Restarting Old Discussions

Look if you want to add all this stuff in a mod, that's fine, I'm sure it will be interesting (as I mentioned in the relevant thread) but that's adding content and not fixing any present problems. You're not supposed to be able to get by by building only Vehicle or only Bot factory if you're trying to stay competent in a ground vs ground battle against a similar economy, and if you want to change that in a mod, that's absolutely fine; just don't say that vanilla needs it because it has all it needs according to its design goals.

Some of your ideas could be spliced into the existing units; a unit with nothing but health and low cost simply abuses the game's targeting mechanics but someone suggested earlier that Infernos could take less damage from the front which is a great idea and it would improve variety without cluttering the unit list.

I'll say again that I think the focus right now should be T2 as it is really hard to get a feel for when you should follow that route or just spam more T1. Most people opt for the latter and T2 usually happens only if they have a lot of eco at which point they just spam Fabbers and then win via a superweapon anyway. This very likely isn't the case for 1v1s though I'm talking about larger games, where T2's apparently more viable than in 1v1.

The shielder has unittype wall, which is set to lowest targetting priority. It serves better to clog up battlefields and enable certain unit compositions to gain an advantage (Stomper shielder works as a better unit composition than smasher shielder does for example as the stompers can fire over the obstructive shielder wreckages).

Why am I not supposed to get by with only one factory type? Why are we forcing games to evolve a certain way rather than just giving people different yet valid options and letting them do what they personally prefer the most? Forcing all factories to be used only limits the strategy of PA.

T2 should be the bigger priority to fix, but fixing it is really trivial. Reduce cost, build power, and T2 eco production by about half. Suddenly you go T2 for the different units it has, and you have far more freedom as to when you go for it.

I like where you're going with your mod Stuart, and I think those specific changes are a pretty nice start. I've always been one to view advanced / T2 as something you don't need to use whatsoever to win, or could invest in right at the beginning of the game if you wanted to. (Literally 1st fac T1, 2nd fac T2) I don't like any of the super-imposed wait timers on how long into the game T2 is available. Let the units and structures within T2 show how valuable they are with their cost and build time. Why limit the entire construction tier just because of some arbitrary wall at some x point in time that people 'should' go T2? Is this actually necessary? Why? Does forcing a certain play style meta somehow increase strategic depth? I think not.

Also on the subject of factory types, I think all factory types should be viable, and none so overly powerful that they're required a transition into. At no time should I be forced to use any factory I don't want to. I should willingly want all of them because of the strategic value of the units they build, not forced into it because the units aren't easily counterable en masse. Air is a perfect example of something that should be no different from bot or vehicle. If I don't go air, I should be able to build ground AA units that can take care of aircraft just the same as I would build units that take care of other ground units. No factory should be necessary, nor any single strategy forced upon the player. The more you're pigeonholed into specific play styles and molds, the less depth you'll experience.

Edit : And by not requiring T2, I specifically mean units and generic structures, not economy. Though, in my personal opinion, economy being exponential couldn't be more worse for the game than the all of the sheer imbalance PA has seen in the past put together. I don't know how I feel about T2 economy in general, but I think a linear increase is always a solid way to move forward without hurting anything.

someone talked about tankspeed ... so just to put my 2 cents into this , grenadiers, bluehawks and combatfabbers aren't realy fast either
... t1 tanks even if slower on average are actualy fast for their class and we do have fast vehicles in the form of the skitter ...


the thing is why have a quick vehicle when you have a quick bot for the same role ... that is at best only visual diversaty

????? why would you not chose varius factories ... you would rather limit yourself ...

also if just building one factorytype is nessesary to have every option ... then what is the point in having other factories at all? ... in that case you may play just sandbox and do whatever you want there or better just make a mod with the avatarfactory ...

this is like saying " oh please throw that structured classsystem you made completely out of the window"

or " hey i want to throw magic bolts with my warriorclass that is actualy meant for melee and dps absorbtion"

Agile and fast is not the same thing.

yea and? if you have a quick raid bot that is better controlable then what do you want a quick raid vehicle for?

speaking about both having same health same speed same dps ...

on the flipside what is the difference between a slow heavy armored bot and a slow heavy armored tank that both have the same turn rate? ... best example commanders

Thank you, could not have said it better.

