HP to DPS Units

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

while a matter of actual testing and balancing, I probably would prefer battles in PA to have a longer duration based on a high hp value for the units.
For one, I in general don't mind if battles take a bit longer (a matter of taste ).
But the main reason would be, that with the design of PA and the consequently high probability of having to manage multiple battles at the same time, it would also require that a battle can last a few moments unobserved (after giving a few commands) so the player can switch between battle scenes.
Also, longer battles in general allow more decisions based on the course of the battle (send reinforcements/ retreat of important/costly units... ) instead of binary you win/you loose outcomes of an initial decision.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

I'd like units to be about as 'robust' as in Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance.

Aircraft might need to be a little more fragile.

Same goes for Metal Extractors.

Rest is quite fine.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

The meaning of depth in competitive multiplayer strategy games is that several viable options should be available and balanced. Optimizing your layout of the base is part of mastering the game and that doesn't qualify as depth in a competitive game.
I agree that all game design doesn't need to focus only on keeping viable options. Starcraft is very mechanically demanding and a puzzle game is all about finding the optimal solution.

If a strategy game doesn't have viable options then it all comes down to execution. In my opinion a strategy game should all be about the decisions you make and what strategy you chose and how you adapt to the enemy strategy.
The adjacency bonuses in SupCom only raises the skill entry point. In order to compete in higher levels you have to use adjacency and that doesn't really giving any additional options in terms of strategy.

I don't want the basebuilding to be a puzzle to solve and something where I have to use number crunching to calculate the most beneficial layout.
I want the layout to matter to how I execute my strategy and how it interacts with the enemy strategy.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Adjacency is a lot of math for very little visual impact OR game effect. People don't like math.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

It also forces people to play in a particular way if they want optimal efficiency.

Also keep in mind we are a small team with much more limited time than say the SupCom team had. We have to pick our battles and adjacency doesn't rate...

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

There was always the tradeoff between adjacency and volatility. Adjacency allowed you to prioritize different bonuses based on what you wanted. You act as if there was always a single best layout which is untrue, in fact what really happened is that there were almost as many layouts as there were players, because each prioritized something different to their playstyle and strategy.

With no adjacency and with no shields there is no particularly good reason to put any two buildings at all near each other because that just opens them up to splash damage. This is true in almost every RTS.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Of course there were different ways you could do it the problem is that they weren't all equal in value, there was no point to putting Pgens next to mexes, because the Benefit of reduced Energy Consumption was meaningless next to the option to build mass storage instead and get 1.5x the Output on that Extractor.

Mike

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

And that is at all relevant how? It's a balance problem not an adjancency problem.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

C'mon knight, you of all people should know that was a matter of numbers and not an inherent flaw with the adjacency system...

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

But heres the kicker, can you balance a system where there is any kind of benefit to Mass/Metal? AS it goes, energy is cheap because you can build as much as you need anywhere, Metal/Mass is what's limited.

I won't shed any tears over the lack of Adjacency.

Mike

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

One could argue that a percentile based adjecency system is flawed. I myself am in the camp of thinking absolute bonuses should be used. If it says +1 then it should give +1.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

That's nothing more than Semantics, the question still stands.

Mike

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Of course you can. In fact part of the problem with the percentile system was that once you upgraded the extractor, the +1 could easily become a lot.

It's simply a matter of making sure that the tradeoff you are making with other potential adjacencies are worth it. Lowering the cost of units is certainly not to be scoffed at.

It simply means that mass based adjacencies are the most important.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

The values can certainly be adjusted to be reasonable and useful. But what is it adding, exactly? It's still added complexity for little more reason than complexity's sake.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

It adds complexity to an otherwise dull task, that of building your base.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Thus adding tedium to the process?

Random map generation and planetary damage will already provide enough complexity to base design.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Also complexity doesn't equal depth.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

I disagree. Huge craters are totally deep.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

I'd like you to explain the difference in your mind between complexity and depth.

What is "depth" if not a complex system you can explore in some... well depth? A simple buzzword for something you like?

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Complexity is about the amount of possible interactions and the variables that are included in each of those, which are in an exponential realationship.

Depth is about the amount of different possible inputs with different and desierable possible outcomes.

So a game needs to have a certain level of complexity to play but as that amount increases things become harder and harder to interact with. Depth gives the players choices about what they want to do and diverse outcomes.