Factions: How to create diversity within one unit list

* Please stop commenting in this thread unless it pertains to the idea I explain. General faction discussion should occur elsewhere. Thank you *

***SEE SECOND POST*** That may clear up confusion about what I meant by commander diversity.

EDIT: I suppose my idea is based on this issue:

My solution is basically:
- Each unit has a tech cost (better units have higher costs)
- Players make a list of techs they want to use
- Can't choose every unit due to tech value limit, just most of them
- Diversifies gameplay by creating different factions within the unit list

~~~~~~

Reading the "Factions?" thread posted by sylenall, there was mention of different factions drawing different units from the same unit pool by wooj.

I'm going to expand on this idea, and felt it deserved it's own series of discussion (otherwise just get lost in the masses of replies and generally be a waste of my time to write).

Also, I'm rather curious what the consensus is on faction ideas. It's hard to know without anything to test, so I'm really undecided on the whole thing.

(When I refer to units, I mean all things that can be built. Structures, units, ships, orbital, etc)

~~~~~~~~~~~

I believe it could be possible for players to make their own faction every match by choosing which technologies they load into their commander.

You could make your own unit lists which you could choose from before a match starts.

You would be able to pick all the basic units and structures, and then choose some of the super advanced units. Or if you are feeling particularly adventurous, sacrifice many of the basic units to pick more advanced ones.

Each unit would have a tech cost, and lists have a certain tech supply. You could then pick anything to fill that supply. Better units would have a higher tech cost, preventing you from picking all the more powerful units unless you sacrifice many of your basic units.

By choosing too many of the advanced units, you compromise your early abilities, allowing a wise enemy to destroy you before you can reach those advanced units you picked.

Some problems with this would be the potential for incredibly unbalanced matches.

Eg: If you just happen to invest heavily in air, but your opponent just happens to invest heavily in anti-air, 'you're going to have a bad time'.

There is some good to this sort of situation though since you both invested in something which is now essentially useless, so are both left with using whatever you have left. This leaves you with effectively the same force strength (using basic units).

Then if your opponent notices you build no air units, he may reduce the concentration of his anti-air, allowing you to surprise them with a massive advanced air attack.

In the end, I think selecting your own unit lists allows for massive innovation within the game, while still maintaining the RTS feel (since unit selection would all be done before-hand).

Thoughts?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The poll options are described below.

One list, no diversity
All players can use all the units.

One list, commander diversity
Everyone uses the same units, but with different commander abilities (customization beyond the current different commander types).

One list, some diversity
Players choose from a list of factions provided by the game. Each faction uses certain different units than the other factions, but pulls them all from the same list.

One list, significant diversity
Players choose from a large list of factions provided by the game. Each faction pulls units from the same list, but each is very selective in what it uses.

One list, custom factions
The idea I describe. Players choose which techs they want on their commander before they send it into combat. Each unit has a tech cost, so picking too many advanced units compromises your early/middle game.

Multiple lists
Distinct unit lists. No factions within each list (like TA and SupCom).

