ok...
i want to request the next to the database masters here.
Want to know the ammount of metal and energy that takes the hole buildtree of both arm and core in xta.
that is.
Starting with commander, how much metal do i need to build one of all structures and units in the buildtree.
Is that possible to calculate? please? oh, and exclude the ganthry and krogg.
I have the impression that arm is "cheaper" .. in both metal and energy.. what makes it more efficient.
TIA.
Balance by Design
Moderator: Moderators
-
FoeOfTheBee
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 12 May 2005, 18:26
After having played some long Xect Vs. Mynn games, I'm still pretty pleased with the balance. The formulas are different than the ones I originally had. I tweaked them to get unit statistics similar to XTA.
Things I intend to do for the next equations:
1. Have weapon range reduce MaxDamage ant perhaps MaxVelocity.
2. Have weapon fire rate decrease speed.
3. Have a structures energy or metal production decrease MaxDamage.
Things I intend to do for the next equations:
1. Have weapon range reduce MaxDamage ant perhaps MaxVelocity.
2. Have weapon fire rate decrease speed.
3. Have a structures energy or metal production decrease MaxDamage.
-
FoeOfTheBee
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 12 May 2005, 18:26
Definitly. Almost all the formulas use exponential values already to make more expensive units a better use of resources.Weaver wrote:Would you consider using range squared, making it proportional to area of cover?
My point being that 10% greater range is better than 10% more useful, usually.
For range, I'm thinking Maxdamage-(pi*r^2)*(some constant). Basing its effect only on the radius might make sense though, because a unit can generally only attack ony point at a time within its weapon radius. I'll play around with the values, and try to get long range units similar in strength and speed to XTA long range units.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
For a range multiplier, use the area the weapon can target. The area can be calculated has:
Pi x Radius^2
(as you seemed to be doing)
# But also, consider how much of that area the weapon can really take advantage of. Cause in most maps, a weapon can't fire to all places it's range allows because there are hill in the way or other units.
So, for a horizontal weapon (lasers, missiles, non-plane-EMGs, lighnings), i would add a decreasing modifier of something like 0.7 to the range multiplier, something like 0.9 to balistic weapons and 1 to vertical missiles (Merls, nukes, etc).
Laser turrets, usually have they're firing point much higher (Llts, Hlts, Annihilators, Doomsdays), allowing them to fire over other units and small hills, so i would add them a decreasing modifier of 0.75~0.8 instead of 0.7 to account for the extra usefullness of they're firing radius.
# Then, you have the weapon's ability to hit a target. Fast moving weapons are better and targeting weapons are even better.
Cannon shots and Rocko shots: A modifier of 1 (because they're slow)
Vertical missiles: A modifier of 0.8 (they're even slower)
Laser/Lightnings: A modifier of 1.6 (considering they can't target fast planes)
Guided missiles: A modifier of 2.2
# Then, you have other decreasing modifiers, like energy consumption per shot. Maybe something like EnergyPerShot x Value of Energy. But for that, you would have to have defined how much each point of Energy is worth.
Of course the modifier values were, somewhat, made up in the moment so you should give them a little more thought.
DamagePerSecond * AreaOfEffect * WeaponHittability * FiringCosts
Pi x Radius^2
(as you seemed to be doing)
# But also, consider how much of that area the weapon can really take advantage of. Cause in most maps, a weapon can't fire to all places it's range allows because there are hill in the way or other units.
So, for a horizontal weapon (lasers, missiles, non-plane-EMGs, lighnings), i would add a decreasing modifier of something like 0.7 to the range multiplier, something like 0.9 to balistic weapons and 1 to vertical missiles (Merls, nukes, etc).
Laser turrets, usually have they're firing point much higher (Llts, Hlts, Annihilators, Doomsdays), allowing them to fire over other units and small hills, so i would add them a decreasing modifier of 0.75~0.8 instead of 0.7 to account for the extra usefullness of they're firing radius.
# Then, you have the weapon's ability to hit a target. Fast moving weapons are better and targeting weapons are even better.
Cannon shots and Rocko shots: A modifier of 1 (because they're slow)
Vertical missiles: A modifier of 0.8 (they're even slower)
Laser/Lightnings: A modifier of 1.6 (considering they can't target fast planes)
Guided missiles: A modifier of 2.2
# Then, you have other decreasing modifiers, like energy consumption per shot. Maybe something like EnergyPerShot x Value of Energy. But for that, you would have to have defined how much each point of Energy is worth.
Of course the modifier values were, somewhat, made up in the moment so you should give them a little more thought.
DamagePerSecond * AreaOfEffect * WeaponHittability * FiringCosts
-
FoeOfTheBee
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 12 May 2005, 18:26
I've been meaning to write this post for a while explaining some of the theory behind balance, and why I will take some things into account and not others.
First, several people have mentioned that there many, many characteristics that affect a units values such as turning rate, acceleration rate, and size. In balancing by formula, and am absolutely NOT trying to take all unit characteristics into account. Ifa all characteristics were taken into account completely and balanced equally, any unit would be equally as effective as any other unit. Also it would be impractical.
My goal is simpler. I just want balance to ensure that units that cost more resources are more effecti, in broad terms, that units that have a lesser resource cost, and that the increases in effectiveness make sense and be intuitive. Paulada mentiond balancinf only certain key vales in an earlier post in this thread, and thats what I'm getting at.
The mod's balance will make sene and be intuitive to a beginner, but to really master the game, you will have to learn by experience about the unit characteristics that are not included in the formula, such as turn rate, maxslope, and the size of the model.
First, several people have mentioned that there many, many characteristics that affect a units values such as turning rate, acceleration rate, and size. In balancing by formula, and am absolutely NOT trying to take all unit characteristics into account. Ifa all characteristics were taken into account completely and balanced equally, any unit would be equally as effective as any other unit. Also it would be impractical.
My goal is simpler. I just want balance to ensure that units that cost more resources are more effecti, in broad terms, that units that have a lesser resource cost, and that the increases in effectiveness make sense and be intuitive. Paulada mentiond balancinf only certain key vales in an earlier post in this thread, and thats what I'm getting at.
The mod's balance will make sene and be intuitive to a beginner, but to really master the game, you will have to learn by experience about the unit characteristics that are not included in the formula, such as turn rate, maxslope, and the size of the model.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07