Stone Paper Scissors == Boring Game
Author
This has kind of been bothering me for a while, but all this talk about chess and stuff has got me really thinking....
Anyone who has read GA&D has heard of the Stone Paper Scissors game balancing technique. To quote the example in the book, Barbarians beat Archers, Archers beat Knights, and Knights beat Barbarians. The principle behind this is that you achieve balance by ensuring that no unit is dominant, and no unit is dominated.
In my opinion, this may be true, but it ultimately leads to boring gameplay. Just as having a dominant unit makes unit selection a no-brainer, so does this - you just build everything in equal proportions. To hell with that.
For my RTS design I am considering the following scheme. It is still essentially a zero sum scheme, but it works in a very different way. Instead of balancing the units against one another, I propose balancing the units with themselves. Each unit has advantages and disadvantages such that in certain circumstances, it may be dominant, but in others, it will be a useless pile of crap.
Example...
Assault Infantry:
Unbeatable at close range. Long range ability is severely limited. Can use cover to acheive stealth. Relatively slow moving. Can occupy buildings.
Support Infantry:
Long range, powerful weapons Can use cover to achieve stealth. Relatively slow moving. Can occupy buildings.
Light Tank:
Long range, powerful weapons. Moderate armour. Fast moving, but very limited in terms of the terrain it can traverse. Easily detectable.
Heavy Tank:
Extremely powerful weapons. Excellent armour. Slow moving, and limited to certain terrain types. Very easy to detect.
How does this work out? In the open steppes, the assault infantry, despite their stealth are going to get caned. The support infantry could be useful for surprise attacks due to their superior stealth and mobility, but overall the tanks will rule.
In the jungle, the tanks are almost useless - the best they can do is sit outside and shell random spots in the hope of hitting something. The support infantry are also relatively weak, the assault troops are in charge here.
In a city, the tanks are of limited use - Assault and support infantry are of equal value. Support troops can lay down covering fire from the rooftops while the assault troops can sneak up on enemy positions and try to oust them.
Overall in a game with varied terrain, no unit dominates. But in small battles, certain unit types will dominate. It is up to the player to make sure that he uses them to the best of their abilities.
Balance?
Bah.
I know you started with a ''tanks and guns'' idea (and I agree with your logic, that it''s better to balance a unit by itself, not against other units), but I usually focus on ''fantasy'' elements, merely because I prefer close combat over ranged combat.
Just for close combat, there''s your peasant with pitchfork as the one extreme, and your skilled fully equiped samurai on the other end. It''s obvious that the samurai will perform better in just about any area (the farmer is probably better at digging holes and setting up defenses that way). The balancing tool should be the training that took place before the actual combat happened. Or it should be the salary that the units demand.
To get back to the tank example:
the newest tank on the market might have a 10% efficiency addition, but this could come at a 20% higher cost.
The infantry with regular rifle sure isn''t as effective as that infantry unit with the specialiced high-powered one... but it''s a lot cheaper to have 10 regular infantry troops running around, than 10 of them with super-rifles.
This of course brings the campaign aspect to the foreground. Do you spend money on more power, risking a loss of that power when the unit dies or is destroyed? Or do you choose for a victory by just having more bodies to throw at the enemy?
By the way, I completely agree with your idea. The units all balance itself, even if you follow logic. Light tanks: fast but light armour. Heavy tanks: slow but well protected. It just works. It makes sense AND it will make for good gameplay.
Bah.
I know you started with a ''tanks and guns'' idea (and I agree with your logic, that it''s better to balance a unit by itself, not against other units), but I usually focus on ''fantasy'' elements, merely because I prefer close combat over ranged combat.
Just for close combat, there''s your peasant with pitchfork as the one extreme, and your skilled fully equiped samurai on the other end. It''s obvious that the samurai will perform better in just about any area (the farmer is probably better at digging holes and setting up defenses that way). The balancing tool should be the training that took place before the actual combat happened. Or it should be the salary that the units demand.
