the map. And in a way became better in certain situations. If you want, I can give you the battle where a slightly "worse" unit, actually acts better.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Every law in nature, is still a theory.

As long as the simulations prove that the theory is correct. It's the law.

Once there are flaws in the simulations, the theory of that law has to be rewritten.

 

The same still goes for my formulas :)

In the last 3 years, only size and range/speed had given me problems. Both where solvable by testing multiple theories. ^^

 

The laws of Newton had to be rewritten! Even the speed of light undergoes changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be a long one :laugh: .

"

Why do I call them "law of physics" for that game?

First of all, do you consider kinetic energy workings to be a law of physics?

If so, then my damage and armour are part of it. There workings in the rules are derived from physics. And thus the working is physics.

If not, lets agree that we disagree, and I call them rules instead to prevent confusion on your part. It's pointless to keep going about it while I await others to reply. I personally will consider them laws, since making exceptions is out of the question." - I guess I yet again failed to make my point lol :D . What I was talking about was balancing the game - and the mechanics of balancing it. I meant that neither of these mechanics can be called laws or rules (u can balance a game with some rules - but it's not the optimal thing to do) - because these mechanics are something artificial - meaning that you invent these mechanics - example:

balance - health_bonus vs speed_bonus

health_bonus=speed_bonus/2

Let's say this is your formula for balancing a unit with a bonus of speed and one with a bonus of health - and I mean - this formula is totally artificial - it can be chnaged to suit the game better or to suit another game etc. while a natural law doesn't change - it's something objective - u don't make it to suit some player or another - gravity is the same for everyhting (or at least that's what we think :P ). And btw damage and armor don't mean shit for kinetic energy - it's just a matter of forces - not of armor or health - armor and health are artificial concepts in gaming - u don't have 50 health in reality, nor 30 armor - it's a concept for simplifying the whole thing (it's not that u can do a simulation where ur unit loses an arm or a leg - but it's easier to average things). But whatever - even if u disagree - let's say we disagree on the usage of terms.

 

"

Twice the firing rate means killing twice as much. This is for my board game a fact. It's for a lot of games a fact. Unless you start messing with the ROF or cool down.

But you are especially pointing towards the overkill. Then you are right."

It would be great if the only problem was overkill (I should say that my opinion was based more on pc rts) - there are plenty of problems with saying that double fire rate = double kills - in a game like dune:emperor - ur units can miss, u can have a double fire rate and do double the damage let's say - which doesn't necessarily mean double the kills(on a micro level), doubling the fire rate doesn't necessarily mean that ur unit will be able to use it at its fullest (double the killing). Here's the best example - double fire rate != 2 units with half the fire rate shooting. U can say that 2 units can do double the killing compared to one - but it won't be true to say that double the fire rate will result in double the kills(2 units die harder than 1 - maning they can shoot a lot longer - meaning 2units shooting at firerate x do more killing that a single unit with firerate 2x - meaning double the firerate!=double the kills). Of course in your game double the fire rate can be double the kills (but then u must consider what is the difference between 2 units and a unit with double fire rate) - that's what I mean by the fact that your "rules" are artificial - they aren't universal (contrary to gravity).

 

"

This is how things go:

Fire rate factor 2:

Health target = 6

Damage = 1

Bullets is 1 or 2

Result is dead in 6 or 3 rounds, so a factor of 2.

 

Health target = 6

Damage = 1

Bullets is 2 or 4

Result is dead in 3 or 2 rounds, so only a factor of 1,5. Which is overkill since we need round numbers.

(In my game, the remaining bullets hit the next target until there are no more targets)

 

Damage factor 2 in RTS:

Health target = 6

Damage = 1 or 2

Bullets = 1

Result is dead in 6 or 3 rounds, so a factor of 2.

 

Health target = 6

Damage = 1 or 2

Bullets = 2

Result is dead in 3 or 2 rounds, so only a factor of 1,5. Again overkill.

