Flat Balancing- Putting the good bits at the start

[Pressure Line]

I have read all the the posts in this thread, all the way through. Except for Gota's. Dude, learn how to type properly with punctuation and correct spelling. Its impossible to read and I'm guessing most other ppl wont read a huge post that's so badly formatted/written.

Considering his previous efforts its actually a readable post. Its just a touch too rambly for my tastes.

[Saktoth]

One problem with flat balancing is that some things just would be overpowered in the early game.

Sounds like you solved your problem without a tech tree. In fact, i cant think of any of your games that use a tech tree. CA uses an early fork down several paths via fac choice, in most of your games its all-units-all-the-time.

In KP, Spam units and Special units work on almost an entirely different currency. As the game progresses, special units form less and less of your production. If flows could be produced from Sockets, they'd probably be OP for the entire game.

If a unit is really useful early on, but of limited use later, why are you giving it to the player later? Why not tone it down to the point it is balanced and give it to him when he can do something with it. There are a lot of units like that in BA, units that would be really useful if they just appeared earlier, when you could use them- The Juno and Resbots now actually see a bit of use when before they were as rare as hens teeth.

Also teching creates a point of obsoletion for units, a player building up huge armies of T1 stuff risks having his units get obsoleted if his enemies produce less and tech more but of course they are vulnerable from it so he still has a chance to use his force to decide the game.

Oh, right, you're saying thats a good thing. Well, you can do this with an RPS counter system. Player A makes 100 Peewees, Player B makes 10 Warriors, and obsoletes all those peewees.

Only its fluid and can go back and forth- if the enemy stops making warriors (Or you build something to counter them), the peewees are useful again. Its based on player interaction, circles of countering units, not on a linear march up a ladder.

I will sit down and read Gota's illegible piece of... thing, because i assume he read mine so ill do him the courtesy.

Firstly, that stuff you say at the start is obvious to anyone.

do not justify the removel of units ATM

Redundancy justifies the removal of units. When removing an existing unit you must ask the question 'Would i add this unit, if it were not there?'. 400 units is far too many, OTA had less than 200 and even it was massive. Most RTS's have even less.

Porc can be made useful and skillfull and appropriate at some times...

Otherwise we wouldnt have static defense.

If you have to mix more units you lose the ability to move forces in some ways you could without such mixture cause u had more time to micro..like dividing your forces of same unit type to flank of foll ur foe..

Lern2play. Seriously, microing several different units isnt that hard.

IN ca you are punished most for not choosing the correct set of units in a small time zone while in ba u are punished harder for making bad macro descisions like not switching from weasel to gator at a much bigger time frame...

So then, why does BA have 400 units? In BA you are punished more, because units become redundant. In CA they have a niche for a lot longer and can come back into use.

I admit that the 1-unit-spam of BA offers a different and valid gameplay experience. But you could prettymuch make that game with 10 or less units. Its not just a matter of 'CA is what you use, BA is how you use it'. In CA, because the units have different roles and purposes, how you use a unit is incredibly important. Positioning your units appropriately, using them in the right places, against the right units, at the right time, in the right way, is as important as which units you pick. Because there are more units with more diverse roles useful at one time, there are even more and more diverse ways to use them well.

[[Krogoth86]]

IN ca you are punished most for not choosing the correct set of units in a small time zone while in ba u are punished harder for making bad macro descisions like not switching from weasel to gator at a much bigger time frame...

So then, why does BA have 400 units? In BA you are punished more, because units become redundant. In CA they have a niche for a lot longer and can come back into use.

I admit that the 1-unit-spam of BA offers a different and valid gameplay experience. But you could prettymuch make that game with 10 or less units. Its not just a matter of 'CA is what you use, BA is how you use it'. In CA, because the units have different roles and purposes, how you use a unit is incredibly important. Positioning your units appropriately, using them in the right places, against the right units, at the right time, in the right way, is as important as which units you pick.

