One-Unit Army Mega-Bots... FOO-y

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

Well its just a general idea, nothing too specific

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

I think the number of megabots should be limited.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

In short, I am with nanolathe on practically all points in his above post, and although I would like to see a longer treatise on the subject to prove the point, I don't think there's a point in going over the theory and justification. Nanolathe made a great start down that road in the OP, and I imagine he'll finish it up if it needs doing. He's right on all counts, and there are pages and pages more that could be said to extend the OP.

What really needs to be said here is the pressures that lead to creating shallow and gimmicky RTS gameplay, and the pressures away from strategy and depth. PA's devs must be aware of these forces, and in spite of those forces they should act to create a strategic, complex, deep game.

The fact is, "if you're explaining, you're losing." The people you need to convince will hardly ever sit through a lengthy explanation by someone with specialized knowledge. Cheap support can be gained by having a short, punchy message that people will repeat, as a shallow analogue of actual knowledge.

The big problem here is that there is quite a lot of explanation required to convey why "super units" are bad gameplay. There is a lot of game theory, a lot of abstract RTS principles involved, and a lot of other areas that require not only an explanation of their application, but an explanation of the principles themselves first. And this is on a forum where the concept of macro/rush/turtle as a rock-paper-scissors relationship was greeted with "please teach me, master." Most RTS gamers these days are lacking in very basic strategic vocabulary, and haven't actually had to make strategic decisions in RTS games before.

Applied to video games, not politics, the same adage is still true. Deep explanations of theory and features like strategic depth or competitive balance will lose out to punchy, flashy features like excellent graphics or giant robots. The developers of Red Orchestra are perfect examples of how shallow appeal is winning over depth. In shooters, the current crop of shooters has essentially created a constant state of positive payoff for players, just to get them to keep hitting the lever in that Skinner box. It sells fantastically well, but doesn't require the players to actually develop any actual shooter skills, or tactical abilities.

In RTS games, the same process is happening. Players can win games with relatively little mechanical skill, and extremely little planning or strategic thinking. Shallow positive payoffs are taking the place of the lengthy and difficult process of becoming skilled, and exercising those skills for effect in the game.

Super units like in SupCom are a perfect example. The order to construct them is very mechanically undemanding, and the strategy in their use is extremely simple. They don't add play and counterplay, or complicate the battlefield. Rather, they simplify the game by application of brute force or powerful gimmicks.

I have made a lot of criticisms of SupCom 2, and many criticisms are deserved. But the only fatal flaw of that game is how little thinking it requires to play well. A more developed board doesn't create a complex strategic picture that requires strategy and creativity. A more developed board lets you build a bigger hammer, and the winner is whoever has the bigger hammer.

This is the fatal possibility of super units. They represent the possibility of concentrating a huge amount of game utility into a few board pieces. And a board with only a few very powerful pieces is just... boring.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

Always glad to read a long, well thought through post, regardless of whether it supports me or not.

I tried to keep the OP as short and succinct as possible, but it's very hard when you're dealing with such a complex and interconnected topic

and I agree with you when it comes to boiling down complexity by decreasing the number of units the mind must concentrate on.

In the end, we're all human, and we all do it to some degree or other. but the clumsy way it was handled in SupCom 2 was just a little too much to bare for me.

The problem comes when you try playing the game without Experimentals. It's so blisteringly obvious that all the development time, ideas, effort, money and so forth, was put into these units, that you have a very shallow game experience without them... not that SupCom2 was praised for depth in the first place.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

It shouldnt be possible(or it should be hard) to get an unbeateble deathball with multiple mega bots.
My Ideas: -Limit of Megabots
-Increased cost/upkeep
-less effectiveness in high numbers: blocking each other; less use of multitarged

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

They are already limited by cost and viability.

The viability angle won't work if they stack into huge deathballs, obviously. A killer unstoppable force can always find a way.

Number limits are awful and don't make sense in this universe. Only a Comm limit is justified due to their unique game losing role.

Flat cost is one thing. Energy drain can also be effective, as infrastructure is ultimately limited by terrain. Paying metal for ammo is another option.

Explosive deaths work. Blocking each other's shots can help. Limiting their roles would be most effective, if they can't be massed as a single win button.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

Ultimate balance solution? Friendly fire.

If it shoots in a shotgun esque way, and can step on your own units, it comes back down to tactics. Have too many? They're going to end up killing each other.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

Always enjoy reading your posts. I hope Uber do too, I'm disappointed in this direction the game may be taking.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

Here's another take on the whole Megabot idea that I put forth.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

I really like looking more than skin deep into a game, and I like it when others do the same. Good observation rabidchoco.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

I always like looking at games through the lens of backstory, if present. I'm sure in this case, it's minimal at best, but it's still a factor to look at.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

Sadly it's not really applicable in this case, which is too bad because we did tackle that Psychological aspect when designing the Basilisk for BlackOps.

