This is going to be really disjointed, I'm really tired and in need of untiring. So try to make sense.
Let's examine AA, er, or any other TA based mod. The two sides have many differences, but in so many regards they are identical - just for the sake of making it so that you can do anything you want. Which there's nothing really wrong with, of course.
For instance, in AA both sides have combat engineers, rezzers, plasma cannons, constructors, commanders, aircraft (to a certain extent), ships, and lots more that are largely identical to each other.
I've got to thinking: Why is this?
The reason is, people want to have their cake and eat it too, as they say. All the strengths and weaknesses possible in both factions, even if it means a hella lot of overlapping. The end result is that the two sides aren't very different, it's mostly "skin deep". (armor deep? hehehe)
So, let's figure. What if this was turned on its head and completely changed? Say, arm commander has a short range heavy EMG and core has a pair of heavy lasers but no D-gun. That's just totally random and stupid, I'd never do that. But you see what I mean. Kill that totally unnecessary similarity. Give one side a unit the other has NO counterpart for.
An example of this was when I killed the Orcone. Arm shouldn't have that identical counterpart, it kills that awe from seeing that Krogoth obliterating everything that stands before it. I've also removed other units in the past, much to some peoples' temporary displeasure. But that fades with time as they realize, OK so I want a krogoth? I'll go with the team that's got a krogoth.
Have two sides with diametrically opposed playstyles, that would be ideal but too radical a change. I still want TA's spirit, and a certain amount of similarity is inherent in that.
So have two sides both having many unique advantages and disadvantages which have no direct counters and require planning and strategy to overcome. To use another random example, make flash vs instigator a completely null point by making them unequal. One side just has that damned powerful rush unit. One side is more average. And that's just all there is to it. However, the other side has, for instance, a vastly superior assault tank which smashes through the defenses that stop flashes.
[Nah, I'll keep this paragraph to myself in case I decide to use it... was just another example of indirect balancing]
I'm planning to experiment with this in AA 2.4, but not to an earthshattering degree or anything, and it'll all be properly tested like in the old days.
Unit Diversity vs. Strategic Freedom
Moderator: Moderators
CT addressed this in an interview not long ago. RTSs tend to have relatively similar factions because they're easier to balance, and because its a shallower learning curve.
Games like Starcraft that have a lot of differences between sides could afford that because the unit diversity is not that deep.
Ultimately as long as the game isnt fundamentally broken and favors one side over the other to a great extent, it should be fine.
Games like Starcraft that have a lot of differences between sides could afford that because the unit diversity is not that deep.
Ultimately as long as the game isnt fundamentally broken and favors one side over the other to a great extent, it should be fine.
i think what is often forgotten in this topic is the relevance to maps.
for example, if one faction were good at navy and the other at air, it only works on water maps. on non-water maps the air faction is OP. or say, one faction is good at kbots, the other a vehicles. now on hilly maps on, on flat ones the other faction is imba. or say slow/tough vs. fast/light, here the size of the map would significantly change balance.
if the sides are reasonably similar, you can balance them for all maps. if they have strong differences on many aspects, all maps have to be made according to that asymmetry. and since they won't, balance will get worse.
for example, if one faction were good at navy and the other at air, it only works on water maps. on non-water maps the air faction is OP. or say, one faction is good at kbots, the other a vehicles. now on hilly maps on, on flat ones the other faction is imba. or say slow/tough vs. fast/light, here the size of the map would significantly change balance.
if the sides are reasonably similar, you can balance them for all maps. if they have strong differences on many aspects, all maps have to be made according to that asymmetry. and since they won't, balance will get worse.
Equal factions are something only modders of existing content consider. As someone who makes all his units from scratch I don't want to waste my time making the same unit twice with tiny variations that will only end up being potential imbalances. I can't speak for all of them but the non-recycled-content mods I've seen have quite different factions. As a modder I don't have to get a number on the back of a box so implementing the same faction three times as in SupCom would drive me nuts. This is a question of graphics over gameplay: Would I rather have multiple graphical styles the player can choose from or spend that time (which is a LOT of time!) on improving the existing units, making a different mod or implementing a faction that plays completely different? Me, I do like graphics but I'm not going to waste time on redundant units just so people can have their stuff look different.
caydr, you need a mix of both.
IN BEFORE "OH MY GOD SMOTH MENTIONED GUNDAM AGAIN!"
I am using gundam because I know the most about that project
I try to do that in gundam, feel free to look at it. Not compairing e-penors or anything but it is a good example of what you are asking about.
Thing is that subtle differences can add a lot of deep gameplay for more experienced players and for new players they can just throw the similar units at one another untill they learn the differences. When the players start getting better at X side they begin to appreciate the subtle differences as they use them to fill more specialized roles. Also, this means that you do not end up like in starcraft "oops forgot a detector, look at that dt punching my hive in the face."
Also by them having slightly different purposes they can utilize different maps or situations better. Lets take the federation level 2 building and the mech rx79.