Well I think you were talking about balance concepts and so you shouldn't use BA (or even CA) as perfect examples for specific realisations of one concept. So yeah - BA makes the flash spam a pretty effective method but that doesn't mean it's like that for all the multi-level systems. I'll use MA again - try to do the flash spam there and see them utterly fail against Antispam turrets for example (although just as in BA mines might do the job too and I've to admit that their stats are less "OP" in MA). With that said stupid one unit spam will fail and you have to use other tactics to win like in this example use artillery, air, outrange him with guardians or what else comes to your mind...

I also don't think micro management should be a big topic here. It imo has nothing to do with a flat or multi-level tree but is about the role and design of specific units and so is present in games like BA as well as CA (although with stronger RPG elements like experienced "hero units" it might be a bit more important in CA although this still has no effect on the tech-tree topic)...

Because there are more units with more diverse roles useful at one time, there are even more and more diverse ways to use them well.

Well in my opinion this is no argument for directly comparing flat vs. multi-level tech-trees. That concept of having so much different roles ends up in a more or less complicated rock, paper, scissor concept as one of the unusual concepts of OTA at its time imo was that this wasn't really applied (at least not to an extreme extent). So the main focus wasn't about "this unit has these strengths and those weaknesses and so is good against these and bad against those units" and applying this in a complicated manner with lots of nuances but it rather was about providing some very rough general roles like scout, skirmisher, artillery, AA and so on. You of course have a bit of that rock, paper, scissor concept like a skirmisher killing an artilery in close combat but you didn't have huge changes between a T1 and T2 artillery for example - they just were better versions of the same class and I think that's a big difference between the way BA went and the way CA obviously will go and that is assigning units to classes in contrast to giving a unit a specific role...

That's why I said this imo is no argument to compare the two concepts. As there are no real "higher levels" in CA in terms of how they are done in OTA-like games you just won't have the very same unit just as a better version in CA just as you won't have a unit with no increased strength or cost efficency at a higher level in OTA-like games because both would kinda fuck up the concept. That's why you can't really use a "this is missing in mods like BA" because well yeah it does but this is not something you can rate as "better" (it might just be more like your taste) as it's just different from the other concept but nothing you can do a generic rating on...

[smoth]

Jesus Christ, I read the first post partially but it goes round and round. Can someone give me a Tl;DR for this thread.

[Saktoth]

Well I think you were talking about balance concepts and so you shouldn't use BA (or even CA) as perfect examples for specific realisations of one concept.

I was talking to Gota. Gota was using BA as an example. It is he i quoted.

experienced "hero units" it might be a bit more important in CA although this still has no effect on the tech-tree topic)...

BA has XP too, we just have a few morphs, 90% of the time people dont even morph anyway, its not a large mechanic.

that is assigning units to classes in contrast to giving a unit a specific role...

Are you familiar with CA at all? We have broad classes with a general role, but each unit is a variation within that class. Skirmisher, Riot, Raider, Artillery, Assault, etc. Most units slot into one of those roles. RPS just means X is better than Y at Z, or X beats Y, or such. AA (Rock) beating Air (Scissors) which beats not-AA (Paper) which beats AA (Rock) is classic hard-counter 3-piece circular RPS.

Jesus Christ, I read the first post partially but it goes round and round. Can someone give me a Tl;DR for this thread.

Saktoth: The majority of a games content and complexity should be available in the part of the game that gets played the most. Options should branch early on, enlarging the possibility space of a game. Linear, restricted tech trees arent necessary to an RTS. Dont save cool stuff, toys, or most of the game content up for the end parts that are never seen.
Pxtl, other people: You dont even need a tech tree, the game naturally progresses and escalates if you give the player a large suite of options and let them pick the appropriate ones, tech trees are aritificial.
Krogoth: I like to spend the early parts of the game saving up for the later stuff as a reward. I enjoy competitive singleplayer.
WZ: Tech trees make it easier for noobs because it locks out certain units that wouldnt be useful/accessible early on anyway.
det: OTA doesnt even really have much of a tech tree, you can just reclaim stuff, you only need one factory at a time and there is only one 'step' up the tree in the whole game (t1 to t2). Removing the tree entirely is the next logical step.
KDR: Teching helps balance OP stuff because you can stick it in a factory that comes along late enough in the game when the unit is no longer so useful. Teching might move options from the game to later, but teching itself is an option and a part of game complexity.
Gota: There is plenty of gameplay and complexity in using just one unit type at a time. Having more than 1 unit at a time just makes it too complicated.