 

Applying different ROF in RTS only:

Health target = 6

Damage = 1, Cool Down = 1 Target is dead in 5 seconds (5,4,3,2,1,0)

Damage = 2, Cool Down = 2 Target is dead in 4 seconds (4,4,2,2,0)

Damage = 3, Cool Down = 3 Target is dead in 3 seconds (3,3,3,0)

Damage = 4, Cool Down = 4 Target is dead in 4 seconds (2,2,2,2,0) (-2 if you think about it)

Damage = 5, Cool Down = 5 Target is dead in 5 seconds (1,1,1,1,1,1) (-4 if you think about it)

Damage = 6, Cool Down = 6 Target is dead in 0 seconds (0)"

that may depict correctly a board game (idk don't know that much about boar games) - but it does not depict correctly a rts in real time - I think u know why.

 

"I also could add now that, double health means double durability. Of course not in the RTS games on the computer, where damage of 10 defeats all units with health between 1 and 10. So doubling 5 to 10, is no difference in dying. I give you that." - well yeah the same thing I said upper in this post.

 

"

Rules and freedom.

I balance, by using balancing rules that I have set up. Those formulas are what I am talking about. If I want to have 100 health to cost the same as 6 damage, then that's a balancing rule. Those balancing rules are even set up by rules for putting them together. But if you haven't worked with formulas yet for balancing, you can't know.

The other rules you talk about are condition rules to play by. That's for the players, not the creator.

So, we have "balancing rules" and we have "condition rules"."  - well yeah I just don't agree with your terms -

I mean waht u see as "balancing rules" I see as balancing formulas,mechanics, equations etc - not rules. And 100*k health = 6 damage - for me that is an equation not a rule - u have some k const from which u can derive either health - given the dmg or vice versa. And "rules putting them together" - I mean if there were rules to put them together it would be a lot easier to balance a game - for me those "balancing rules" are derived from simulations, statistics, experinece etc - basically data - not rules - u analyze the data and make the "balancing rules". I can assure u that every person that know mutiplication and division can work with "formulas for balancing" - the problem is creating these formulas so they actually balance the game. Well the "other rules" are what comes to mind when u say a rule - a rule is a guidline - not a formula u devise to balance a game(IMHO)...

 

"

The freedom that I have with my formulas / balancing rules / "nature laws ingame :D"

Has proven to be enormous in many ways.

This one time I altered only damage of an unit. The killing speed altered, 1 side went 10% faster, the other side went 10% slower. Against structures, it was the same. Against the target it was mentioned for, it was reduced with 10%, but since it's also cheaper according to the formulas, it could get more cover on the map. And in a way became better in certain situations. If you want, I can give you the battle where a slightly "worse" unit, actually acts better." - it may seem the same agaisnt structures and targets in theory - but it may not be in practice - there are too many factors having an influence on that in a rts.

 

"

Every law in nature, is still a theory.

As long as the simulations prove that the theory is correct. It's the law.

Once there are flaws in the simulations, the theory of that law has to be rewritten.

 

The same still goes for my formulas :)

In the last 3 years, only size and range/speed had given me problems. Both where solvable by testing multiple theories. ^^

 

The laws of Newton had to be rewritten! Even the speed of light undergoes changes."

The fact that a law has to be rewritten means only that it was not a law - it's something we thought of as a law - a natural law is not something that changes whimsically. The laws of Newton aren't incorrect - here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion - especially the part:

"

Newton's laws were verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years, and they are excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life. Newton's laws of motion, together with his law of universal gravitation and the mathematical techniques of calculus, provided for the first time a unified quantitative explanation for a wide range of physical phenomena.

 

These three laws hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields. Therefore, the laws cannot be used to explain phenomena such as conduction of electricity in a semiconductor, optical properties of substances, errors in non-relativistically corrected GPS systems and superconductivity. Explanation of these phenomena requires more sophisticated physical theories, including general relativity and quantum field theory.

" - they are correct - for the scale they were written.

" Even the speed of light undergoes changes" - dafuq? :laugh: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal !!!!physical constant!!!! important in many areas of physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we disagree on the terms. That other guy seems to be using terms that even I never heard of. And he gives class :D.