The rx79 has 4 loadouts:
Each load out seems soo similar it is not even funny and when built in a large mass can be effective but lets look closer, they are the same mech with different weapons.
beamrifle:
The beamrifle is a good weapon with good range but it will target aircraft, when you are in situations that you are more concerned about certain units you do not want this function as aircraft can distract fire so a more experienced player is aware of the drawbacks this can cause. However, some times you want the range and anti-air ability.
bazooka gun:
This unit is more specialized for land target and will not attack air units. Meaning the enemy cannot distract it from it's target with aircraft. However, that also means aircraft can seriously put a hurt on him.
missiles:
This unit has moderately short range but it can do a number on aircraft. It weapons tracking ability and it low cost make it an excellent compliment to the bazooka gun. Of course the question is asked why not build the beamrifle, some times you want 2 mechs, it raises the troop count in a squad and the more troops you have the longer your attack can last.
machine gun and missile:
and finally this guy, the machinegun has great damage at close range but it sucks against air targets. So you get a unit that has a nice dps at medium range plus good anti air and the added bonus from the missiles.. after all two guns are better then one right?
However, past the swarms of similar units use some stand out units:
rx78
kampfer
goufb
if an experienced and skill micro player is controlling these guys the units are devastating. However, in the hands of a new player or an unskilled micro-er they die fast.
IN BEFORE "OH MY GOD SMOTH MENTIONED GUNDAM AGAIN!"
I am using gundam because I know the most about that project
I try to do that in gundam, feel free to look at it. Not compairing e-penors or anything but it is a good example of what you are asking about.
Thing is that subtle differences can add a lot of deep gameplay for more experienced players and for new players they can just throw the similar units at one another untill they learn the differences. When the players start getting better at X side they begin to appreciate the subtle differences as they use them to fill more specialized roles. Also, this means that you do not end up like in starcraft "oops forgot a detector, look at that dt punching my hive in the face."
Also by them having slightly different purposes they can utilize different maps or situations better. Lets take the federation level 2 building and the mech rx79.
The rx79 has 4 loadouts:
Each load out seems soo similar it is not even funny and when built in a large mass can be effective but lets look closer, they are the same mech with different weapons.
beamrifle:
The beamrifle is a good weapon with good range but it will target aircraft, when you are in situations that you are more concerned about certain units you do not want this function as aircraft can distract fire so a more experienced player is aware of the drawbacks this can cause. However, some times you want the range and anti-air ability.
bazooka gun:
This unit is more specialized for land target and will not attack air units. Meaning the enemy cannot distract it from it's target with aircraft. However, that also means aircraft can seriously put a hurt on him.
missiles:
This unit has moderately short range but it can do a number on aircraft. It weapons tracking ability and it low cost make it an excellent compliment to the bazooka gun. Of course the question is asked why not build the beamrifle, some times you want 2 mechs, it raises the troop count in a squad and the more troops you have the longer your attack can last.
machine gun and missile:
and finally this guy, the machinegun has great damage at close range but it sucks against air targets. So you get a unit that has a nice dps at medium range plus good anti air and the added bonus from the missiles.. after all two guns are better then one right?
However, past the swarms of similar units use some stand out units:
rx78
kampfer
goufb
if an experienced and skill micro player is controlling these guys the units are devastating. However, in the hands of a new player or an unskilled micro-er they die fast.
In writing a design document for a mod that my team will probably never make, I've been banging my head against the wall trying to think of a way to differentiate factions other than (very loosely) : Fast, light, intelligence warfare specialists/rapid expansionists (a la arm/zerg/red alert allies) vs the industrial powerhouse with heavier units, slower expansion, but a greater capacity to hold ground, and (often through artillery) rain dps down on x location, from a relatively secure firing point (can you say "siege tank"?).
An idea for a third faction i came up with was an idividual (for sake of resolving an immediate aesthetic i'll say mech), with very limited build capacity; say a radar point, a nanospray to heal himself, "det packs" (fast building high armour mines) and maybe if it's feasible an SC terran style nuke silo, where he needs to deisgnate a target for it himself (then get the fark away from ground zero). Balance headaches ahoy. I digress......
It seems very hard, on a conceptual level to differentiate between rts factions until you get dragged into the aesthetic and fluff. The more developed character a faction has, the more i feel i can give license for silly (imbalanced?) units.
Identical, or purely aesthetically differentiated factions fail (apart from in chess
) and lead to predictable gameplay, in my experience at least. The basic "fast and mobile" vs "tough and heavy" seems to be a good starting point, every rts gamer i have asked has a definite preferance for one.
Sorry for long semi on topic post
P.S. Fang's URC kinda contradict most of what i said, in that they utilise tech/intel ops much more than speed to get past the big ole nasty powerhouse faction, tho imo their tactics do centre around raiding/skirmishing avoiding head to head confrontations.
An idea for a third faction i came up with was an idividual (for sake of resolving an immediate aesthetic i'll say mech), with very limited build capacity; say a radar point, a nanospray to heal himself, "det packs" (fast building high armour mines) and maybe if it's feasible an SC terran style nuke silo, where he needs to deisgnate a target for it himself (then get the fark away from ground zero). Balance headaches ahoy. I digress......
