dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
SUMMARY: Overall, I think I agree with about 25% of the modifications and disagree with 25%. The remaining 50% I think are situationally good or bad. Having the possibility for this 50% to be bad suggests to me that it is not a net improvement and shouldn't be done (at least not to the degree indicated).
SECTION 1: But before I go into the details for my rationale, I want to point out that I think we are addressing the wrong thing. We want balanced play. In my mind, this only can be done by giving map makers greater tools. We need:
- To be able to customize quantity and type of starting units by player position. If I think a player is at a disadvantage, let me create more starting forces for him, of whatever quantity and type I feel balances the map. That even lets me design great "defend the castle" type games that we don't really have yet.
- To be able to customize starting money by player position. If I think players 4 and 7 need more money because of gang ups, let me give them more money then the rest. However much I want, and to whomever I wish.
- To be able to customize unit attack/defense/mobility values of each unit. Being able to customize all unit statistics is the holy grail. It lets a mapmaker account for terrain advantages/disadvantages to a particular race in a particular map. It instantly lets Uniwar to be forever interesting, since endless "new" units can be created for new game play experiences. Why are we being pitted against each other arguing for particular global unit values? Set us free, give us the freedom to play how we wish!
With these three changes, every map can be a balanced map. I would also like to float the idea of an automated system where the game server tracks wins and losses and adds units or starting money to whatever races/positions seem to be at a disadvantage on a given map.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Nov 20, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
SECTION TWO: I want to float another idea that would really make the game interesting. We long time players would like to add new wrinkles and complexity to the game. A new race is not as interesting to me as this idea. We ought to create two versions of each 250 unit. Make one version a light/weaker version and another version a stronger/heavy version. You might make one cost 200 credits and the other 300 credits, or whatever. Experienced players know that the 250 units are the key to the game, so why not make the most important unit even more interesting? And refresh the captivation and complexity of gameplay.
The next unit to add is a lighter boat for each race. The navy is modeled too simplistically to add value to gameplay, IMHO. I always avoid joining maps that model navy as it ruins the fun for me, because of the disproportionate and simplistic affects. Incidentally, navy values desperately need tweaking so that they don't die after a couple hits to each other. Just like a jeep can't so easily kill another jeep, so shouldn't boats to each other. Especially due to the enormous cost involved.
|
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
SECTION THREE: I work in statistics, and I greatly fear tweaking values without a sensitivity analysis being performed beforehand. A particular percent change to an attack or defense value, for example, could cause a much greater percent change in the damage curve distribution. I think people are thinking the proposed changes will cause linear outcomes with good gameplay. People don't understand that the outcomes may be magnified results that actually harm the gameplay experience from what it is today. I think unit values should not be rounded to the whole number. I think it should be tracked to the tenth or hundredth. I think in most cases, these changes should be made at less than one. So, if a unit is thought to need an attack reduction from say 8 to 7, it could very well be that 7.5 gives the best results. I also think it would be interesting for hit points to be tracked at least to the tenth of a point as well.
I want to give a prime example of what I fear by changing unit values. There are certain exciting events that occur in Uniwar. Those exciting events drive an enormous amount of pleasure in the game. Sure, it is not fun when it adversely affects you. But, it is exciting when you are able to pull it off. And, I (da)grudgingly admire when someone pulls such off on me. Things like a bonus 2 or 3 attack, a resurface attack, a kill 10 attack on an engineer/assimilator/infector, a copter/speeder hit and retreat cover of a base. And, a jeep double attack kill of infantry on base. YOU DO NOT WANT TO REDUCE ATTACK VALUE ON LIGHT UNITS SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT CAN OCCUR. THE GAME IS GREATER BECAUSE IT CAN OCCUR. Moreover, permanently hobbling the jeep would make it comparatively unfavorable to a swarmer or speeder. And, especially because an elegant solution to the jeep exists without changing any values....
|
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
SECTION FOUR: Ok, on to unit values. In my opinion there need be only a couple modifications:
- Jeep: Ok, we all agree the jeep double hit causes some problems on the first move on some maps. So, just make the jeep able to move once on the first turn and lets stop the silly discussion of ruining the jeep.