 

Stuff that I stick by:

According to the government, the rules they set up are laws.

I set up my rules, I call them laws. I call them the natural laws of the world that I created. Even if they are artificial, they are still laws. :) And I am their mighty god. I might call these laws, The Artificial Natural Laws.

I didn't invent these laws, I studied unit behaviour on a real scale as well. And based my laws on them, the only thing that is chosen is the health and damage ratio. In real life it's 1, in my game it's 6. All other parts of the law are actually fixed combinations to keep the balance.

 

Facts:

If you really study Physics, then you should know that Kinetic Energy is all about the forces.

My armour and damage are "type" numbers, but applied in a kinetic impact simulation. Thus based on a law of physics.

You can say no, but you don't no :) , how I worked this out.

At least have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

And now look up the damage table's that I have posted in my board game thread :)

See the similarity?

 

Randomness:

Twice the firing rate or damage, with random. You should have said that before. Then I didn't need to type that. I was still about the solid numbers on that one. You are right about random numbers, I love them and they make the risk factor in my game as well.

Each bullet has a 1/3th chance on missing, and a 1/3th chance on hitting twice. Average is 1 hit.

Here's another fact from my game: 2 snipers, 1 has 6 bullets, the other has 7 bullets. By random the first one has a 60% chance on killing someone in one turn. the second one has 75% chance of killing someone in 1 turn. This however is still a fight against 1 target, with more, the extra hits are onto the next target. If it was just 1 bullet at a time, it takes 6 turns to get a slight chance on killing. The same chance is reached for 2 bullets after just 3 turns. So it still applies for the slow damaging parts.

 

You should have said so, damn. :) That's why give examples with numbers if you have to.

 

Unit durability effects on damage:

And I wasn't even referring yet on this. You might know more then you show. If you mentioned it earlier. I would have agreed on this.

However, even my game has indeed not something like twice the fire rate = twice the damage if you put it like that. I was referring to 1 unit, having 1 bullet or 2 bullets. I did not mention the cost alterations and the small vs big battle. I was only talking about the staying alive units.

 

Does this list say something to you? This list is for all RTS.

Unit number or strength: 1, 2, 3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10

(numerous) Dying damage: 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45,  55

 (1 unit) Living damage: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100

It means that 4 units of 1 are worth 4 and 1 unit of 4 is worth 4.

The effects in combat are that the group of 4 units, while dying 1 by 1, is a total of 10.

The effects of the big unit that lives till the end is 16. That's +60%! But not really +60% in costs when you balance it. Take a look at the 36.

The biggest problem is if you want an infinite army. Then an infinite amount of units would be worth 1 each while the super unit is worth infinite times the square root of 2.

 

I managed to upgrade the dying units by some game mechanics:

- taking cover behind walls results in living just as long. Some RTS have walls, but badly implemented. In Frozen Throne you can have 1 unit to lure, this one could be considered a wall as well.

- taking cover behind each other in an attack results in something less then perfect. But this never happens in RTS.

The health of 6 now comes into play as well, where 5 health is still alive, and then takes cover, so here are the new lists:

(numerous)   RTS damage: 6, 18, 36, 60,  90, 126, 168, 216, 270, 330

(numerous) Board damage: 6, 23, 51, 90, 140, 201, 273, 356, 450, 555

(1 unit)  Living damage: 6, 24, 54, 96, 150, 216, 294, 384, 486, 600

Less differences ^^. At least, it looks like that.

Now imagine doubling the fire rate, the 1 unit only has halve the damage now. But the numerous, not only will they have halve the damage, but also less damage since they come closer to the 1 health list. If you want, I can also post the lists of 2 to 5 health. Increasing health can be considered increasing the number of units.

 

Also, keep in mind that if you go amass, the effects of difference also becomes less in comparison to the total. With infinite groups of, 4 x 1 and 1 x 4 you get perfect balance. RTS has limits in allowing units. So this, is one of the proving methods to show others. That it's impossible to get a perfect game. You still can get it good though :). If 8 x 1 beats 1 x 6, then 14 x 1 beats 2 x 6. In the first case, the 6 is worth 8, but in the second case, 6 is worth 7. The next 6 is worth 6,5. Closer and closer to balance.