It seems very hard, on a conceptual level to differentiate between rts factions until you get dragged into the aesthetic and fluff. The more developed character a faction has, the more i feel i can give license for silly (imbalanced?) units.
Identical, or purely aesthetically differentiated factions fail (apart from in chess
) and lead to predictable gameplay, in my experience at least. The basic "fast and mobile" vs "tough and heavy" seems to be a good starting point, every rts gamer i have asked has a definite preferance for one.Sorry for long semi on topic post
P.S. Fang's URC kinda contradict most of what i said, in that they utilise tech/intel ops much more than speed to get past the big ole nasty powerhouse faction, tho imo their tactics do centre around raiding/skirmishing avoiding head to head confrontations.
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
@pintle:
why not go a bit further? have a faction that has no weapons, and can only reclaim enemy units. have a faction that only has air units. have a faction with no buildings at all, where everything is mobile. a faction which can only build LOS weapons. a faction that only has no offensive units, only builders that can build turrets. a faction where all units are cloaked by default. a faction where all units are free, and economy is controlled by buildtime. othe possibilities are endless.
of course, balancing such a game would be pure horror, which is probably why nobody does stuff like that.
why not go a bit further? have a faction that has no weapons, and can only reclaim enemy units. have a faction that only has air units. have a faction with no buildings at all, where everything is mobile. a faction which can only build LOS weapons. a faction that only has no offensive units, only builders that can build turrets. a faction where all units are cloaked by default. a faction where all units are free, and economy is controlled by buildtime. othe possibilities are endless.
of course, balancing such a game would be pure horror, which is probably why nobody does stuff like that.
I've always felt that TA's factions were similar-enough that there was no real need to even have different factions - creating two of every unit is a ton of work if they're 90% the same. To me, the "strategic options" approach means creating more work for yourself for very little gain. Either make the factions very, very different, or don't bother having factions.
Myself and Daywalker had a fun discussion about these sort of things and came up with a load of different general idea's for different races which could be used in a new mod. Some of the aspects in this quote are very similar to what we were discussing, and in some cases identical.Boirunner wrote:
why not go a bit further? have a faction that has no weapons, and can only reclaim enemy units. have a faction that only has air units. have a faction with no buildings at all, where everything is mobile. a faction which can only build LOS weapons. a faction that only has no offensive units, only builders that can build turrets. a faction where all units are cloaked by default. a faction where all units are free, and economy is controlled by buildtime. othe possibilities are endless.
These concepts are very interesting to theorise about and imagine how they could work, and I even wrote up a load of the ideas into a word document that I still have on my PC.
Thing is, if you were to make a mod which incorporates even a few of these concepts, it would take a whole shitload of work and time to pull anything remotely worth playable out of the bag. Although, if someone wants to take a project as original as this on, I'd be VERY interested in being involved in the idea's and helping through the process.
Now I finally have photoshop too, maybe I could even texture if I can get as good as I was a few years ago.
This is a pretty cool article about balance
http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-bala ... e/#more-52
For anyone (everyone?) who isn't going to read it, its general idea is you can make things as zany and over the top as long as the base of the game features enough safeguards that every player has access to to stop anything becoming unbalanced.
http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-bala ... e/#more-52
For anyone (everyone?) who isn't going to read it, its general idea is you can make things as zany and over the top as long as the base of the game features enough safeguards that every player has access to to stop anything becoming unbalanced.
Caydr, the master of mass-deception and trickery, also knew that diversity would win, and just started this poll to prove it, so that the changes he has already made will look justified ^^
Ahh, I should be a politician.
Anyways, I'm removing the vehicle tech tree from Arm, they're not the sort of thing they should use.
(now I say something completely outrageous so that later on, I can say that I found a compromise between my ridiculous plan and what the masses wanted, making myself appear open-minded and reasonable)
Ahh, I should be a politician.
Anyways, I'm removing the vehicle tech tree from Arm, they're not the sort of thing they should use.
(now I say something completely outrageous so that later on, I can say that I found a compromise between my ridiculous plan and what the masses wanted, making myself appear open-minded and reasonable)
is that supposed to be patronising?Boirunner wrote:@pintle:
why not go a bit further? have a faction that has no weapons, and can only reclaim enemy units. have a faction that only has air units. have a faction with no buildings at all, where everything is mobile. a faction which can only build LOS weapons. a faction that only has no offensive units, only builders that can build turrets. a faction where all units are cloaked by default. a faction where all units are free, and economy is controlled by buildtime. othe possibilities are endless.
of course, balancing such a game would be pure horror, which is probably why nobody does stuff like that.
kk sorry to be agressive I held off posting any semblance of a mod concept for a _long_ time for fears of "learn to script nub" style flames, guess im being overly defensive
e:spelling correction
I held off posting any semblance of a mod concept for a _long_ time for fears of "learn to script nub" style flames, guess im being overly defensivee:spelling correction
Last edited by pintle on 17 May 2007, 13:22, edited 1 time in total.