Multiple lists, factions
Distinct unit lists, and unique factions which pull units from within those lists (could not pull from multiple lists). Assume this covers all sorts of factions choosing options (few/many/custom factions)

~~~~~~~~

I started writing this undecided on factions, but I think I've convinced myself that having factions would be incredibly fun.

Feedback is welcome. Thanks for the interest (whether positive or negative).

Bah, forgot custom commanders. Assume all options already use the current custom commander idea, but the poll option is for even further commander customization.

Sorry everyone that voted. Need to revote.

EDIT: By commander customization, I mean even more unique features for your commander before you get any upgrades. Like perks/traits to your commander.

Uber has already mentioned that the different commanders already confirmed (Default, Proginator, Alpha, Custom) may have unique abilities/traits.

Thus, what I mean by commander diversity is to allow players to pick even more traits and abilities for their commanders that are present before they do anything. This could mean allowing all commanders a specification slot, and the bonus commanders get 2, or however else it could be done.

Re: Factions: How to create diversity from similar unit list

So this has been discussed in the past, and generally while the idea is interesting and would be fun, stuff like this is more complicated than they want to attempt. With a single toolbox, you only need to balance each unit against the others, not also against a mirror unit with similar intent but different implementation, or a completely different game play style.

In addition, balancing game elements that occur outside the actual game, like picking stuff in a lobby or whatnot, can add levels of complexity that are hard to account for because it's hard to tell if a strategy isn't viable or if people just aren't playing it "right".

I also strongly believe that the Commanders will be a "preset", and if they have any tangible difference at all, it'll be the same at the beginning and end of the game. You'd then pick the Commander you most identified with or that most resonated with your game play style.

That said, I would definitely expect stuff like this to show up in mods, in addition to "new units" which are essentially a carbon copy of the basic toolbox and Commanders but with different models. Uber has committed to building the one toolbox of units, and the foundation of the game itself, and I encourage people who aren't happy with that to help push for cleaner tools to then implement the stuff themselves.

As long as that foundation is strong, and the tools easy to use, the community can come and build on it faster than Uber could, and to meet the specific and niche needs.

Re: Factions: How to create diversity from similar unit list

Well, they'd have to balance them all regardless of if they were picked by a player or not, since they all have the potential to be in the game. This doesn't change how long it takes to balance, since the assumption is made that all units are in play (but when actually playing the game, a custom faction introduces advantages and disadvantages due to unit variety, not game balance). With all units present, they all need to be balanced. With all units 'potentially' present, they all still need to be balanced the exact same way.

Also, they're not 'mirror units'. It's the same unit if they pick the same one, or completely different if they pick different. It's basically the 'no diversity' option, but player's pick a few units they can't use. Since all players must do this, it makes games potentially more interesting (rather than always land-rush strategy 1 (or 2?!?! ) due to constantly same unit variety).

You're also assuming what they want to do isn't fun and complicated. I got the opposite impression.

If the player designed their own faction, whatever they do would the 'the' way to play it until they play again and do something different with the same techs. If there is constant discussion about which techs and strategies work best for certain play-styles, and of strategies which are only possible due to certain tech selections, I think it'd add another dimension of awesome to the game.

You wouldn't know what your opponent was using until you scout it. This makes every match much more interesting just because of that. Not only do you not know if they are building some advanced tech, but you wouldn't even know if they were capable of building it until you find it... or its too late. To me, that sounds epic.

Eg: Hiding a nuke silo in some corner, when your opponent doesn't even know you can build it. Then a hastily created defence when the first one lands. This goes both ways, since they may be hiding some 'secret weapon' of their own.

I don't believe I ever suggested anything about commander upgrades. It was rather customizations. I suppose I should have clarified that to mean unique differences built into the commander, like how the ARM and CORE commanders were slightly different, but didn't upgrade. This has been mentioned by Uber already, though hotly debated apparently.

Of course. I just saw this idea posted as some simple thing, and thought it needed expanding.

