hehehe
Well, I am still convinced that most RTS haven''t passed the stage of Rock Paper Scissors.
For Chess, I meant no randomness in the sense, no stats, no dice rolls, etc.
But I also meant that everymove ou make IS meaningful. The first pawn you move IS meningful. If you start Queen side or King side, means that you''ll uncover your King, leaving it unguarded later, or you uncover your Queen, that will thus be able to become active much faster. Generally speaking, moving any other pawn that the two at the center is useless. There are some very good articles and tutorials on the Net about all this.
ragonastick : I agree with you that more characteristics isn''t not a proper solution, nor the ONE solution. I was just pointing out that with fewer stats, they become much more meaningful, which make it very dangerous to play with thoses stats without unbalancing the whole game. I won''t repost my previous message, but just to say that I still believe there should be more stats before you introduce randomness in a system.
As for the AI outthiking the player, yes, it''s an issue. But if you do your designer job well, by the time the player is out of the tutorials, he should know the defining stats of the vehicles, which helps him make choices, experiments, etc.
Things like knowing that there are three types of units : infantry, cavalry, artillery. Three battle fields : air, land, water. BAsic weaknesses and strenghts of each types, and so on and so forth.
If you take all the learning experience of the player for the sake of simplicity and fun ... OK it''s a pure design choice, but my point is that it''s not a god thing. In a good game, the weakest of units should still be used when you have reached the highest levels of development and technology. I mean, wars are still waged with soldiers, ain''t they ?
youpla :-P
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Random Calculations in Combat
Author
It''s funny but i''ve actually made a combat engine (complete) that was based completely off the rock, paper and scissors model. This is how it worked (skeleton):
There was 5 technologies:
1. Photon
2. Hydrogen
3. Electon
4. Carbon
5. Silicon
They created a ring of power, each one balanced against each other. If you want me to fill in the blanks here i shall. But there was a catch to the combat system that made it work so well. Which goes as follows:
Each player has (starts with) in the game 100,000 credits to make units with. But before the game starts they have to by one or more of the technologies mentioned above (Photon etc). Each technology cost 20,000 just to have use of it in-game. So here''s how this catch worked with the game logic... The more technologies you wanted to have use of in the game then the less units you would be able to construct. So you could go for brute power or versitility or a little of both. Completely rock, paper, scissor all over again but as i said it''s just a skeleton.
I''ve haven''t test played the combat engine yet but i think it would be reasonably balanced?!
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
There was 5 technologies:
1. Photon
2. Hydrogen
3. Electon
4. Carbon
5. Silicon
They created a ring of power, each one balanced against each other. If you want me to fill in the blanks here i shall. But there was a catch to the combat system that made it work so well. Which goes as follows:
Each player has (starts with) in the game 100,000 credits to make units with. But before the game starts they have to by one or more of the technologies mentioned above (Photon etc). Each technology cost 20,000 just to have use of it in-game. So here''s how this catch worked with the game logic... The more technologies you wanted to have use of in the game then the less units you would be able to construct. So you could go for brute power or versitility or a little of both. Completely rock, paper, scissor all over again but as i said it''s just a skeleton.
I''ve haven''t test played the combat engine yet but i think it would be reasonably balanced?!
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
It sounds reasonable, should be balanced (in theory), as long as you make sure that brute force is equal to versatility and they all have corresponding values inbetween.
I would be interested in seeing this combat system in full force
-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)
Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)
I would be interested in seeing this combat system in full force
-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)
Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)
Author
quote: Original post by dwarfsoft
It sounds reasonable, should be balanced (in theory), as long as you make sure that brute force is equal to versatility and they all have corresponding values inbetween.
I would be interested in seeing this combat system in full force
Well that''s the problem, it''s all theory based and not tested and i''ve only developed the skeleton which was the hard bit. I have one of those attitudes when i approach a game design to do the hardest (boring bits) first. And then cruise in afterwards
Maybe one day you''ll get to play it Photon = Laser, Holographic technology
Electron = Automated, Energy technology
Hydrogen = Chemical, Propellent technology
Carbon = Gyro, Motion technology
Silicon = Speed, Corrosive technology
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
Author
Just a little extention of what i said above...