 

The unit alteration:

The changes where fully tested on my board. And they have proven to be good and where predicted before hand.

Of course it is different in RTS where things move constantly. Then the unit would be worse on many fronts. Most RTS don't even use the space and sizes, so that's defiantly going to twist the balance in case of stats reduction.

 

Newton:

Yes, to the scale, and yes, you explained why I say that his laws are wrong. So we agree on this, yet I was incomplete in explaining.

 

Speed of light:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

 

About the disagreement of terms?

How about we make a list of the terms, and explain what we mean by them? Not telling the other that he/she is wrong. Just 2 different languages. Keep it short for each term, ok?

 

I mean, if ROF is something different in my view then someone else's? Why not make it a statement with what you mean with it.

Who knows, we might get an agreement on a new term instead of the other 2 that are similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice chat lolz :laugh:

"Yes, we disagree on the terms. That other guy seems to be using terms that even I never heard of. And he gives class :D."

"

About the disagreement of terms?

How about we make a list of the terms, and explain what we mean by them? Not telling the other that he/she is wrong. Just 2 different languages. Keep it short for each term, ok?

 

I mean, if ROF is something different in my view then someone else's? Why not make it a statement with what you mean with it.

Who knows, we might get an agreement on a new term instead of the other 2 that are similar.

"

I didn't mean to say you're wrong - that's why I keep repeating that I didn't manage to make my point (but in fact I wasn't getting your point too - which I kinda knew - but wasn't sure what exactly u meant - hence the long discussion) - obviously because we're thinking the same thing but in different terms :P . For me rule and law is one thing - for u it's another - so when u use the term - in your way - I just assume u use it in my way - that's why I asked u to clarify - well I got it already - and I think u got it too. I think we're thinking pretty much the same thing :D . But still - u shouldn't use "The Artificial Natural Laws" - it's an oxymoron(well whatever - I mean u can use it - but people won't really understand it the first time they see it - u would need to do an explanation).

 

"

Facts:

If you really study Physics, then you should know that Kinetic Energy is all about the forces.

My armour and damage are "type" numbers, but applied in a kinetic impact simulation. Thus based on a law of physics.

You can say no, but you don't no :) , how I worked this out.

At least have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia..../Kinetic_energy

And now look up the damage table's that I have posted in my board game thread :)

See the similarity?" - yet again I failed to make my point :P  - What I said in my prev post is that armor and heath are "game concepts" - u can't really relate them to reality(hence no real physcis) - u don't have 50 health or 30 armor - u're healthy with good armor irl. By that I don't mean that they don't have anything to do with reality - but they are an average - in these games u don't lose a limb - u lose health - and in most games losing health doesn't even slows u down or reduce your capabilities. I assure u I know what kinetic energy is about - I meant that your armor and health are "game concepts" - so u can't really do a real simulation (oxymoron much - lol even I use it :P ) - u can of course do some average calculation of an average force doing something on an average armor (and still it's far from reality's forces interaction, armors and how a biologic organism copes with injuries but whatever). My point was (of the whole previous post) that the game's "rules" are not natural(at least not for me - I explained why - u can't naturally test this - only artificially) - they are artificial. So yes - yet again it was about terms :laugh:  - I guess we basically had the same concept but we were "speaking in different languages" :laugh:

Just to be sure - I'll quote myself:

"And btw damage and armor don't mean shit for kinetic energy - it's just a matter of forces - not of armor or health - armor and health are artificial concepts in gaming - u don't have 50 health in reality, nor 30 armor - it's a concept for simplifying the whole thing (it's not that u can do a simulation where ur unit loses an arm or a leg - but it's easier to average things). But whatever - even if u disagree - let's say we disagree on the usage of terms." - by "damage and armor  don't mean shit for kinetic energy" - I meant that the ingame armor and health (as I had clarified rigth after that sentence) - the "game concepts"  don't have anything to do with reality and physics - u don't calculate the impact from an explosion of a rocket on your infantry in reality(u do it artificially) - u just grab armor, health and rocket dmg (I simplified it of course) and claculate how much health ur units has after that. I mean u can take 5-6 rockets in Doom 3 without even blinking - so yeah it doesn't have anything much to do with real kinetic energy and real damage - I don't say it's impossible to make it depict reality - but there's no need to - that's one of the charms of a game - ur sardukar can take 3 rockets and still run happily around. :laugh: ) - "let's say we disagree on the usage of terms."

