Does a Circle in Mods make Sence ?
Moderator: Moderators
Does a Circle in Mods make Sence ?
Hi, i had some Discussion with Friends and one of them insisted on the Idea - that the poorest low-level Unit, if excellent microed, in a RTS Game, should always have the Chance to kill the biggest UberUnit.. Does such a Circle make really Sence ?
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
I'd say objectively no, if only for the reason that you said "always". Also, an RTS is still totally valid if you basically remove micromanagement altogether, make the game about strategy rather then tactics.
That isn't to say that there isn't room for such a game, just that there isn't room for an arbitrary rule making such a game mechanic a must have.
That isn't to say that there isn't room for such a game, just that there isn't room for an arbitrary rule making such a game mechanic a must have.
Well it makes some sense, like, the biggest unit probaly is slow and got slow weapons, what means that it cannot fire well against a small unit, but since small units generally are fast and got fast weapons, even taking forever they would defeat the big one.
But no I dont think it should be a rule for all games.
But no I dont think it should be a rule for all games.
Personally, I think that really depends on the mod, and what kind of conflict it's depicting.
Infantry with realistic man-portable AT rocket vs. realistic tank... sure, no problem, David can and should sometimes defeat Goliath.
But, in most mods, the game designer is looking at overall cost-for-cost balance. For example, if you put the equivalent weight in energy, metal, and workertime into AKs vs. a Krogoth, you're going to get a lot more (theoretical) killing power and hitpoints.
However, at the same time, you're not going to have it concentrated in the same area, and a Krogoth is 100% efficient until it dies, whereas the AKs start losing efficiency as each individual dies. Plus you have factors like range and the ability to fire over obstacles to consider- in the end, it's not a simple, "I can just use a calculator" kind of problem. So a Krogoth is at least at some level "balanced" with the equivalent cost in, say, AKs, but IRL, it's a completely different animal, and "balance" is only theoretical at best.
I guess what I'm saying, in the end, is that whether or not there is a "circle" is entirely up to the game designer. It's really just an extension of the basic, paper-rock-scissors balance decisions that game designers make all the time.
Infantry with realistic man-portable AT rocket vs. realistic tank... sure, no problem, David can and should sometimes defeat Goliath.
But, in most mods, the game designer is looking at overall cost-for-cost balance. For example, if you put the equivalent weight in energy, metal, and workertime into AKs vs. a Krogoth, you're going to get a lot more (theoretical) killing power and hitpoints.
However, at the same time, you're not going to have it concentrated in the same area, and a Krogoth is 100% efficient until it dies, whereas the AKs start losing efficiency as each individual dies. Plus you have factors like range and the ability to fire over obstacles to consider- in the end, it's not a simple, "I can just use a calculator" kind of problem. So a Krogoth is at least at some level "balanced" with the equivalent cost in, say, AKs, but IRL, it's a completely different animal, and "balance" is only theoretical at best.
I guess what I'm saying, in the end, is that whether or not there is a "circle" is entirely up to the game designer. It's really just an extension of the basic, paper-rock-scissors balance decisions that game designers make all the time.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5085
http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3142
For ones, it doesn't makes sense for a unit to cost much more and not win.
For the other, it doesn't makes sense for any single situation not having a chance of beeing reverted with user action (like a cheaper smaller unit vs a bigger, more costly, unit).
In these forums, i gained a new look over the entire matter. Those likings run deep with each own's personality (but i still loath Starcrap and Warcrap).
http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3142
PauloMorfeo wrote:Once again, it has been proven, TA fans are a massively rational group. I bet *crap fans would be massively intuitive.
That is why our opinions clash so much, because the 2 groups are so radically diferent in the deep core of the personality.
That is why we hate all the micromanagment nightmares that *crap games are and we love to see the outcome of carefully layed out plans of battle.
That is why they love all that «click and see shiny things happen», like doing spells, and hate to play a game (TA) where, at a certain point, it is defined that it will certainly break for one side, watching not new shiny things hapen but, instead, the equilibrium of forces slowly shift to one side.
That is why, with the other personality test shown, i reached the conslusion that they are not wrong stupid or whatever, they are just diferent in the core of the personality and there is no way i am ever going to reason them out of it (they are not rational in the first place to be someones we could reason with, anyway). Of course i still loath that way of viewing RTSs.
Rationality for the win!!!
That is why it is a "No" for the greatest part of this comunity, and a "Yes" for your mate, which probably must be a fan of Starcrap/Warcrap.PauloMorfeo wrote:This raises a few interesting questions about how to try and near the gap between the 2 groups.
Obviously, changes to the game style would ruin our rationality style.
I guess that to moderatly please the other side, what could be done would be adding shiny things that do not change the game play. Examples? Boats explode and roll over and drop they're cannon turrets into the water. Units get destroied, sometimes they explode in a big white flash, others in a small yellow splash, sometimes they just smoke and leave a corpse, sometimes .. Many diferent shiny new things.
And that would also please us, the rationals, in those small or not so small intuitive natures that are also present in us.
For ones, it doesn't makes sense for a unit to cost much more and not win.
For the other, it doesn't makes sense for any single situation not having a chance of beeing reverted with user action (like a cheaper smaller unit vs a bigger, more costly, unit).
In these forums, i gained a new look over the entire matter. Those likings run deep with each own's personality (but i still loath Starcrap and Warcrap).
In other words, "Starcraft is for GIRLS!"?
I think allowing each unit to be defeated in a 1:1 battle if done right only makes sense if we have price spans where no unit really costs more than 2-3x what another unit costs. In many Spring mods we have units that are 50 or even more times as expensive as the cheapest one so basing RPS on 1:1 battles is no longer a good idea. The most expensive unit should still have a weakness that can beat it for cost but not something as silly as the cheapest unit wrecking it.
Of course we have to think about whether we're talking about "beating with sufficient micro" or "beating because of RPS".
I think allowing each unit to be defeated in a 1:1 battle if done right only makes sense if we have price spans where no unit really costs more than 2-3x what another unit costs. In many Spring mods we have units that are 50 or even more times as expensive as the cheapest one so basing RPS on 1:1 battles is no longer a good idea. The most expensive unit should still have a weakness that can beat it for cost but not something as silly as the cheapest unit wrecking it.
Of course we have to think about whether we're talking about "beating with sufficient micro" or "beating because of RPS".
Re: Does a Circle in Mods make Sence ?
Definitely no. If it was like this there would be little point to making huge expensive units since swarms (or even just a few) of cheap units could destroy them.PicassoCT wrote:Hi, i had some Discussion with Friends and one of them insisted on the Idea - that the poorest low-level Unit, if excellent microed, in a RTS Game, should always have the Chance to kill the biggest UberUnit.. Does such a Circle make really Sence ?