The player can build 3 different types of units:
1. Underground
2. On land
3. Aerial
From here there can be multitudes of each:
Photon Underground
Photon/Electron Underground
Photon/Carbon Underground
Carbon/Photon/Electron/Silicon Underground
Heaps of variations of each and each with different abilities. It all comes down to how many technologies you start the game with.
Bah, i''m dreaming again
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
The player can build 3 different types of units:
1. Underground
2. On land
3. Aerial
From here there can be multitudes of each:
Photon Underground
Photon/Electron Underground
Photon/Carbon Underground
Carbon/Photon/Electron/Silicon Underground
Heaps of variations of each and each with different abilities. It all comes down to how many technologies you start the game with.
Bah, i''m dreaming again
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
quote: Original post by ahw
The balancing task here was a bit easier than for chess, you''ll agree.
Chess doesn''t have balanced units, because they don''t need to even try. If you made a game like Starcraft and gave each side identical units placed in identical positions, it wouldn''t matter what units you used, it would be balanced too. I am sure that balancing Starcraft, or attempting to, was a long and laborious process which still is not perfect.
quote:
Now add even more characteristic, you get a tremendous amount of possibilities, which mean that the task of balancing will become easy, as statistically speaking, there is a greater chance that a unit will have a "complementary" unit among those you create.
I think this kind of balancing is a bit of an admission of defeat. "We made this unit which was way too tough, so we may as well make it susceptible to one particular unit on the opposing side so they have a chance." It becomes a game of rock-scissors-paper, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but is somewhat undermining the concept of ''strategy'' if it''s simply a case of (a) pumping out out as many units as possible if you''re quickest, and (b) pumping out the relevant ''counter'' units if you were not quickest.
quote:
If you want a demonstration of what balancing a game is, you should try to play Magic the Gathering, the mother of all "trade and play" card games. I think after 6 years, they still keep the game balanced, and release new cards every 3 months (a good hundred).
This partly damages your argument: Magic the Gathering is easy to balance since each player only has 1 stat, each creature only has 2 stats, and just a couple more properties, such as colour. Besides which, recent years have seen MtG be pretty damn unbalanced: the Tempest series of cards made most of the cards before it obsolete. Tempest introduced cards that were exact copies of older cards, except cheaper to use and/or more effective. This isn''t balance, this is trying to provide an incentive to keep buying
There are, however, many different ways to implement a given strategy, and in addition, you have to plan your strategy in advance, whereas most RTSs, for example, force you to evolve your strategy as you go... which is usually a little more limiting. (But admittedly provides an extra dimension of gameplay.)
quote: A "complicated combat system" is NOT "complicated combat units". I prefer lots of stats and very few "special rules" for each and every unit, than a generic 3 stats system with a special rule for every unit.
I prefer lots of units, few stats, and few special rules. See Alpha Centauri for an example... construct whatever kind of force you like to accommodate your combat style. You can still build ''reactive'' troops that counter other kinds of attack, but nothing so blatant or simplistic as "Unit A is 3x as good vs Unit B".
As for randomness in game combat in general... I think that although random factors are a necessity, it is far more rewarding to make things fixed and based on tactics and skill. And if it comes down to luck, make it player-influenced luck: eg, rock-scissors-paper rather than CPU-rolled dice. At least that way, the player gets the joy of knowing he made the right choice, even if it was totally by chance.
Mmm, I guess I still have a lot of work to express my ideas in meaningful sentences...
What you are saying is that because there is symmetry there is balance. And that''s right, BUT this is what I would call "static" balance, balance through order, symetry; don''t like it.
The balance I am talking about in chess is the total complementarity of all 6 units types in each team. And the simple fact that the game doesn''t depend on this "dynamic" balance. IF you are down with just your King you can still make a pat (a draw), which is a terrible shame for the opponent that thought he was gonna crush you.