[Tired]

Teching to unlock options is done in Command & Conquer, and it only gives the player extra buttons to click on when they're bored. Unlocking options is not a reason for tiered levels.

Teching to provide a sense of progression gets old damned fast, as it limits player starting options. A sense of progression is not a reason for tiered levels.

Teching to limit options to define overall styles into particular archetypes, each of which holds certain and often unique strengths and weaknesses, provides a sense of rationality to a game, and defines strategy (whereas tactics are defined by individual unit attributes). Strategy IS a reason for tiered levels.

Teching to create a temporary vulnerability, observable in a noticeable lack of firepower during construction, in exchange for greater long-term exponential growth provides a window of opportunity for a slower techer to overwhelm the faster, or bomb the faster techer's factory, effectively eliminating a large chunk of early resources in one strong tactical play, provides a sense of risk. Risk on a strategic level, which very largely defines the interaction between strategy and tactics, is VERY VERY MUCH a reason for tiered levels.

What drew most of us to Total Annihilation was an almost unique level of complex tactics and complex strategies that interrelated in real time, and a sense of risk - chances taken for big rewards, or crushing defeats.

You're talking about removing two of the top elements of Spring as a RTS. At least understand what it is you'd be removing.

[Gota]

Saktoth i do not need to learn how to play..most people in the community cannot even graps and execute ba's unit maneuvers.
That is why by forcing people to mix units you create random situations because people just queue different units in hope that they will have enough of a certain type to counter what their enemy is making.It makes the game more random.
And if you call my post a piece of shit than i can tell you right now that your entire post was just one big ego trip as seen from you last comment where you asked people to start using your superior game design structure.So give me a fucking break..you didnt discover america nor make some revolutionary claims or came up with revolutionary solutions.

and ididnt say making one unit spam gameplay is better and the only managable option. I said that if u force a player to micro more on account of the bigger veriety of units he has to create you must lessen the micro in other parts,namely in speed or the avarage unit numbers that are fighting on the battlefield.Also,the more you center your game around mico you will obviously lose macro depth of both unit managment and movement and the grand strategic descisions a player has.

[Machiosabre]

my contribution:
I don't care if T1 units are relevant in late game.
Teching to get a set of new units is awesome.

[Licho]

Tired:
You dont need a "tree" to give player strategic choices between immediate combat power and larger economy.

You can build fusion or spam flashes. Thats a choice. First makes you temporarily more vulnerable for greater benefit in the future.

You dont need locked up units and economy to achieve that.
Besides the "lock" is not really working since you can reclaim your T2 lab in BA.

Machio:
If you choose to build expensive big unit instead of spamming more small t1, it gives you same "feeling" of reward upon completion.

[[Krogoth86]]

Are you familiar with CA at all? We have broad classes with a general role, but each unit is a variation within that class. Skirmisher, Riot, Raider, Artillery, Assault, etc. Most units slot into one of those roles.

Sure it has but the difference lies in the weighting. Just like I said that the OTA principle still has a bit of the rock, paper, scissors logic CA of course also has classes (as it would be kinda hard to get rid of both concepts) but the weightings is flipped imo:

As you said you want each unit to have a specific role and if I understood you right you for example want the Peewee to be a bit different from let's say a Flash as it should not be basically the same unit with some altered dps and costs values and pretty identical stats otherwise. You pay much more attention to the individual role while in OTA it's imo just about assigning roles and that's pretty much it in the grand scale (which also is enough as you've numerous levels of them)...

That's how I meant that...