- Eclipse: Make it bit cheaper and make the air attack a bit lower and the heavy attack a bit higher, and maybe defend a bit better. But, by tweaking values in this way it might not need to be cheaper.
- Tank: It should be slightly better defense, and a minimal air attack. Cost should not be touched. Games where you get 400 a turn already favor the sapiens player. Just like games with 450 a turn already favor khrals player over titans player. If you reduce to 350, then games where you get 350 a turn would also favor the sapiens player. Money per turn should always be considered in changing unit prices. Allow such cheap heavy units allows them to be spamed and maps to be clogged. Too many maps are made with unmaneverable terrain, so this only makes such games a quagmired mess to play.
- Battery: Way too much help. Pick more movement, or more movement after shoot, or more attack range, or make just make cheaper. But don't over do it!
- Plasma: Reducing air attack a touch not a bad idea.
- Mecha: Increasing air attack is a horrible idea. It already does considerable swarmer damage.
- Swarmer: Reducing swarmer defense is a terrible idea. It is already fragile and slow to heal.
- Swarmer: Reducing attack against heavies is a bad idea. It already does minimal damage to heavies. If anything, attack against light units should be reduced.
- Pinzer: I see no reason to increase air attack. Especially if plasma is being reduced, and if tank has little or none.
- Wyrm: I see no reason for increasing air attack or decreasing heavy attack. The logic makes no sense to me.
- Garuda: It is an all around unit that gets shunned by top players. To make it a touch more appealing, maybe increasing heavy attack a good way to go.
- Leviathan: All navy units die too quickly when attacking each other. I don't see the imbalance when compared with price. I've seen numerous games where the cheapness of leviathans prevails over other units. This should be a individual map setting change that I proposed above.
- Engineer: Changing EMP internal fine, will rarely matter though. Reduce Titans assimilator interval too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Nov 20, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
- Underling: I think adding a low air attack would help khral vs khral gameplay that always becomes a swarmer fight. Letting underlings play would enhance game play. Or at least add variety and complexity to something so tedious as a swarmer fight.
|
|
|
Danilla
Messages: 2,
Joined: Jun 22, 2015,
Offline
|
|
Danilla
Messages: 2,
Joined: Jun 22, 2015,
Offline
|
Great analysis and great suggestions! I agree with all points.
Also the ideas like custom unit stats could let map creators to significantly improve the balance and would make the game more challenging.
|
|
|
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar/69961657077e0093ed761aa01916c5ff.jpg)
Apercent
Messages: 744,
Joined: Sep 08, 2015,
Offline
|
|
Apercent
Messages: 744,
Joined: Sep 08, 2015,
Offline
|
Highly disagree. First of all, if we can make any unit we please, that presents a thousand problems, the biggest being that the player has to memorize a new stragety for every map, especially considering all units still have the same skin. That makes it too confusing. Second of off, balanced maps needed placed starting money. Lastly, for the same reasons I oppose giving some players more troops than others. Although it'd be nice if we could start with other units as long as my total starting unit cost was the same as yours.
And I also think the battery needs the nerf. Think of it as if you never knew the battery had a sucky early version. Is the new battery balanced? Yes, yes it is. It's not the new unit that bothers everyone, its the change. But change is good, that's why I like it. And the marauder. No. I like moving mine twice. That takes all of the fun out of it, it does. Same with the underling, the zero anti air thing is part of its personality. And think about it, 4 leviathan = 3 battleships. The leviathan ends up getting dominated. While we're on the subject of khrals, the swarmer spams, the pinzer needs the anti air.
I think the 200-300 idea is kind of good, but at that point we might as well just get another unit.
Agree on the small boat. Too often does 800 credit ships end up being useless on shore, I want a cheaper walker and maybe a jet carrier.
Also agree with everything else you said. I think the mechanical 4 air is unnecessary.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at Nov 20, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
|
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
![[Up]](/templates/default/images/icon_up.gif){kind=icon}