To compare with Starcraft, I''ll say that actually Starcraft is quite good for this "inner" balance, as most units are still useful at the end of the game even though they are the lowest on the power scale; you don''t totally drop the soldiers because they have their advantages that other "bigger" units don''t.
But with Starcraft, when your castle starts shaking on its fundation, there is few things you can do to save the building (metaphorically speaking).
As for my idea that more stats are better, you''re right. They are NOT a *solution* for better balancing.
I am just saying that they make the process of balancing easier, which is a good start.
Butthe main interest of his was to minimize the importance of randomness in the combat system.
As I said in my first post (I think), randomness is used to include in the system all the non explicit little things the system doesn''t take into account.
By introducing randomness in a limited environment (where the paramaters are few), the relative importance of this randomness element is proportionnaly bigger than if you have a system with a lot of parameters already taken into account.
For instance, say you have a Worms like game. If the wind was not explicitly dealt with in the system, but you wanted to emulate it, you would have a scattering factor added to the impact point of your missiles. This is bad, because you never know which way the random factor is gonna push you. On the other hand, with the wind made into an explicit element of the game, you can know where it''s coming from and compensate accordingly. There is still a randomness element, but its effect is minimized somewhat.
I think what I was trying to point at as another advantage of having more stats, was the resulting variety of choices you could have when creating unit types.
As well, I think you might have a quite different idea of the word "strategy" than me.
There are quite a bunch of definition, and I''ll jut remember SunTzu and say that basically, it''s about winning by being the best general, not by having the largest army.
So if by developping 2 "counter-units", placing them in an optimal way, by bringing my opponent I can stop a whole group of enemy units, then THAT was good strategy, and good tactics (the plan was good, and the execution of the plan was as well).
The way you describe it, it seems that the quickest should be the winner, and that therefore, the slowest should not win.
This kills the balance as well ! ...
A winner, to paraphrase SunTzu again, is the one that knows himself (his troops, his weaknesses, his battlefield, etc) and knows the enemy.
Not the fastest, or strongest, or smartest, but the one that can do with what he''s got, against whoever is on the other side.
If you prefer, it''s like saying that there is a best choice in Rock Scissors Paper, there isn''t, there are just good players and worse players. (yes, it''s not the best example)
As for Magic the Gathering. Agreed.
It''s not the perfect example of balanced system. I was rather thinking at the amount of care that goes into balancing the game.
The symptom you describe for the Tempes expansion is just a repetition of the past. When Ice Age came out, it was like the end of the days for all old timers like me ... all my cards seemes utter crap compared to the new stuff... but then Nature tool her toll, and everything settled (and with a lot of work on the designers'' side !)
though you are wrong in saying that the game is easy to balance with only two stats...
first there are more than that; second the thing that make it so easy to balance is the fact that each card can bring its OWN rules, that take precedence over the game rules ! THAT is what make it so powerful. THAT is what make it possible for the game to be still alive. (No, I haven''t played in ages, because just like you notice that it''s becoming repetitive, for me it became repetitive in design when Ice Age came out ...)
What MtG illustrates so well is the concept of good player rather than good deck.
See the sealed decks tournament format.
(for people who don''t know Mtg : Each guy starts the game with a pack of cards whose contents are totally unknown to the player until he opens the deck, which means no killer combos ready made, no favorite creatures, nothing, pure SkillZ )
There it''s really who is the best general.
(Nowadays, the packs are mixed in a way here randomness is reduced significantly, which make it much easier to play them as is than in older versions)
Hehe, for my last comment, I actually forgot my own point. What I was trying to say is that it''s not because each unit has 10 stats that the game should suddenly turn into a stats panel crippled game, where you have to spend hours examining all the stats of your units.
For instance, what the F%ck is the use of the bottom center panel in Starcraft ??? I mean, what does it bring you in terms of actual use . Oh yeah, I can select units in groups ... and except that, is there a valid reason for taking up a quarter of the screen ???
I mean, I never ever checked the stats of my units during a game, because all I need to know is their life, and that''s already net to the sprite, so what do I care to know that the grunt is doing that much damage and has that much armor, and yada yada ... all this could be hidden, and consulted for those ho want to take a break during a battle.
