TA Derivative Balancing Theory, Part Deux

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 16:46

5k Health was the AA standard for health, and if you're looking at Comms as the Hero class units that they are, then it's not unreasonable. It's really a measure of how epic you want your games to be - increasing Comm Health increases average overall game duration.

If Comm pushing's really that annoying, then make Comms untransportable by Atlases and lower their speed. 20% slower works well enough. Make them bigger while you're at it, and give them a Krogoth stomp attack or something for funnies. (Do Orcones have that yet, btw? Didn't early on while Krogoths did.)

In case no one's asked about those fancy Geforce only shield effects that I with my ATI card can't see, is anyone working on those? I'm not talking red, blue, blah - floating clouds or something, as per SupCom.

Worth pointing out again is that CA has far too many units for the balancing approach being taken - OTA was gold with less than half as many. Having a LLT, a Beamer, a HLLT, a Dragon Claw, a Dragon Maw, a HLT, and whatever crazy anti-spam units that've been added (haven't checked that all are still there, but the overall point carries even if this specific illustration is flawed - still unwilling to invest serious time in it until it's "Complete.") is nice for variety's sake, but if they're not cost-appropriately scaled then some of them are just wasted space.

Why have all "Annihilation" games become oxymorons, btw? "Absolute" Annihilation is obviously far from absolute, "Balanced" Annihilation is anything but balanced, "Complete" Annihilation is anything but complete, and "XTA" is anything but Xtreme. At least my mod has the humility to represent itself as it actually is. ~~

Noruas · Post by **Noruas** » 19 Nov 2007, 18:06

Some are most true you say, but the last paragraph wasn't necessarily to say.

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 18:42

Argue with specifics or be relegated to the long list of those with baseless opinions. =)

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 19 Nov 2007, 18:43

Balance is subjective.

The creators call it balanced annihilation because they are striving for the balance that they want.

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 18:48

Perhaps the difficulty is that no one's defined the terms being used.

"11. (mathematics chemistry) equality of elements in equation: a state in which the elements of a mathematical or chemical equation are equal on both sides."

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18616 ... lance.html

Balance is objective because it can be measured with a finite number of variables that interrelate by measurable means.

There seems to be some confusion about this relating to a particular style of gameplay, pace, or methodology for assigning weights to values.

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 19 Nov 2007, 18:52

Equal on both sides? It is impossible in a 3D engine, with any kinds of random variables. There is no possible way to achieve perfect balance. Perfect is a loaded word, it does not exist, such as balance doesn't either. There is no such thing as balance. It is all relative.

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 19 Nov 2007, 18:59

Snipawolf wrote:There is no such thing as balance. It is all relative.

Eh, I disagree. Perfect balance may not be achievable with reasonable amounts of effort, but that doesn't mean all balance is relative. Perhaps I'm being overly empirical, but we have access to the source code. It is theoretically possible to derive perfect balance, it's just so much work that people are (reasonably, imo) not inclined to do it.

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:02

Even as Tired says, balance is trying to equal the sides. It is not in vain, it makes the gameplay fair and equal. By balance, I used Tired's definition, perfect equality on both sides.

It is theoretically possible to derive perfect balance.

If it was, why haven't any large game developing companies done it?

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:03

Once again, you fail to comprehend the terminology. In this physical universe, there is no such thing as a truly "random" variable - merely those that follow predictable algorithims that rely upon ignorance on the part of the interpreting party as to the state of progression of the formula.

Following the definition of the term offered, one could state that a unit had a relative Speed of 50% and a relative Health of 250%, multiply them together for 125%, and multiply 1.25 * unit cost. You don't seem to understand that "fun factor" or "desirability" have nothing to do with "balance," said being a clinical term referring to the application of a process. You're arguing over different words, thus the defining of terms.

Perfect "balance" is easy. Perfect "gameplay," being subjective, is not.

Zpock · Post by **Zpock** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:08

lol statistics > randomness

but anyway it's not so simple as having everything equal I think. I would agree you could call the hard part to get right purely "gameplay" and "balance" just the means to achieve that tough.

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:11

Balance only impacts gameplay by introducing consistency.

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:14

In this physical universe, there is no such thing as a truly "random" variable

Heh heh. This may be true, however, you can't add a single value to balance each different action, and each different reaction.

Following the definition of the term offered, one could state that a unit had a relative Speed of 50% and a relative Health of 250%, multiply them together for 125%, and multiply 1.25 * unit cost. You don't seem to understand that "fun factor" or "desirability" have nothing to do with "balance," said being a clinical term referring to the application of a process. You're arguing over different words, thus the defining of terms.

So, in other words, balance is a made up algorithim for determining statistics? Heh. Fun and Desirability have nothing to do with the term balance, even you know and have said that. They can't because they would need algorithims and equations to find them as well, huh? Perhaps they are just different for each person. Yes, perhaps, you just can't do some things with mathematics.

Perfect "balance" is easy. Perfect "gameplay," being subjective, is not.

Gameplay includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems. Perhaps you should go and check some more definition sites. Gameplay is the experiences during interaction.

Post by **trepan** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:19

In the default game mode, you win by achieving the
"Complete Annihilation" of your opponent(s).

(no such claim can be made of Balanced Annihilation

)

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:24

I refuse to explain the double entendre of the word "complete" to a Canadian, or anyone else who was born to English as a first language!

Balance only impacts gameplay by introducing consistency.

Snipa, one would suggest that you select the term "gameplay" for further monologues.

Post by **trepan** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:29

I recognize the ambiguity inherent in the name, but you seem
to have forgotten its origin (which most certainly lies closer to
my interpretation than yours). You'll have to find some other way
to bash CA and promote your mod.

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:34

Saying that you recognize the ambiguity of the word makes me sad, as it should be a universally safe assumption that you do. My intepretation's simply funnier.

As for promotion, nonsense. You and those like you have just given me a page out of the CA thread to promote my mod with, and all within the pretext of explaining simple concepts to people who _can't_ _seem_ _to track them_.

I'm quite pleased. 0o

Post by **trepan** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:41

You implied that it needed to be explained:
"refuse to explain the double entendre of the word "complete" ..."

I pointed out that it was already understood.

If it makes you sad to have folks tell you that you need not
explain things to them, then maybe you have self-importance issues.

P.S. This will all probably be split from this thread

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:45

Thank you for tracing out the obvious, trep. Of course you already understood. Of course I was attacking a straw man of your argument. That's what makes it funny!

I don't like explaining humor to Canadians, either.

R.P.S. Feel free to split off the quote about balance only impacting gameplay through consistency, and delete the rest. Only way to have a message understood around here is to keep it simple, and repeat.

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:46

Keep it simple, and repeat.

Tired · Post by **Tired** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:54

R.P.S. Feel free to split off the quote about balance only impacting gameplay through consistency, and delete the rest. Only way to have a message understood around here is to keep it simple, and repeat.

Failure to follow simple instructions. =.=

Ya know, it's no surprise that so many of you think that I'm a jerk. You're just too dumb to follow my of humor. =)

Spring RTS Engine

TA Derivative Balancing Theory, Part Deux

TA Derivative Balancing Theory, Part Deux