HP to DPS Units

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Those still don't really sound like different things.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

I for one am firmly in favor of high DPS and low HP.

Firstly, high dps squishy units are more effective when split up. High HP, low damage units must be in blobs to be effective. The greater the HP to DPS ratio, the larger a blob must be before it becomes efficient to have a second group. Ideally the efficiency ceiling for groups should be low, justifying having many small groups instead of just one large army. An "army" might be multiple groups spaced across a region working in concert, but not just a single stack that must always fight together all at once. It should be beneficial to the player to engage using just small pieces, and this creates the possibility of selectively engaging small pieces of an enemy army. Having a large number of distinct groups is far more interesting than a single very powerful group, especially if both players are behaving similarly.

Secondly, high DPS squishy units die more easily. This means they can be cheaper, and more numerous. Short-lived damage dealers don't actually deal that much damage individually because their time alive is short. This means the total utility gained from such a unit is likely to be lower, even if it is highly efficient, justifying a lower individual cost. More units means more choices about how to divide them and where to put them. This also means you can have quicker build time, and more unit and resource turnover generally. More robots getting constructed, more robots getting put into an increasingly large-scale global war, and more robots getting destroyed.

Thirdly, high DPS squishy units are less deterministic in their outcomes than high HP, low DPS units. Small groups are more likely to be able to do damage to large groups. A group of 200 high DPS squishies against 5 high DPS squishies is going to be much more even in terms of casualties than the same battle between tanky units with low DPS. Between squishies the small group might even get 5 kills, or more if luck or other factors favor them. In the opposite case the 200 low DPS units would still stack together and inflict kills on the 5 units quickly. However the 5 units are much less able to kill an individual member of the larger group without enough DPS from having a suitably large blob of their own. This means low DPS and high HP encourages deathballing, because it makes you more likely to win a deterministic fight. Bigger blob = wins fight.

There are a lot of other reasons why having high DPS and low HP as a general rule is better than the alternative. However you can still have units that are relatively high HP, low DPS compared to other units. But even those units should die relatively easily, and inflict kills relatively quickly as well.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Explaining the difference between depth and complexity:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episod ... complexity

They really are quite different.

Also:

This is false. If only for the simple reasons that
A) on it's own it only works if building space is never an option, which it most certainly will be
B) it doesn't factor in defensive turrets, which are better at protecting tightly packed structures
C) it doesn't factor in enemy movement either, because the bigger your base, the more directions it can be approached from

There certainly are good reasons to build tight. Not to mention that placement of buildings also matters a lot. An efficient base has its factories placed so that units can roll off and leave the base without bumping into other units, as well as the ability to leave in multiple directions. It also has the vulnerable but expensive buildings in a hard to reach place, blocked by cheap, tough buildings. (It'll also have the turrets on the outside, but I suppose that kinda speaks for itself. It's still a design decision though, especially as your base increases in size and you need to move them)

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

For certain kinds of games, this is desireable. For a game focused on strategy, it is not.

Low HP hight DPS units die quickly, as you say. This makes conflicts resolve very quickly and amplifies the smallest tactical error. Once battle is joined, retreat is not a feasible option and manouvoring is not possible; the losses incurred would be enourmous. Far from removing blob warfare, it actually accentuates it. Units move in groups or not at all, and the game consists of short, disparate skirmishes - nothing resembling any kind of large-scale warfare. This not only increases the difficulty but is just frustrating when tiny mistakes have such harsh penalties.

Conversely, High HP/Low DPS units encourage strategic manouvoring. Retreating & regrouping, delaying tactics, feints and reinforcing a battle mid-fight all become possible, as they do not work without an army having staying power. Also note the word battle and not skirmish - they aren't over as soon as they begin. Mistakes still cost you in the long run, but their results aren't as drastic.

Supreme Commander did not feel like a war, it felt like a military engagement. There was no front line and no constant struggle. Wars require large scale ongoing tension and fighting to portray desperation and intesity, not isolated skirmishes (not that they don't have any place at all). Pushing through a raging front line battle should be an accomplishment and not a 5 second exploit of an opponents small lapse of judgement.

High DPS low HP is a quick way to make PA feel tactical and remove many strategic options for armies.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

High DPS low HP creates Starcraft battles.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Not by definition. It might encourage it though, especially if unit AI isn't very good.

That said; the few high HP low DPS games I played all suffered from one thing I've found; lack of excitement. It's just not a lot of fun to see a tank shoot another tank 25 times before it kills it.

So that's also a thing to look out for. While it's interesting strategically to have high HP and low DPS, it can also lead to boring combats. And watching a fight play out should at the very least be an interesting watch.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Well, high HP to DPS ratio is not the only way to make battle last.
Wreckage the hinder movement and block projectile give that property too.
Having too high HP to DPS ratio make surprise/diversion attack weak because the defending player will have the time to come back.

Still high/low HP to DPS ratio is very subjective. Ihmo, TA had a far better feeling that SupCom.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

T1 units in TA weren't made of paper. They felt usable in small groups of five or six and downright scary in a group of fifty, able to storm an outpost and completely take it apart...
As compared to SupCom where you needed fifty (plus) T1 units to overcome one T3 Siege-bot.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

It is simply false that having low HP and high DPS makes it impossible to disengage. A force of 50 units can fight until it's half dead and then fall back. You might lose a few more units in the retreat. If you are looking at individual units then you are correct, a single individual that engages might be unable to disengage. But when you increase the scale such that a single unit is basically a section of HP for a larger group this is not the case.