IF there were even more stats, they would be hidden as well, they wouldn''t affect the game in a way where they force you to make choices, rather offer you more diversity, possibilities.
And with a good tutorial, you would just have to know what unit is good at what, in which situation; not the distance they can shoot, the distance they can run at full speed, at half speed, the armor they have in front, on the sides, etc, etc...
do you get my point ???
youpla :-P
What you are saying is that because there is symmetry there is balance. And that''s right, BUT this is what I would call "static" balance, balance through order, symetry; don''t like it.
The balance I am talking about in chess is the total complementarity of all 6 units types in each team. And the simple fact that the game doesn''t depend on this "dynamic" balance. IF you are down with just your King you can still make a pat (a draw), which is a terrible shame for the opponent that thought he was gonna crush you.
To compare with Starcraft, I''ll say that actually Starcraft is quite good for this "inner" balance, as most units are still useful at the end of the game even though they are the lowest on the power scale; you don''t totally drop the soldiers because they have their advantages that other "bigger" units don''t.
But with Starcraft, when your castle starts shaking on its fundation, there is few things you can do to save the building (metaphorically speaking).
As for my idea that more stats are better, you''re right. They are NOT a *solution* for better balancing.
I am just saying that they make the process of balancing easier, which is a good start.
Butthe main interest of his was to minimize the importance of randomness in the combat system.
As I said in my first post (I think), randomness is used to include in the system all the non explicit little things the system doesn''t take into account.
By introducing randomness in a limited environment (where the paramaters are few), the relative importance of this randomness element is proportionnaly bigger than if you have a system with a lot of parameters already taken into account.
For instance, say you have a Worms like game. If the wind was not explicitly dealt with in the system, but you wanted to emulate it, you would have a scattering factor added to the impact point of your missiles. This is bad, because you never know which way the random factor is gonna push you. On the other hand, with the wind made into an explicit element of the game, you can know where it''s coming from and compensate accordingly. There is still a randomness element, but its effect is minimized somewhat.
I think what I was trying to point at as another advantage of having more stats, was the resulting variety of choices you could have when creating unit types.
As well, I think you might have a quite different idea of the word "strategy" than me.
There are quite a bunch of definition, and I''ll jut remember SunTzu and say that basically, it''s about winning by being the best general, not by having the largest army.
So if by developping 2 "counter-units", placing them in an optimal way, by bringing my opponent I can stop a whole group of enemy units, then THAT was good strategy, and good tactics (the plan was good, and the execution of the plan was as well).
The way you describe it, it seems that the quickest should be the winner, and that therefore, the slowest should not win.
This kills the balance as well ! ...
A winner, to paraphrase SunTzu again, is the one that knows himself (his troops, his weaknesses, his battlefield, etc) and knows the enemy.
Not the fastest, or strongest, or smartest, but the one that can do with what he''s got, against whoever is on the other side.
If you prefer, it''s like saying that there is a best choice in Rock Scissors Paper, there isn''t, there are just good players and worse players. (yes, it''s not the best example)
As for Magic the Gathering. Agreed.
It''s not the perfect example of balanced system. I was rather thinking at the amount of care that goes into balancing the game.
The symptom you describe for the Tempes expansion is just a repetition of the past. When Ice Age came out, it was like the end of the days for all old timers like me ... all my cards seemes utter crap compared to the new stuff... but then Nature tool her toll, and everything settled (and with a lot of work on the designers'' side !)
though you are wrong in saying that the game is easy to balance with only two stats...
first there are more than that; second the thing that make it so easy to balance is the fact that each card can bring its OWN rules, that take precedence over the game rules ! THAT is what make it so powerful. THAT is what make it possible for the game to be still alive. (No, I haven''t played in ages, because just like you notice that it''s becoming repetitive, for me it became repetitive in design when Ice Age came out ...)
What MtG illustrates so well is the concept of good player rather than good deck.
See the sealed decks tournament format.