Saktoth: The majority of a games content and complexity should be available in the part of the game that gets played the most. Options should branch early on, enlarging the possibility space of a game. Linear, restricted tech trees arent necessary to an RTS. Dont save cool stuff, toys, or most of the game content up for the end parts that are never seen.

If have to both agree and disagree on what I made bold in that quote. I 100% agree with you that linear tech trees aren't necessary to an RTS. On the other side I disagree which what imo is implied by this and that's a change towards "RTS don't need linear tech trees" (dunno if you really meant it that way but that's a bit of a subtone I perceive here). Imo both flat and linear tress are 100% valid and just are different approaches with their very own pros and cons. I just think you can't distinguish between them in terms of better and worse apart from arguing over your personal taste...

Concerning that "don't save up cool stuff for the end" - well...
I'm a bit torn about this one. I guess we both agree that certain units just have to show up lategame because - well a Krogoth after 5 minutes would suck imo. I also think that the way BA for example handles its T3 this comment might be true too as you rarely see T3 in usual games and so it's a bit of a waste. On the other side this imo belongs to the "reward" part of the game i.e. you'll only experience a player fighting back at the same level if you have found someone with about the same skills as yourself giving you an exciting match and at the same time tests your very own skills because of the changes occuring with each increasing level you have to deal with...

So in the end I'd say do a compromise between sparing cool stuff for the end but don't overdo it and make entire tech levels like unreachable in usual matches...

[Forboding Angel]

This topic makes my head hurt

Here is the deal:

You can choose an ota style of teching that makes lv1 units mostly irrelevant in the late game

You can lump everything into one, which alleviates the relevancy problem a little bit.

You can do what I do and use a sideways tech tree (that is to say The higher level fac doesn't produce omgwtfpwn units, just units that excel at what they are designed to do and little else, making it essential to still be using the regular units.)

In the end, not one way is better than the other. I personally dislike the ota style, but it did what it was designed to do (In ota... BA is just a mess and should not even be considered in this aspect). Lumping everything into one poses it's own problems in the form of scalability and presumed depth. I even have issues with the path that I have chosen, but I have less issues with my particular path than any of the other options available, and in fact, this thread gave me an idea as to who I might be able to have the best of all worlds

tl;dr, No one is specifically right or wrong. A different design decision is a different design decision and that's pretty much end of story.

[Tired]

Licho, way to have not the tiniest clue in the world. Holy crap, I'm glad you don't play BA.

[Licho]

Oh sorry, I really did expect you to actually say something on topic, stupid me

[Saktoth]

I dont think im revolutionizing game design here, other people have made games along similar lines. If i pontificate, it is just my style, you'll have to forgive me.

I think a tiered tech tree can be done well, especially if its more incremental (AoE, *craft). I dont think OTA's two-tier tree is terribly interesting. I am merely expounding on the many good reasons not to have tiers, and the benefits of a different system.

I think there are several spring mods that suffer from a dearth of early options and strategies, that then open up later one once those strategies no longer really have any significance to the play (Often once the game is decided and you just need something with a lot of firepower to end it). I think this is often done unthinkingly, by convention. BA does this- a lot of the really interesting and unique BA units are the least used because they come so late, rather than because they arent any good. I dont mean Krogoths, here, Krogoths arent very interesting. Im not really targeting BA here, its not helpful to give advice to the BA team, they certainly arent going to change it, but it makes a good example and nobody gets offended (Except Gota) if i use it in my example.

This could be said to be a pace issue the phase of the game when these units matter isnt lasting long enough. But then you just drag the game out so players can get to the good part, so why not just put them earlier?

Licho, way to have not the tiniest clue in the world. Holy crap, I'm glad you don't play BA.

Reasonable post, followed by a unnecessary flame. Thats Tired for you.

Licho summed it up pretty well, but he didnt mention one thing (Though i can see why, ive only said it half a dozen times)- CA still has labs. That still offers a target to be destroyed, that still offers a limited set of stylistically matched units. It just doesnt limit which one you can start with, but you can only start with one set.