 

"Randomness:" & "Unit durability effects on damage:" - well yeah it was disagreement on terms... again :P  - well at least know you know what I meant and I know what u did.

 

"

The unit alteration:

The changes where fully tested on my board. And they have proven to be good and where predicted before hand.

Of course it is different in RTS where things move constantly. Then the unit would be worse on many fronts. Most RTS don't even use the space and sizes, so that's defiantly going to twist the balance in case of stats reduction." -

Yup, also I'm always thinking considering a pc rts while you're thinking in terms of a board game (so some of the disagreements come from here) - and that was one of my main points - a pc rts has to many factors to take into account for a person to be able to precisely balance it (hell - I wonder how there's any balance at all :laugh: ).

 

Speed of light:

http://www.news.harv...2.18/light.html

"Even the speed of light undergoes changes" - sorry it seems I misunderstood what u meant (thought u would start about some shit like tachyons or about how if u fly the speed of light - what would happen if u threw something) - I am always thinking of light speed as a constant cause I am always thinking about special relativity (don't ask - got two parents both physicist :P ) But your point (which I bet wasn't your point :P  - and I just misunderstood the whole thing yet again) that laws change - I cannot agree with it (at most I can say that laws are relative ) - I mean it doesn't change the fact that light's speed is considred a constant (there's a reason it's called special relativity). Well I'd guess it was  a term problem...again :laugh: .

 

"About the disagreement of terms?

How about we make a list of the terms, and explain what we mean by them? Not telling the other that he/she is wrong. Just 2 different languages. Keep it short for each term, ok?

 

I mean, if ROF is something different in my view then someone else's? Why not make it a statement with what you mean with it.

Who knows, we might get an agreement on a new term instead of the other 2 that are similar." -

 

I don't remember really telling u outright that u were right/wrong -  I mean most of the times I considered the fact that I didn't make my point clear or that I misunderstood u (it was the same for u I think).

But I think we understood what we both meant through this whole discussion - and I think we understood which terms we weren't thinking in the same way(and what the other person meant by them). So there's no real reason to write the whole thing again I think (+ it will be really hard explaining how u think of a term compared to how another one thinks of it - but I think we already both understood what we meant?).

Thinking such a "little" thing was the problem in the discussion... :P  However thanks to that I understood a lot of ur concepts about the whole thing - I mean I think pretty much the same things but u got things down in more details.

Well nice discussion :P  :D .


P.S. I hope this long discussion contributed at least something to the topic. :D

P.S.I replied to ur PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I agree on almost everything now that we can understand each other :D. Just different terms from the same language. :D

Took us some time though. I come from the Netherlands. You? Perhaps the translations have something to do with it as well.

 

It is true that I mainly had my board game in mind. If I didn't we finished a lot faster. Sorry for that. I mean, I could have taken a lot of variables in mind that are part of the RTS. At least we now know that a different amount of usable variables also changes game rules / game mechanics and thus game balance.

 

The Damage and Armour calculations, I really have them based on reality. Of course, the Damage is based on mass times speed in reality. While the Armour is based on density times thickness. If a bullet hits twice as hard, it actually does 4 times more damage. But if the armour is twice as thick, it reduces the damage by a factor 4. They have many tests on this. Of course in reality we have only 1 hit point. If our armour is like 10 times higher then the bullet strength, then we only take 1% damage. If the bullet strength is equal or 10 times higher then our armour, then it does enough or overkill. So 100 % in those 2 situations. In a game, each unit has more health points then just 1, just to make the game more fun.