This quote speaks volumes to me. This is literally the problem many have with Diablo III. Myself included. There's absolutely no build diversity. All classes are made for one role, everything else is nonviable late-game, and the uninspired itemization and turn-based mechanics only make it worse. It only forces the players into more specific Blizzard-approved builds. From a design perspective, this is the worst possible scenario.

Your very thinking in this aspect is flawed, not because you're wrong, but because you're going about it wrong. Look at Diablo II or the Borderlands series. You can use basically any item on any class and still do endgame content without fear of the game punishing you for being clever and resourceful. They are, by your definition, a sandbox.

The very reason you open all builds for all classes in those games is to allow the sandbox feeling. Sandboxes are where ingenuity and improvisation thrive. A sandbox does not have to be infinite resources and instant build speed, you know. It's all about player choice. We should want PA to feel like a sandbox. No rules, no arbitrary 'best strategy', no pre-defined anything. Everything a player does in PA should be based on what they choose to do, not what they're forced into. All strategy and tactics used in each game should come from the player themselves, not from some hyper-efficient best build they saw someone else using.

Forcing people into using all factories in itself limits the strategic depth of PA. This isn't opinion. That's how forced mechanics work. Plenty of other games prove it. If the 'meta' of the game becomes starting with one factory and transitioning into another later, you've already lost depth. One, because the player couldn't choose for themselves what to start with without being inefficient, and two, because a 'meta' is, in itself, a limiting factor on depth. It forces a certain playstyle because it's faster, more efficient, simply better than any other start. If you're wondering what happened to your depth, that's one of the first places you should look.

You're right about one thing. Players should get all factories up and running to have the most options in the field. They will do this irrelevant if the game has a meta that demands this or simply encourages multi-factory gameplay. The difference is a meta forces you to play a certain way on certain maps without any user input on the opening / core strategy you use. A non-meta based balance would not only see multi-factory openings and similar gameplay, but would result in a much more fluid and enjoyable experience.

I want the latter, but I don't blame you for wanting the former. Basically every other RTS game has a meta, and it's nigh unheard of for a game to remove the meta and allow true choice. Having a meta is a staple of the RTS genre. Ask yourself this, though. How many RTS games with a super-imposed meta actually allow players complete control over their strategy at high-level play? Of the many, many RTS titles I've played, I can't name a single one.

The problem here is that every unit gets its share of use (talking about T1 here) in a frequency proportionate to what they actually do, so adding more units is variety for the sake of variety. If certain maps get overplayed and tactics are optimized on them to the point you can't use anything else, that simply means the map needs to be retired and you need to move on.

The game has an amazing system generator, and a system designer, no two games need be the same.

I think I agree with this. Personally, I think units should have roles they play, and not just be generic unit A. There needs to be inspiration to what each thing does and how it interacts with everything else.

What PA needs is a group of units that are quality, not just quantity. I feel where you're coming from. Adding units just to add units is quantity, not quality.

The difference is when you add a purpose to each unit, and define how each unit behaves in the field, it creates quality. IE : A bot and tank could have similar raiding roles, but the tank's purpose would be on long distance maps with rolling hills because of it's top speed and range while bots would be the unit of choice in smaller mountainous areas with tight choke points and limited area because of it's maneuverability and smaller physical structure.

Roles define units. These roles give them purpose. It's essential to not only pick a role for a specific unit, but give it a unique purpose so it doesn't conflict with any others. It's this very scenario that is so undeniably difficult and time-consuming. That's why many RTS games are generic tank As and superior tank Bs. It's easier to create an amazing and engaging set of mechanics for an uninspired set of basic units than it is to make an extraordinary set of units and creating decent mechanics for each one.