Mike

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

I agree, however the application of complex interaction mechanics, and diverse roles or abilities to units, in order to create an environment with a plethora of strategic options works best in a game system where time is not of the essence. If this were a turn based strategy game like Civilization I couldn't agree more, once people work out the route to get Game Winning Unit X, most will cease to explore the rest of the options afforded by the game, and miss out on most of what the game actually has to offer.

The difference with a real time strategy, is that you only have a limited window to react to emergent events, which by necessity reduces the complexity of your response; in time critical situations humans have always tended to fall back on a limited subset of familiar responses. In an RTS, a more developed board could be representative of a complex and shifting strategic picture, or it might just be a messy hodgepodge of hasty responses to badly planned rushes, coupled with a set of suspiciously similar looking outlying bases/resource points.

In situations where people are going to end up artificially limiting themselves to a subset of the available tactical options due to time pressure, and where by necessity plans are going to be revised, scrapped, created, and bodged on the fly (instead of iteratively modeled, analysed and refined prior to execution), the inclusion of low forethought super units is probably going to have less impact on the overall complexity of the battlefield than in a game where you have as much time as you need to consider your next move.

I'm not saying that "supers" are a great idea, but it's not like we don't have decades of prior art for the tier based upgrade path. To play devils advocate, I know for SupCom:FA that a player who has amassed a significant army of T1 units is going to struggle just as hard to deal with T2 or T3 (on offense or defense); the T3 assault bot is a super unit as far as the T1 units are concerned, or what nanolathe would refer to as a One Unit Army candidate.

In that respect it's not the experimentals that are the underlying cause, since you could reclassify them "tech 4" and achieve the same result. It's the existence of the tech tiers themselves that promote the mindless rush to make the "best" units, where reaching the next tier effectively makes the previous tier obsolete. SupCom2 tried to mitigate that to a point, via the research system. At least those tanks you built right at the start could remain valid to the endgame with boosted health and extra damage, but by including experimental units as an effective tech 2 (even though they were nerfed from their SupCom stats) they still kept the tech race as an inherent game mechanic, and had a tech tier that obsoletes the previous one.

And the big issue with that? People like having the tech race. It's a goal, it is its own reward, and it provides a sense of achievement. The art is in the balance; if you want every unit to be viable, you ensure no unit gets overshadowed at doing its base job, and that upgrades provide diversity, instead of redundancy.

Which pretty much rules out Krogoths as a viable "T2" unit, but does pave the way for stealth units, radar jammer units, amphib units, jumpjet units, hover units, kamikaze units and all sorts as upgrades from base ground units.

Well, unless they make a Trojan Krogoth, where the weapons are made from papier maché and 20 peewees come spilling out once it takes a few hits. That one I would be perfectly happy to see in game :mrgreen:

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

One thing that I, and everyone else should be very grateful for, is that Uber isn't just going to let Planetary Annihilation out, and then patch it once... only to be done with it.

Can't wait for an RTS that gets support from day one, and then gets updated with balance and stuff, weekly/bi-weekly for a year.

---

You guys better believe me when I say I'll be making posts every single patch!

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

In my eyes Megabots should be
a) stupidly expensive
b) not limited in their number, because why should they be?
c) extremely powerful but overwhelm-able

As Nano said multiplicative values come into play with lots of super units

Using the UEF in SupCom:FA as an example, if you got one Fatboy it was only really good against a group of weaker units as a decent army would just catch and crush it.
However if your enemy had five of them... He would just kite you all day and wipe out your army.

The biggest problem is that Super Units often lack a weakness
So they should be kitable, catchable and preferably only able to be effective in one direction to allow for flanking.

I also don't think they should be game-enders, just horribly expensive

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

Nobody would ever build them if they were stupidly expensive and not a game ender.

Those two things go well combined otherwise why the hell would anyone spend their time and resources on building something that won't give them something worthy of that time and res in return?

The balance of super units is incredibly hard to manage but having the super units as structures rather than tanks/bots would be easier to implement in my opinion.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

I never soil my pants when encountering an opponent's megabot/experimental/T4/etc.

Does that mean megabots are useless units against me?

Further, I claim that experienced players (I am not calling experienced players good players) don't crap themselves either. Logically, megabots are worthless against good players. Their only effective purpose is to upset inexperienced players.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

It's a little off topic, but i didnt wanted to create a new thread and didn't cound the answers i am looking for.
Can someone tell me how many units TA had?
Does someone know wheather its possible to "hide" units?

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

It's roughly 60 to 70 discrete units per faction with the Core having slightly more than the Arm.

at least 140 units in total... not including buildings.

If you include buildings it goes Waaaaay over 200 total.

Edit: 235 according to this site.

Re: Mega-Bots... FOO-y

I would prefer to see mega-bots that are support only.

Like a mega bot that is a massive engineer unit.

Or a mega bot that has hundreds of repair turrets to help support an army.

And of course a mega bot that can build ships on the move!