 

And I have seen your PM, but I really don't have anything to add any more. Except if you want to know things from me for comparing numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Took us some time though. I come from the Netherlands. You? Perhaps the translations have something to do with it as well."

I am from Bulgaria (Eastern Europe) - but I think the problem was more on the side of our understanding and thoughts on the various concepts these terms stand for (I got a CPE in English - so I don't think it's the translation - and u were making sense too).

 

"It is true that I mainly had my board game in mind. If I didn't we finished a lot faster. Sorry for that. I mean, I could have taken a lot of variables in mind that are part of the RTS. At least we now know that a different amount of usable variables also changes game rules / game mechanics and thus game balance." - well it's also true vice versa - I was thinking mostly of a pc rts.

 

"The Damage and Armour calculations, I really have them based on reality. Of course, the Damage is based on mass times speed in reality. While the Armour is based on density times thickness. If a bullet hits twice as hard, it actually does 4 times more damage. But if the armour is twice as thick, it reduces the damage by a factor 4. They have many tests on this. Of course in reality we have only 1 hit point. If our armour is like 10 times higher then the bullet strength, then we only take 1% damage. If the bullet strength is equal or 10 times higher then our armour, then it does enough or overkill. So 100 % in those 2 situations. In a game, each unit has more health points then just 1, just to make the game more fun." -

I got it, and I think it's great that ur calculations are based on reality - but it's not really that bad to have something supernatural ingame. I mean there's a kind of charm to things u can't have in reality - like magic(by this I don't mean u should overwrite every rule or mechanic of the game). I don't know if u have played Jurassic War - it's a really old game - the unique thing about this game was that u could lvl every stat of every unit (u could even level magic power on a warrior - which was sensless - but you could) - your units were more like  what's considered a "hero unit" nowadays. U can check it - might find some ideas(though I don't think it would work for a board game considering the numerous variables and the updates u have to make to them).

 

About the PM - I was just curious why u asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, "is it even possible to balance?" Regarding the topic :).

 

Anyway, I think "yes" to good enough, but a "no" to perfection, to answer your question as best as possible.

 

It depends on the game play actually.

 

First start with your income:

How do you get income? Explain this in detail.

Think about how the resources are scatered on the map, in the fields or locations.

How are they gathered? And how are they processed? Are there more then 1 way to get them?

Do you have 1 resource or more?

And most importantly, the income speed related to the prices of the units you are planning on.

 

Next step is the combat mechanic:

What variables are you going to use? Health and damage are the 2 important ones.

How will the real damage on the health be calculated in your game.

Simply Current health - damage? Or is there more to it?

 

Third step is, how fast do you want the combat to go.

Is the basic health 5 times the basic damage? Or is it 10 times the basic damage? Only 6 shots is really fast. Or very slow, it depends on what you do in the second step.

 

Fourth step is actually putting things together in a formula that gives a price for the unit, that's how I do things. A lot of variables in the formula are depending on the health and damage ratio. So will be the basic ROF or Cool Down. But this step is already vague, and you need to start with the first step to determine things. The build time compared with the income speed is also very important. To much income makes a game a mass mess. To less income makes the game to slow. You need just the right amount to keep it fun.

 

For more information, actually read this entire thread. Get confused. Decide on terms. Then read the class material that I have linked to in the very first post of this topic. After that, answer the steps in this post. Good luck.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

To bad some threads end too quickly and are even forgotten for a while by their creator.

 

However, I searched for this thread since I thought of something new:

 

We all know that it is even hard to balance a RTS when you have 3 different units, simply by strength. Where you can balance 2 of them, the third one always seems OP or UP. So I did some new testing.

 

Effectiveness reduction of damaged units.

I did some new tests again on my board game for balancing purposes, the boardgame truly serves as a testing kit and a lot of blablabla could have been put here. Messing with damage and armour factors. And messing with health. And eventually, why change those damgae, armour and health if damage keeps the same during an units demise anyway? It was an "out of the box" kind of thought.