Starcraft deathballs are just like other deathballs. You can have your high HP low DPS deathballs (i.e. Stalkers) with your consolidated DPS (colossi). You can have your high absolute strength deathball (broodlord+infestor).

In Starcraft all the high DPS squishies need to split up (marine marauder medivac drops, zergling runby, dark templar) in order to be effective.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

starcraft isn't the best example of being able to disengage, as you have all of 12 seconds to do so.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

I don't know what supcom you guys played that didn't have a front line. But it's not the same game I played. Some of the best moments were the epic standoffs at important locations.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

You've said it all - standoff. Not fighting. It's much more fun to fight over key locations than simply look angrily at one another.
Pitched, on-going battles are the front lines I refer to. Sup Com didn't have these.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

You did fight, for extended periods of time. I have no idea what you are on about.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

It's true you could constantly fight in FA but I'm sure you'll admit the battles were rarely pitched as they might have been on TA. On FAF I played and still do play ladder matches but I rarely experience anything like that. The battles are usually skirmishes or sieges with standoffs and unit accumulation in between. Even if players did constantly barrage each other with units the superior economy would win not the superior troop movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitched_battle

Now that is an important distinction to draw as in a pitched battle scenario you are able to actively affect the end result through military manuevers, feints, delay tactics, reinforcements, etc. as opposed to the binary win loss which is typical in SupCom/StarCraft skirmish. In fact - skirmishes should be able to last long enough to turn into pitched battles if both sides decide to double down.

Another appeal would be to realism, arguing that basic infantry couldn't tank 100 bullets from an enemy rifle is a fair criticism, the reality though: the US 'shots fired to kill' ratio during WW2 was 20,000 rounds, in Vietnam it was closer to 180,000 rounds and in Iraq it was closer to 250,000 rounds.

This isn't a super incorrect way to think about it but you need to also remember that when your HP to DPS ratio is very low retreating is more DPS costly. This means that your effective damage output is much more greatly affected when you retreat or lose numerical superiority and indeed accentuates blob warfare. A smaller blob can't hold a bigger blob for very long. The same is not true when units have High HP to DPS ratios because effective DPS is lost much more gradually and stalling for reinforcement becomes a lot easier when your DPS doesn't get obliterated.

Balancing raiding should be relatively easy but a single Tier 1 unit shouldn't be able to completely obliterate a section of the planet on its own quickly anyway, that makes for a very tactical harass oriented game. Sneaking a group of units into a corner of an enemy base and destroying eco unmolested should be viable - but doing so while running from enemy pursuit? That's what we have in SupCom, it leads to a lot of enemy corralling.

This is a fair observation, TA increased the effective hit points (EHP) of units on consistent fields of battle by blocking projectiles with wrecks. This meant that over time what could only be skirmishes would be able to grow into pitched battles. This mechanic did not seem to translate very well to SupCom as higher arcing, larger scopes of battle and relatively small wrecks mitigated the effect.

Regardless of how you acquire your high EHP whether it's through mobile shields in SupCom, wreck shields in TA or just increasing the HP on units it is this underlying relationship between HP and DPS that produces very interesting battlefield management that does not also require your full attention and end in 12 seconds like StarCraft.

Having nice explosions and adjacency bonuses is interesting the first time you encounter them but how many people will be learning adjacency or playing for explosions years down the road? What will give PA longevity will be the satisfaction from battle management, regardless of whether you ultimately win or lose the war. After all, it is a real time strategy game.

To Devs: If any devs read this thread I really enjoy what you guys are putting together. The streams are great and definitely keep the technical stuff coming, even if it makes some of the chat room derp out a lot of us appreciate the look into development.

As far as HP and DPS go whatever UberEnt has planned will be great. Testing what the game is like with .2x, .5, 2x, 5x, or 10x HP just to see how short or intensive a single battle can be for the stream would be a cool example of the game design if not just something done internally (maybe while reinforcements are coming across the map).

For competitive play how the game feels even when you lose should be important. A lot of games leave you feeling great when you easily win but the best games leave you feeling good even when you still lose. I could appreciate an epic game of TA even when I lost and I could usually take solace in the successes I did have. In short I hope PA is a game you can enjoy playing not just winning.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

As it should be in a strategy game.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy

Goals can be economy based: capture and control these metal points
Goals can be military based: destroy vulnerable enemy power generators

Resources can be economy based: energy/metal
Resources can be military based: tanks/planes/bots/boats/position/static defense

Advantages can be economy based: more energy/mass
Advantages can be military based: better position, air dominance, naval superiority, land control

Strategy is not strictly economic and tactics/micro are not strictly military. Building rings of mass storage around MEXs would be considered economic micro or an economic tactic. I like games that emphasize military strategy - not economic strategy which is usually just build order/build habit execution and economic micromanagement.

Re: HP to DPS Ratio

Logistics are a huge part of strategy though. A man in logistics is worth ten in the field and all that.

yeah sure, supcom is the only rts.
how about no?
also strategy = all moves to achieve an objective
tactic = one move
so strategy is whole of the tactics

company of heroes and Broodwar have also plenty of strategies, if you can't see them, you did not understand what strategy really mean, sry...

which starcraft?

if you refer to sc2, you are right
but if we speak about Broodwar, then you are wrong, hp/dps there is much more balanced, result in units staying more on the ground, they do not die in two sec

I dont think much time has been spent on this yet, everything dies in a second. Especially by t2 tanks..

Yep, I loved brood war growing up. StarCraft II has silly fast engagements and for a variety of reasons didn't live up to the original. Still a solid game.