CA sort of does have a tech tree, it just branches once, at the start. The number of possible strategies a player can play forks early (and keeps forking, as he can add more, of any labs- you can still 'get a new set of units' and since each lab is really unique this does matter), thats really my point. Whether you use a tiered system or not there should be a wide range of strategic options available to the player at the start of the game, when it really matters.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Well, I do think it is also possible to hand a user too many options. Firstly from a production point of view - you risk dividing your time between balancing so many options that you never really get to focus and streamline on the solid mechanics that could be developed with a more limited tool set.

Also, from a users point of view, apart from the pick-up-and-play issues that I raised earlier, you create a potentially extremely steep learning curve, simply because for a player to learn all there is to learn before they can start refining and experimenting.

I think it is fallacious to assume that by adding extra content you are by inference adding extra depth. This works to an extent, of course - but not indefinitely. I think the Total War series is a good example of this - while Medieval (I&II) and Rome added a buttload more unit types to the design, they did not increase the depth. If anything they reduced it because there were so many new unit types that people never really worked out the complex interrelations between all the units (it was impossible - instead of having a total of 12 troop types, you had something like 100 troop types). People spent more time working out what units were good for what, and less time working out how to use those units the best to overcome their enemy. It meant that most battles were decided based on what you brought to the table rather then how and where you used what you brought.
By a similar example, you could make every piece on the chessboard different, with a different ability, and make it all balanced and fair - but I would argue whether you are really adding depth to the game, rather then just complexity.

Just as as I said having tech levels allows you to craft your game a certain way, I think limiting tech options equally allows you to craft your game without limiting depth and strategic interest.

I would say that most of the depth in your game comes through your overriding design. The units that enact that design certainly impact it, but I think that the essential design is still the overarching driver of depth. Therefore, throwing lots of units and options at a design does not necessarily increase depth - while it's unlikely to specifically reduce depth, it can make that depth harder for players to plume, to comprehend and grapple with, and ultimately reduce the amount of interaction they have with the game design, and with each other.

Also, as a seperate argument, I think that one of the successes of TA, SupCom, and many Spring mods (and hopefully IW) is it's expandability.

If you play IW on a small map, you may find the game never gets past the infantry stage. On a medium map the game might revolve around who risks investing in vehicles first, and how they employ those vehicles to gain the jump on their opponent. A large map might see scores of vehicles being fielded by both sides and huge multifaceted battles.

I don't think you can claim one part as being 'better' then other parts. Some people may like the huge battles with more strategic 'heaping' of forces rather then detailed tactical control - they can play big maps. Some people may prefer the tight tactical control that results from small maps. A good game design with a well planned tree can allow this all from a single game design - and can allow dynamic and fluid switches between these different scales in the same game, not just in different games on different maps.

While this would be possible with a flat build tree, I believe such an expanded dynamic concept really lends itself to a branching tree design.

[Gota]

Well in SA you get to use most of the units in most games...even 1v1s..
Ba is T1 centralized...just less fuss that way...

[Zpock]

Are you suggesting a completly flat tech tree is better then one that forks at the beginning but also continues and has later subforks? I agree that a nonforking or only later forking techtree sucks.

[Warlord Zsinj]

I'm not 'against' flat balancing as such, I just think that it is not inherently superior to a branching tree design, just a different design with different intentions. I think that opting for a branching tree is not necessarily because of a lack of innovation but because of a specific and conscious decision. I also think that the fact that many people use branching tree designs is not necessarily because of a 'sheep' instinct, but because it is a very successful model with clear advantages.

[Snipawolf]

If you want all of the units to be used, do what most modern strategy games do.

Cut units down to like 25 or less per side.

[Tired]

Licho: "stupid me "

That's right. =)

"Reasonable post, followed by a unnecessary flame. Thats Tired for you."

And that's not a flame? Moron. ~~

When're you all going to realize that I control you the instant you try to play my game? Oh, cool - that applies to Spring too; the double entendre~