Edit : I also wanted to point out the things you and Stuart are saying are the same. (From my perspective at least) Probo, I see you stating that simply adding more units doesn't make anything better. Quality > Quantity. This is true. I also see Stuart using this exact design with the mod he's making. Upping the quality of the unit. Giving each one a purpose. I've looked over the basic and advanced units in the mod, and everything seems pretty unique. You guys might want to, I dunno, be just a tad more in-depth and vocal with the concepts that drive you. Just trying to help you see eye-to-eye a bit better.

what matters to me is that whatever you build has weight and impact ... if i build a bot factory because i know that it is primarly for specialised units than just pure brute strengh than i want this to matter ... if however i build a factory that basicaly provides me with everything i need from the get go what point is there to have the other factories then when they don´t nessesarily provide me with any "better" options but just simply more?

ultimately what games of those kinds always should be about is that a number of options togheter should be combined to win you a game and not just one factory or worse just one unit neither however too many as you might spread yourself too thin ... it´s all about the right mix ...
and playing say a warriortype in an rpg is a play style you may or may not like .. you can of course chose to play an archer or mage depending on how you like to play but at the end of the day you will always try to find the most efficient setting/combination to win for that approach ... and the same counts for PA ..

just go play for instance path of exile which allows you to structure your character however you like (also no diablo 2 didn´t allow you to use any item on any character ... ever saw a barbarian with a necromancerstaff?) ... but you will find out that if you spend many resources on various abilities than you wont be effective in any of them instead you need to focus on few good abilities you know you can use to full effect .. as for the missing abilities you get yourself one or more partymembers or you simply learn how to best control your character to compensate for its lacking ablities ..

as for qualiy vs quantity:
i do feel that t1 ballance is on a state where every unit has it´s place and usefullness ... it simply matters that players recognise how and when to use certain units in what ammounts and what combination ..
if every unit would be as effective as any other without a significant difference what would be the point?
if for instance i have a assault bot and a assault tank were the difference merely is that one is weak in armor and dps but compensates in price and is otherwise not realy different than whats exactly the point in that ?
there would be no real strategic difference weither i build either of the 2 or both ... would there?

The thing stuart and I disagree on is that you shouldn't be able to get by by using only one factory type. He wants a unique answer to everything on every factory, which is a valid design option, just not the one PA took. If he's making such a mod that's great, as I said it will probably be interesting, but it can't be argued that such units are what PA needs because PA T1 has all it needs for its design goals. That is to make you pick between factories to specialize until you can comfortably run them all to cover all bases.

Edit: I felt the need to clarify, I never meant to imply that Stuart's suggested units are added for the sake of having added units; I think they fit well within their intended design window. It's just, however, not true to vanilla PA so they fit a mod with its own direction.

@Bgrmystr2
also builds themselves are only so good the less experienced your opponent is ... if your opponent is as good as you he may just build the same build or something as effective ... in that case you would have to know how to crack his build/compostion ... by simply knowing which units/compostions are effective against it ....
and here comes the problem
if one factory has everything to crack any composition/builds your opponent comes up with ... whats the point in different factories /technological progressions?

@MrTBSC Careful, you are falling into the trap of thinking solely inside the box. Don't look at the stats where the units in PA currently differ, but at those where they don't.

If you stay within the current scheme, there is no more room for additional roles. All units completely fill very specific niches, and all of them have their benefits tailored to precisely one specific role.

Simple binary options, you can say immediately whether option A or option B is better, given an overview of the situation. In some cases, such as with Infernos and other "overspecialized" roles, there isn't even any motivation to ever send out these units alone, thanks to evenly overfitted binary counters.

But where all units are surprisingly similar, is that during encounters all of them behave the same. "Kite if you can", "Going all in" and "Flee" are the only 3 maneuvers which are viable with ground units in PA. The pace and the distance between the frontlines varies depending on the unit composition on each side, but that's about it. Whatever you do, your composition will act as one large blob and will react instantly to whatever option you choose.

Given the sheer number of encounters and the amount of attrition required for micromanagment, that's surprisingly shallow for an RTS. You would have expected for different units to actually behave differently in battle. Not just as in being able to attack their predetermined counter targets at all, but actually requiring a unique treating with army mixes disassembling during encounters being the regular case, not just an exception.


Let me present you a real live example, for how even the same "role" can differ fundamentally in its attributes, despite seemingly similar primary goals:
http://9gag.com/gag/aNKAA0K

All of them are main battle tanks, which mains they have wide tracks, heavy armor and a 360° turnable turret with the ability to aim precisely while driving. And yet they behave entirely different and each requires special care. The most distinct difference is how the distribute their armor. You have extreme border cases such as the Israel tank where even the tower is designed to deflect shots from a full 270° angle, as opposed to e.g. the Russian T90-A model where both chassis and tower have only frontfacing armor. But also hybrid approaches where the tower is only armored in the front, but the chassis is armored from all sides. Some of them even ditched heavy armor all together, for active counter measures or radar stealth...