Didn't read all this, because my mind is already made up on this topic as of many years ago. In order to have a true competition, you need to have only one variable determine the winner: the players' skill. This means no unlockables, no random events, no leveling up, no microtransactions, no separate lists of armies, nothing. You need to go in the game knowing what units there are and what they can do. The only surprises should be based on the skill of your enemy, not "oh wow, he chose THAT tank? I failed to choose its counter..."

Its why I dislike Team Fortress 2 compared to the original (all these role-changing unlockable weapons) and why I disliked SMNC (played it for ONE DAY; saw there was no point when my level 2 was matched against a level 43 veteran). Different genre but same idea.

I haven't played any RTS since SupCom: FA however, so not sure if any RTS tried this. But if there are any, you could bet I wouldn't want to play those either.

Starcraft 2? That game has 3 completely different factions with their own strengths and weaknesses and its fully dependent on player skill level and strategy.
In fact almost every competitive RTS uses multiple factions balanced around a "rock paper scissors" system.

That's why scouting is such an important part of RTS. You can't just sit in your base building your army assuming your opponent will be building the same units. Having the same units actually dumbs down the level of skill.

I don't believe it would be as much an issue of "I don't have the counter, I'm screwed", rather "I don't have the counter, but neither do they".

If your strategy involves sacrificing a counter strategy to enhance an attacking strategy, then you risk a loss if they exploit it, but also enjoy the advantage of having a more effective offensive strategy.

Also, there usually isn't a single unique counter to any other single unique unit. There tends to be a variety of options to defend against certain forms of attack, and you just need to tailor a strategy that allows for at least one of them

Eg: No advanced anti-air tanks? Use your anti-air planes, ships, and structures instead.

If anything, it's more strategic than TA/SC. For those, you could usually just build a counter for anything as soon as you needed it, and games were generally decided by tactics or game-enders. With custom factions, a game is decided by how well each player uses their specialized tech selection. It's as much a game of tweaking your strategy out of the game, as actually performing it in game.

To me, that seems like all the strategy anyone could ever want.

Also, there would be no advantage for playing more, as there are no 'level-up' rewards.

Don't even suggest anything that would complicate the game. Just no. It's not clever, it's naive game design.

Besides, we already know that all sides will have the same units.

Ah, yes, of course, I was completely ignoring all those simple successful RTSs.

Wait one second... those have never existed.

I was under the impression PA was going to be complicated. If you consider organizing battles on multiple planets simple, I'd love to see what you consider complex.

Besides, it's high-order complication, requiring thought and logic, but not interaction.

Compare chess to checkers. One requires more thought than the other, but the interface remains the same.

Using the same analogy. A lack of diversity will emphasize a select few strategies since all pieces are the same and will always act the same way, much like checkers and chess.

Chess has gotten to the point where the game is essentially decided by the first move, barring any human mistakes. Even the grandmasters don't like what it has become.

If, instead, you each remove a pawn from the board, that instantly opens up an absolutely ridiculous number of strategies. Which pawn do you remove? How will you use this new element? How will you react to which pawn your opponent removes? Do I pick an obscure pawn to trick my opponent? What if his strategy is a bluff? ... and so on.

This 'remove a pawn' idea is exactly what I suggest for PA with custom factions. If you are limited to picking most, but not all the units in the game to use, which will you pick and why? How will you use this selection? What will your opponent not pick? How will you take advantage of this? How will they take advantage of yours?

For such high-order thought games, you can create 'your' ultimate strategy without even touching the game, if you know the units and how they work.

Then, when you are faced with your opponent's 'ultimate' strategy, it becomes a matter of not only who was most wise with their selection, but also who can best implement their strategy into the game.

Obviously, some strategies will be worse than others, but that's because 'you' chose that poor strategy, not because you were forced to use it by some pre-made faction design. It was a result of your poor planning and implementation, not an imbalance of the game.

Thus, it's the perfect strategic system in my opinion. Your success is tied to your own strategic ability.

It appears like the consensus is that a highly strategy focused game is not desired. My concern is that no diversity will become stale, since everyone will eventually get to the point where they all do the same thing, because it is proven to be the best thing that can possibly be done.

Custom factions (or any diversity) would solve that, by adding variables to strategies, and making them more dynamic.