 

So here is the thing: The damage actually reduces during the units life equal at the health reduction. See it as a Z-warrior that has fewer and fewer energy during a battle. You know? Goku? (What's a Goku?)

 

We see this in Dune 2 too, where half damaged tanks only do half damage or have a half ROF. But this doesn't work well enough yet.

We need a continuous process.

 

Example comparisons:

Tank vs 10 infantry

- Normal RTS have the infantry do 55% damage during their life.

- My board game rules allow the infantry to do 92,5% damage, if the tank has to shoot 6 times on each infantry unit. The minimum is still 55%, depending on the weapon this tank carries.

 

The new method:

Tank with 100 health does 10 damage.

The same tank gets 10 damage, so it health drops to 90.

Now this tank only does 9 damage.

Of course this counts the same for the infantry. If one dies, there are 9 left.

Next round: 81 health for the tank and it does 8,1 damage. But the infantry have a badly injured unit, only 1 health left, and does only 0,1 damage. So a total of 8,1 damage. ETCETC.

 

Result, both sides die equally, after an infinite long period of rounds.

If you change one side into a better counter, the fight can end.

If one of the 2 players reacted to late by ordering their units, that player will loose eventually too.

 

So, would this technique be possible to apply in RTS?

Of course you could try to change the ROF instead. That way, the fight will end. But both sides would die.

 

Thoughts?

 

(This actually gives a perfect balance between units that are designed for defeating their own kind in the opponents force, against other units that work the same. The only difference is the unit statistics :) So units that cost 100 are balanced with units that cost 200, or 300, or 350 etc. As long as they all are equally designed in 50% health and 50% damage)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I followed your train of thought, but the core idea seems that the amount of damage a unit is capable to inflict while attacking is directly proportional to its level of health, right?

I must say this is quite clever in its simplicity, but I also can't get off the feeling I've heard something similar somewhere before, not sure where. Might be some kind of deja vu aberration though.

I've been thinking in quite the opposite direction, do you think it could be possible, since its a boardgame and you can implement whatever rules you want, to make a really more realistic combat model? With limited ammo, different attacks for different targets etc.? I guess that the most troublesome part in this approach is actually the calculation of hits and misses, since accuracy is going to be a serious issue (relative positions of the attacker and the target, projectile type, wind etc. etc.; but on the bright side, all of that can be calculated reliable with the "huge load of math" as you put it :)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I re-voted actually, since I succeeded now :D

Best thing of all, I found a way to keep all fights with an end.

It was so simple, why didn't I think of this 10 years ago? Why didn't any one think of this?

I sometimes hit my head for being so stupid to this fact.

 

I simply meddled with accuracy, see the other thread about searching for injured effects:

http://forum.dune2k.com/topic/25080-searching-for-rts-with-injury-effects/

Damage reduction or ROF reduction can do the trick as well, however, ROF isn't 100% perfect. And damage reduction can cause infinite fights and imbalance if you have meat/support units acting.

 

However, applying accuracy to a board game is waaaaaaaaaaay harder than on a pc game.

Try applying a chance of 25/49 and then, if it had 1 health removed itself. 5/6 on top of 25/49. Anyway, the 5/6 is easy with a dice. 25/49 is not easy.

 

Currently, my accuracy is simple with 1 dice for each projectile. 123456 would give 001122. So throwing a 6 gives 2 times the damage, or 50 in this case. The unit would then simply have 6 x 49 health, or 294 to be exact. So, as you can see, I made my game simple at some point. Having about 10 to 40 dice rolling is already a hassle. But they all go in the same way now.

 

But I don't need to balance my board game with another accuracy effect. Since I allow the units to take cover behind anything possible. This means that they almost reach 100% (above 95%) effect when there is no sniping. Where other RTS only reach 75% on average.

If I remove cover, then it would be neat to have this accuracy effect. But then I need to find a way to apply this in the same way than how it would be in RTS. So, 244/294 on top of "123456>>>001122" is the chance, or keeping the 5/6 on top of the 25/49. :). I think I would need to go back to the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...