So if even for a single role the implementations differ so much, and thereby also the implications for use case scenarios, can you really say that two of these tanks could be considered equal and therefor unnecessary? Based on their configuration they show entirely different dynamics in various combat situations. Some of them are completely lost when surrounded or even just flanked, others specifically designed for that type of situation.


It's perfectly fine to have two units in a game which fulfill seemingly similar roles when judging by the primary design goals, but which actually differ slightly in how to use them most efficiently, and most importantly how their roles shift as the game progresses and encounters become more agressive. Even when this means that the "same" role is provided by two different tech trees.

About tech trees, by the way...
What you call "one factory to win" isn't exactly true either. It's not even as this game was played using only a single factory either way, you are always building more than one to get sufficient throughput. If a player chooses to turn down on variety and complexity in his army composition in favor of eased control, that's perfectly fine. The opposite player is neither gaining nor loosing anything from fetching his tech from multiple tech trees, just as long as no factories are just built for the sake of unlocking a specific tech tree in which case that must be counted as a lost investment. The only exception is the opening play, where each tech tree needs to supplement the basics for an competitive opening move.

Which is actually where vehicles are very much underwhelming, which isn't a good thing. Same as the issue with bots where you are eventually forced to tech up or switch to vehicle tech as the T1 base isn't standalone capable.

The real question about tech trees is however, why players feel so uneasy with being forced to go both techs.
Well, mostly because bots have a somewhat weird tech progression. Essential roles such as T1 arty and the combat fabbers are being made exclusive to the bot tree, while the bot tree itself can't actually make proper use of them.
But the Dox is actually a much worse offender, so dominating in the early game play, but almost impossible to carry over into joint forces efficiently. Effectively a dead end. So the game forces you to swap out your entire tech at some point, which doesn't really feel natural.
Already being able to construct a working joint force only using vehicles doesn't help the case either, it makes it even uneasier to go for bot tech when only a fraction of the tech can be used at all.
Overlapping roles could actually help this case, as using both tech trees than does not only mean completing your tech, but giving you an actual choice. You can swap individual roles in your joint force for the equivalent from the other tree with the promise that it primarily acts as a drop in replacement on a highly abstracted level, and yet proofs to slightly different depending on the actual scenario.

@exterminans

just adding variations of mbt´s or other units with the same role doesn´t make the game any less shallow or binary
what does the general care if one tank has a higher arc of one degree or is one kilogramm heavier than the other ? ( to answer your quetion: YES the others would be unnessary) and such rather minor details matter more in a game were you have the ammount of control nessesary for such things to matter.. like lets say warthunder ..
ultimately a general will take the tank that is proven to be the best for its investment after nummerous tests ..
and there in lies the problem put in too many units and you make it just more difficult for newcommers to know what to build ... without significant feedback or impact units are nothing but interchangeable and that in itself is totaly blant and shallow ...

"The real question about tech trees is however, why players feel so uneasy with being forced to go both techs."
in that case they would feel uneasy with techprogression in any rts because those are meant to go a certain way ... even in a game like supcom 2 were you could research any way you want you could always research certain things only after a set way ... if however you put too many quickly available options into a pool you make it more difficult for a player to react and adapt ... or at the worst nothing realy changes when either goes bots and the other goes tanks but both have the same options and just constantly trade ... that would be just as shallow ...
limitations ARE neccesary ... limitations between factories (or factions in other games) are what makes players try to use various approaches ...


also remember ... we are talking about a game made from a company with a still tight budget ..
there is only so much they can include at a time ...

Technically, you can wear every single Necromancer wand* on your barb, but they're almost all specifically made with +Necro skills only. There's one that doesn't. The Suicide Branch.
http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/items/exceptional/uwands.shtml
It's mostly viable for a caster, but this is most likely the one you would use on a barb. There's a few select items that give class-specific skills to anyone. For example, the Enigma runeword has +1 Teleport on it. Any class can use it. Even sorceress. They have can have both their class's teleport and a separate level 1 teleport from the item. Yeah, that's a thing.