~~~~~~~~

TL;DR: You're lazy or busy, and are going to miss the points I make if I remove the context... I explain why diversification is good, and how custom factions are the epitome of strategic thinking and execution.

also see this Perfect Imbalance. Video with similar point, a bit less daunting that a wall of text.

Re: Factions: How to create diversity from similar unit list

No they wouldn't. A toolbox, if it is supposed to be viable, has to stand on it's own, not based on the total list of units available.

It is impossible to balance a unit when you don't know what other units it will be played with or against.

With one toolbox, you only have to balance between options in that toolbox. With two toolboxes, you have to balance each toolbox both internally and with the other toolboxes.

That would fall under the "or completely different gameplay style" in my original comment, which you seem to have ignored.

Uber has stated multiple times that this is not their intent with the design of the game.

It seems that you are implying is that fun and complicated are intrinsically tied, would that be an accurate interpretation?

What?

Obfuscation, and introduction of chance, removes the amount of skill required to succeed at a game, because skill has no influence on probability.

There are no corners on a globe. Are you sure you're thinking about PA?

I didn't mention the word "upgrades", so I am not sure where you got that, especially since I directly stated that the Commander would remain the same for the entire length of the game.

You then use the word customization, but are you "customizing" when you select a "preset" character in a fighting game like Tekken, Street Fighter, or Soul Calibur?

This is wrong. By having the same units, it means one must have more skill than the other to defeat them, because there's no inherent advantage or disadvantage.

Then go play those other games, because Uber has made it clear that PA is not going to be like that.

Games based on skill don't need "level-up" rewards.

Define "successful".

Define "complicated" and/or "complication".

Apples and oranges are both fruit, yet most people don't try to compare the two.

Lack of diversity comes from rock-paper-scissors balancing and restricting units to specific roles. When a game is balanced without R/P/S, and units can fulfill multiple roles like they did in at least TA, your assertions become invalid because units don't always act in the same way.

This also leads to inherent imbalance if the players don't remove the same pieces, because it pulls away from skill as an influence on game outcome and moves it towards chance. It takes no skill to play a slot machine, because it's entirely based on chance, and this is an element that was touched on with respect to natural disasters in the stream as something which was to be avoided in the design of PA.

This idea does not align with the design intent that Uber has shared for the basic game, which is why it would be good for a mod but not the basic game.

This doesn't change if there is one toolbox with tools that have multiple functions and uses and your opponent has access to the same toolbox as you.

Sounds like a great argument to support having the same units available to everyone instead of having unique toolboxes that prevent the adaptive gameplay.

Define "highly strategy focused". You don't seem to understand what unit diversity means in a game that isn't balanced in an R/P/S style, or where units are not restricted to specific roles. It's then hard to believe that your solution would actually solve a problem that doesn't actually exist, when the most dynamic strategies require a toolbox that isn't limited in the first place.

See the following for a debunking of that video: http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/7/18/a-discussion-of-balance.html

Re: Factions: How to create diversity from similar unit list

Disagree. So many other elements of strategy and skill come into play when different units are being used. Scouting, build orders, tech switching, countering, on top of the usual micro management of your army and macro management of your base such as income and production speed.

That wasn't the point I was making. Games like PA already have plenty of strategic depth. Your suggestion adds a pointless layer of player-punishing complexity that harms the gameplay of the ACTUAL game. Just imagine doing this with Supreme Commander. We're going to play a match, but I have to decide beforehand on some units I'll be forbidden to use? What? Why? How is that fun?

The "diversification" you suggest already comes in when you make decisions in-game. You choose what to build, and how to use it, and respond to your opponent's choices as the game unfolds, readjusting what you build and how you use it. When you say "For such high-order thought games, you can create 'your' ultimate strategy without even touching the game, if you know the units and how they work", it really shows how much your philosophy differs. You don't intend to change your strategy during the game. And then you try to force this handicap on other players. Your gameplay "enhancement" actually REDUCES the space of intelligent actions you can take.

And your analogies are strange, chess and checkers are symmetric games. Both players start with the same exact game state. You're proposing some bizarre version of chess where you have to decide what pieces to use beforehand, but you can't have access to them all, and then the players reveal what they chose, the player whose choices were outmatched says "Aw, dammit". It's like losing at rock-paper-scissors, and if you think giving an advantage to a person who wins a game of rock-paper-scissors is fun I just don't know what to say.

