An idea for subtle commander differences.

So the idea of differences between commanders has been talked about before, and it's an interesting one and one I've been thinking about a bit recently.

Of course we can't just have every single commander be different, it'd take a little too much time (especially considering the 100 custom commanders) and some commanders that won't be available to everyone may be better than others.

One of the ways I've thought up, however, is this.
So, we know that the Commanders will have different weapons which shoot different projectiles at some point.
Why not make those weapons have subtle elements to them that change gameplay between commanders in a noticeable, but not gamebreaking way, a way that makes all commanders still useful.

An example I thought would be a good usage of this would be:
Missile launcher: Better at following air units
Laser cannon: Faster projectile
Uber cannon: Requires less energy to recharge the Uber Cannon

It'd spice up gameplay, but just a little bit.

So, what do you think?

This is along the same lines as something Neutrino had put forward over a year ago, but so far, it seems as thought IF it's still going to happen, it's incredibly low priority.

Mike

I am all for it, would give a nice refresh to commanders. Although projectile velocity vs anti air accuracy is a bit unbalanced, maybe instead the laser gets a very slight range boost. I see where your coming from though and like the idea.

As far as we're aware the line of reasoning went something like this:

***
"Let's add subtle differences and abilities to Commanders (that only affect the Commander in question, not the whole army) so that each one has a unique feel to them."

-- A small but very vocal minority of players complain that it will be imbalanced.

"Let's scrap that idea and just have 3 different types of Uber Cannon that are functionally identical, but look snazzy."
***

Commanders become completely bland, blank slates with the tiniest differences that it makes no odds.
Players that care only about balance are appeased. Players that care about interesting choices are disappointed.

Fixed that for you.

I donno, I think as you increase differences in commanders, your changes will become unbalanced long before they get interesting.

imo, best to stick with cosmetic & visual differences (different colors & looks for uber cannon, same result).

So you're of the opinion that less units is a good thing, right? after all, that is what you're essentially saying; fewest possible units with the fewest possible differences between them?

Nanolathe, I am sure you know the difference between variable unit options and variable starting conditions. If you pick a commander you can't change it throughout the game. It is not the same thing with units as you can change the units that you use during the game.

Edit: Could also be called pre-game choices and ingame choices.

Yes, I'm well aware of the difference. However it essentially boils down to fewer interesting variables during a game; especially the early game.

I prefer that the interesting choices occurs during the game rather than before the game starts. Everything should be scoutable and counterable in my opinion.
Although subtle and balanced commander differences doesn't really breach that so I would be fine with that.

well they don't realize this can be balanced.

I have no fears concerning the ability differences, let them come.

so long as it's nothing too O.P.

Anything that only affects the Commander (which is what was originally pitched) is pretty easy to control. Besides, you can never really eliminate pre-game choices; humans make plans... it's what we do.

The only idea I've heard tossed around is that you'd need to give people literally thousands of choices that were all legitimate in one form or another to eliminate the "metagame". For obvious reasons, trying to achieve a balanced state with that premise is next to impossible; even games based around a premise of thousands of possible combinations get "figured out" and a metagame becomes apparent at some point or another.

To be more specific, I shouldn't lose to blind RPS. The game should actively avoid blind RPS by design IMO.
You shouldn't win just because you choose the right plan from the start because I should have enough time to scout it and prepare a counter.

No argument from me.

I think that it is fine that there is a metagame and I think that it is almost unavoidable. It's just that IMHO the metagame or pre-game should have as little impact on the outcome of a single game as possible. Rather than figuring out the metagame and the opponent before you are playing, you should figure out your opponent while you are playing the game.

Winning before you even start playing you mean? I think that such an outcome would be reliant on Commanders being much more influential than would be strictly necessary. I would have hoped that the Commanders wouldn't be that powerful, especially in a straight-up fight that would decide the victory or defeat of an entire conflict.

Yes, exactly.

Well, I'm not sure if we want to include Commanders power level in this discussion as well but you can generalise it as:Variable commander strength could have more impact on the outcome of a single game if commander use is important.
However, even strong situational advantageous traits on commanders can still be balanced but it requires more careful balancing.
I just want to relay my position as clearly as possible.

Everyone has a different definition of "balance". StarCraft 2 is arguably balanced, and that has multiple unit rosters. LoL/DOTA2 are arguably balanced, and it is impossible to have the same abilities as your enemies in those games.

PA has 1 unit roster because it maintains perfect balance, and then it's traded out for imbalanced start spots. People cry about imbalance in some places but ignore it in others based on whatever their fanatical traits of a "balanced" game are.

Personally, I just want to play a game that is interesting and fun. As long as it's 90% balanced that is plenty good enough. Different commander traits are pretty trivial to balance compared to multiple unit rosters, and it adds at least a small amount of additional depth. I would like to see it.

Equal access is Not the same thing as balanced.

Mike

Well really there are several definitions of balance that is useful for describing the balance of an RTS.

"Perfect balance" or "perfect symmetry" could be said to be when all the players have exactly the same starting conditions and the same options. Even chess isn't "Perfectly balanced" as white makes the first move before black.
The PA unit rooster is in that that sense "Perfectly symmetrical" as all the players have the same options. Starting conditions are not "Perfectly balanced" as the players can't chose the same starting positions but have to pick different locations on an asymmetrical map/planet.
However this definition of balance says nothing about variety, viable options or depth.
What you should strive for when you balance the game is that there is depth and variety and therefore I prefer to use Sirlins definition of balance:

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions.html

What is at the core of this definition is that we want to have a balance that provides many viable options. Symmetrical balance with "perfect balance" does in no way guarantee variety as the game might still be dominated by a single strategy, a single unit or a single option.
To define what units and strategies that are balanced with this definition we have to go in and prove what is balanced and what is not. We strive to allow asymmetry to occur without the balance breaking down.
Asymmetry is not an unbalance in itself when we use this definition. Rather we have to prove what is unbalanced, overpowered or underpowered by defining the strategical space for the specific unit or strategy in question. If the unit or strategy shuts out too many of the other options it could be considered overpowered. This is much harder than making a "perfect balance".