A better example would be the Ribcracker.
http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/items/exceptional/ustaves.shtml
A friend of mine actually got himself an ethereal Ribcracker with nearly maximum percent enhanced damage. He put this on his barb and proceeded to wreck the entire game with it.

Edit : I should probably make a note here that ethereal items can't be repaired, but adding a socket to the item through the quest in act V allows you to place in it a Zod rune. This highest and rarest tier rune in the game makes any item you socket it into henceforth indestructible. No exceptions. When you upgrade the base item of the unique from exceptional to elite using the cube recipe, you've got something that'll carry you all the way through the end of hell in /players 8 solo. That weapon was a monster by itself.

The only items that aren't usable by anyone else are class specific items. A small collection of weapons for Amazon, Assassin, and Sorceress, some helms for Barb and Druid, a few shields and trophies for Paladin and Necro respectively. Anything else in the game can be used by anyone, irrelevant of how good or bad it is. Some items give classes skills they don't have, which in turn opens doors to other items you normally wouldn't wear.

Not every item is viable for every other class, but the ability to make melee sorcs and staff barbs is a clear story of success in the design choice.

Now, I've learned a lot of theorycraft over the years. I've seen what works, what doesn't, things that players enjoy, etc..

..but damn. I wish I had your experience. I don't see too many people who know very well what they speak of, and can speak about it in an unbiased, objective manner. You've provided examples I wouldn't even think to use. Glad to have you here talking about the benefits of true player choice.

one thing i am gonna say though is this modders who said back then that they wanted to improve the game/gameplay disrespected the way vanilla ballance is and instead went in taking various units and just completely changed them from how they originaly worked instead of adding content to complement the factories missing units or lacking options .. so how about that: instead of reworking everything how bout you work WITH how the game actualy is? ... currently i only see few people do that ...

We changed stuff that didn't fit our own vision for the game. Is this criminal? :/

We've worked hard to give every unit its own role. Wait until release before criticizing and you just might be pleasantly surprised.

after rcbm statera and modx consider me skeptical ... and yea while i have no idea how to mod i too have my views of how the game should be ...

You should consider learning how to mod. It's really not too difficult.

What you need:
Github. This is for making it easier to keep track of the mod, publish it to PAMM, and help others help if you accidentally break something.
Notepad++ will help you have an easier time editing files.
The Python based JSON Reformat Script will help you have an easier time editing your files. It requires that you install Python.
JSONLint will give you an easier time finding where something broke.

More niche things:
Gimp allows you to edit strategic or build bar icons.
Blender with Raevn's papa importer allows you to view Planetary Annihilation's model files.
ReScalePA allows you to resize unit models. It requires Java.
PAPA Texture Editor allows you to extract PA's texture files if you wish to modify textures.

That's everything I've found occasion to use.

Take a look at the data set-up of a mod from PAMM to see how everything's set up. Your root folder (That the modinfo.json is in) is equivalent to the media folder of PA vanilla, so in it go the PA, UI, and possibly Shader folders.

To add new units, you must modify /pa/units/unitlist.json and add the location of the unit you want to add. Adding new units is best done by copying existing units and then modifying all of the stats as needed. In order to make your unit buildable, take a look at the unittypes at the bottom of the unit file and make sure that they coincide with the buildable_types of the unit you want to build them. Once you've done that, add the file to the appropriate category in /ui/main/shared/js/build.js.

Unit.jsons include the health, cost, speed, vision range, and what the unit can build. Tool.jsons include weapon/fabrication range, rate of fire, target priorities, targetable unit types, and fabrication power. Ammo.jsons include damage per shot, splash damage, splash radius, and ammo lifetime.

If you need models, be sure to ask their creator.

Statera models are made by @squishypon3. RCBM models are made by @KNight, excepting the Torpedo Bomber and Orbital Missile, which are made by @YourLocalMadSci. KNight requests that users not use his models due to Uber's attitude towards him in the past, while I'm not sure about YourLocalMadSci's attitude. ModX models are made by @zx0.

There's also a random air/orbital missile model made by @Diaboy, a user who vanished a while ago without reason. It's probably superior to the RCBM model and can be found here.