(for people who don''t know Mtg : Each guy starts the game with a pack of cards whose contents are totally unknown to the player until he opens the deck, which means no killer combos ready made, no favorite creatures, nothing, pure SkillZ
)There it''s really who is the best general.
(Nowadays, the packs are mixed in a way here randomness is reduced significantly, which make it much easier to play them as is than in older versions)
Hehe, for my last comment, I actually forgot my own point. What I was trying to say is that it''s not because each unit has 10 stats that the game should suddenly turn into a stats panel crippled game, where you have to spend hours examining all the stats of your units.
For instance, what the F%ck is the use of the bottom center panel in Starcraft ??? I mean, what does it bring you in terms of actual use . Oh yeah, I can select units in groups ... and except that, is there a valid reason for taking up a quarter of the screen ???
I mean, I never ever checked the stats of my units during a game, because all I need to know is their life, and that''s already net to the sprite, so what do I care to know that the grunt is doing that much damage and has that much armor, and yada yada ... all this could be hidden, and consulted for those ho want to take a break during a battle.
IF there were even more stats, they would be hidden as well, they wouldn''t affect the game in a way where they force you to make choices, rather offer you more diversity, possibilities.
And with a good tutorial, you would just have to know what unit is good at what, in which situation; not the distance they can shoot, the distance they can run at full speed, at half speed, the armor they have in front, on the sides, etc, etc...
do you get my point ???
youpla :-P
In the game I''m currently working on, a turn based hex strategy game, there will be any number of factors regarding the effectiveness of a unit, but non of them will be hidden from the player, at least, not in the sense that the wind mysteriously reduces your chance of shooting the enemy, even though there''s no way to tell that there''s wind. The net effect is that when a player considers an attack, it just gives a straight-up prediction of the percent chance to hit, and the range of damage possible if you do hit, so that the player will be able to see the effect of his manuevering. This isn''t the ideal solution for all games, of course, but it fits well in what I want.
quote: Original post by ahw
What you are saying is that because there is symmetry there is balance. And that''s right, BUT this is what I would call "static" balance, balance through order, symetry; don''t like it.
I like chess, but it is symmetrical for practicality reasons as much as anything. In our computer games, it is nice to be able to explore non-symmetrical sides... just a shame that finding true balance is near impossible.
quote:
The balance I am talking about in chess is the total complementarity of all 6 units types in each team.
I think complementarity (each unit serves a different purpose) is a little different from balance (both sides are equivalent for the purposes of game resolution). Having several units act in different ways and need to be used in different ways is one thing, but saying "oh, Unit X on the other side is hard so we''ll make Unit Y have a super Unit-X-Killer device to even it out" is something else. That''s not complementarity... that''s a patch-up job.
quote:
As for my idea that more stats are better, you''re right. They are NOT a *solution* for better balancing.
I am just saying that they make the process of balancing easier, which is a good start.
I still don''t really agree with this. When you add an extra stat, you increase by an order of magnitude the number of permutations that your system can allow. That moves the extremes even further from the average, for example. A one stat system is trivially easy to balance: 1=1, 2=2. Add 2 stats, and it becomes more awkward. Take MtG which you are familiar with... which is better, a 2/1 creature, or a 1/2 creature? (That is damage dealt/hit points, for non MtG players.) Depends on whether you are attacking an undefended player or trying to defend against lots of little attacks, doesn''t it? By adding 1 extra stat, even though the total of stats are even, you introduce dependency on a third factor: the context-dependent usefulness of one stat over another. And with each stat you add, you get that same problem.
quote:
For instance, say you have a Worms like game....
...snip...
Yes, that''s a good example of ''pseudo-random'', where it is difficult to predict with entirety, but not out of the player''s control. I am a firm believer of keeping the player in control, or letting them at least -believe- they are in control.
quote:
As well, I think you might have a quite different idea of the word "strategy" than me.
There are quite a bunch of definition, and I''ll jut remember SunTzu and say that basically, it''s about winning by being the best general, not by having the largest army.