Why SHOULDN'T I be allowed to switch my choice of what to build in the middle of the game? Why would you remove that flexibility? You can play with unit syngergies and strategies all you want, but what is improved by removing the ability to change your strategy on the fly? You can have the exact kind of gameplay you want, tinkering with plans on what units you will and won't use, but why should I handicap myself too? Dedicating yourself to an initial strategy and burning your bridges is just stupid.

Gameplay is not improved by forcing players to decide beforehand on some units they are forbidden to use. Go play rock-paper-scissors on your own time, it won't be happening in PA.

2 Fractions each is different. (TA)

As a tl;dr, this is, I think, my key point. The proposed choose-a-unit-list game is a strategic subset of the unrestricted game, because you cannot change your unit mix as freely. Any perception that this increases strategic depth is an illusion.

Re: Factions: How to create diversity from similar unit list

How are those things NOT important when both sides have access to the same units? You still have to choose what to actually build, and all those skills are still vitally important. You even mention "countering", when restricting unit lists only eliminates methods for countering! Maybe I'm missing your point. Different units WILL be used, as players make different choices.

I don't understand you guys in don't want to have multiple factions.

It is absolutely boring to have the same units facing each other including the same basic playstyle on each side.

Or lets just see it from an artstyle way. Mostly you have a faforite faction you play the most of the time with, simply because you like their visuals the most or their faction background and "spirit".

In StarCraft I liked Protos and played 99% with em. In Supcom it was Aeon.
Imagine a starctaft with only Terrans as faction or a supcom with only UEF..... Boring as hell!!!

What shall players do that don't like the artstyle of the "one faction"?

I don't get that u want to make a huge step back in RTS evolution.

Same units does not automatically equate to the same play-style.
When you go the faction route you tend to lock yourself in to creating artificial divisions between them.

See you have it all backwards.
The different play-styles do not come from the unit list, it's the other way around, a factions units are created with attributes to support and enhance a pre-determined vision for how that faction should play and behave.

Now with Uber coming at this from a single unit list stand-point means there is no need to pigeon-hole a particular unit in to one faction or another because it leans towards one method of play or the other.
Units that play very differently can live under the one umbrella and if they represent a style you enjoy you'll likely gravitate towards using them over others.

Which is why people keep coming back to: You are your own faction.

This. This entire post. A well-balanced set of units allows for many viable strategies. Even in RTS games with very few units, limiting your choices, it's ludicrous to say that all Terran players for SC:BW have the "same playstyle".

Yeah, I'm all for just sticking to different playstyles with the exact same roster. I'd also like the option of actually enabling such playstyles right from the start. Which is to say, building different types of factories as soon as possible, and also letting you focus on certain resources. (Say, air would require more energy than mass, vice versa with land, etc.) Rather than always having the same initial five-ten minutes of building your economy before you can start to diversify.

Factions that amount to slight stat changes and/or a few unique units and a different aesthetic (as was the case in TA and SupCom) just aren't worth the effort to me. Unless you can get something truly diverse like Starcraft, or as an even better example, Universe at War, it's better to just have a very expansive unit roster that allows for a great deal of different playstyles. It's easier, and inherently more balanced.

What I would appreciate however, is the ability to customize your army's aesthetics to a certain extent.
I'm not talking about an army painter like DoW, or custom models, but something sligthly more simple:
Planetary Annihilation's colour seems mostly two-tone, with one being reserved for the team colour and the other being grey. I'd like for us to be able to customize the grey part of the colour scheme as well. And if at all possible, the particles/projectiles and lighting. So, for example, you could have an army with a black base colour and red lighting effects, for something similar to the Cybran's colour scheme (or a white base and white lighting for an Aeon look).

That is, of course, if it wouldn't detract from the look of the game and/or be too much effort. It's hardly a priority.