So if by developping 2 "counter-units", placing them in an optimal way, by bringing my opponent I can stop a whole group of enemy units, then THAT was good strategy, and good tactics (the plan was good, and the execution of the plan was as well).
Of course, if presented with a given force, and you had the capability of making the ''counter-units'', that is the optimum strategy. But, as a strategy game designer, this is a shallow way of providing strategic choices to the player. It seems too reactive: see what is coming for you, and build the appropriate thing to beat it. Almost a reflex action, no strategy involved, just a pretty obvious choice when you think about it.
What I would prefer, is something a little deeper... planning ahead to formulate how your units will work together, considering the balance of your forces, how quickly you can react to a threat, planning the capture of geographically significant positions, and so on. Sure, certain classes of unit will be better than others, but I don''t like the "this unit beats that one" as it is too 2-dimensional, too blatant. I think Alpha Centauri has it right: don''t punish individual units, punish groups of units: give bonuses vs. Air attacks, vs. Vehicle attacks, vs. Psi Attacks, etc. These abilities affect a wider range of opponents, but cost more than the trivial "10 dmg normal, 100 dmg vs. selected foe" kind of unit. And, if you don''t want any special abilities, you take none, and get a cheaper unit as a result.
quote:
A winner, to paraphrase SunTzu again, is the one that knows himself (his troops, his weaknesses, his battlefield, etc) and knows the enemy.
Not the fastest, or strongest, or smartest, but the one that can do with what he''s got, against whoever is on the other side.
If you prefer, it''s like saying that there is a best choice in Rock Scissors Paper, there isn''t, there are just good players and worse players. (yes, it''s not the best example)
But in most realtime strategy games, with the Favoured Foe kind of system of which you speak, it''s simply a case of:
(a) See your enemy coming
(b) Quickly construct the force that directly defeats such opponents
(c) Destroy the enemy
Eg. in Red Alert, see a few infantry coming? Deploy a flame thrower or couple of dogs. Don''t deploy a tank as they''ll dance around it.
If you react effectively enough often enough, you will have spent a lot less than they have, and you can afford to send a mixed force at them.
These are more tactical decisions if you ask me. Strategy is more forward-thinking than reactive.
quote:
The symptom you describe for the Tempes expansion is just a repetition of the past. When Ice Age came out, it was like the end of the days for all old timers like me ... all my cards seemes utter crap compared to the new stuff...
To be honest, I thought Ice Age was fine, just Tempest was way over the top.
quote: second the thing that make it so easy to balance is the fact that each card can bring its OWN rules, that take precedence over the game rules ! THAT is what make it so powerful. THAT is what make it possible for the game to be still alive.
Yes, it''s what keeps the game so alive.
No, it''s not what keeps it balanced. What keeps it balanced is that the losing players can throw out their losing deck and form a new one to counter it. Just like the unit types I talk of above. It isn''t balance, it''s just a case of who has the force to defeat your force right now. It''s reactive and unsubtle, and I think strategy should be more than that...
quote: See the sealed decks tournament format.
(for people who don''t know Mtg : Each guy starts the game with a pack of cards whose contents are totally unknown to the player until he opens the deck, which means no killer combos ready made, no favorite creatures, nothing, pure SkillZ
There it''s really who is the best general.
But through a lack of foreplanning, you have reduced the amount of strategy available to the player...
Author
The reason why i think you need balance is to allow players have and try different approach in a game. Without balance you get a system that dictates how a game should be played. I also tend to think that balance lends a helping hand to keeping the game alive in the same way i just mentioned. But it only helps it doesn''t make it happen.
The idea a bring in randomness is to make tactical desisions that little bit harder in the game. This then encourages strategy imho becuase it''s more realiable than a tactic (depending on the weapons at course). So these games like C&C and SCraft are really very tactical because they involve very little randomness i beleive.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
The idea a bring in randomness is to make tactical desisions that little bit harder in the game. This then encourages strategy imho becuase it''s more realiable than a tactic (depending on the weapons at course). So these games like C&C and SCraft are really very tactical because they involve very little randomness i beleive.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