To get back to the tank example:
the newest tank on the market might have a 10% efficiency addition, but this could come at a 20% higher cost.
The infantry with regular rifle sure isn''t as effective as that infantry unit with the specialiced high-powered one... but it''s a lot cheaper to have 10 regular infantry troops running around, than 10 of them with super-rifles.
This of course brings the campaign aspect to the foreground. Do you spend money on more power, risking a loss of that power when the unit dies or is destroyed? Or do you choose for a victory by just having more bodies to throw at the enemy?
By the way, I completely agree with your idea. The units all balance itself, even if you follow logic. Light tanks: fast but light armour. Heavy tanks: slow but well protected. It just works. It makes sense AND it will make for good gameplay.
Author
I deliberately avoided the subject of cost in my previous post, since I think cost is a poor balancer. While I agree with you completely (balance SHOULDNT be necessary)The problem is that few players would want to faff around with managing 100 farmers when he can do the same damage with 10 samurai. It is a fact that small numbers are easier to control, so the samurai would tend to be favoured by most players.
Maintenance would be a good attribute. Perhaps the cost of maintaining samurai would be high, whereas the farmers would be self sufficient, and capable of surviving well outside your supply lines... perhaps they could even provide for a few other units while they are at it. Immediately, the farmer is quite a useful unit, enabling you to launch an attack well beyond your normal range, or maintain a defence even after it has been cut off. Although weak in combat, its tactical value is still high.
Edited by - Sandman on July 12, 2001 2:46:37 PM
Maintenance would be a good attribute. Perhaps the cost of maintaining samurai would be high, whereas the farmers would be self sufficient, and capable of surviving well outside your supply lines... perhaps they could even provide for a few other units while they are at it. Immediately, the farmer is quite a useful unit, enabling you to launch an attack well beyond your normal range, or maintain a defence even after it has been cut off. Although weak in combat, its tactical value is still high.
Edited by - Sandman on July 12, 2001 2:46:37 PM
SANDMAN:
Yes, without the factor of cost, you would have to really balance each unit in itself to prevent one unit from dominating the field of battle (dominating A field is not bad, but dominating EVERY field/battle etc IS)
I guess for tanks, maintenance is VERY important. I mean, after battle one, you''d need engineers etc to fix it up again and prepare it for the next battle.
But...
I think it''d be very hard to balance units of the same type.
How do you balance Heavy Tank type 1 vs Heavy Tank type 2?
Or infantry? When the individual human beings fighting are all the same, their equipment will determine their strength in battle. As I mentioned, if Soldier 1 has a better gun than Soldier 2 (same speed, same damage, same reload speed, but with longer range for example), Soldier 1 is going to dominate the fight.
I almost think that you HAVE to factor in cost somehow. For pitched battles, take Warhammer as an example. Each unit has a certain value. Sure, you can take an all Knights Of The Realm army, but the point cost per unit is high. You could for example enlist 100 goblins for the cost of 10 knights. But even with a perfectly balanced point cost, there are still going to be units that will be preferred over others (that''s why I think if you want to balance units for online gameplay, you HAVE to include a feedback system. If unit A is used in 99% of all battles, it''s point cost will go up. If unit B is used in only 1%, it''s point cost will go down. Voila, you have an everchanging strategy for your players as they will continually pick different units depending on their current point cost)
Back to balance again. If the person fighting is the same, you''ll have to balance the equipment somehow. You would HAVE to make that longer range rifle have some sort of flaw. Something.
You would have to make that newly designed armor plate have a flaw, because otherwise every tank is going to be equiped with it. Weight could be a factor for armor plates.
It seems like cost is just the easy way out... I guess it is. And it does seem a lot easier than balancing each unit, every piece of equipment etc.
Yes, without the factor of cost, you would have to really balance each unit in itself to prevent one unit from dominating the field of battle (dominating A field is not bad, but dominating EVERY field/battle etc IS)
I guess for tanks, maintenance is VERY important. I mean, after battle one, you''d need engineers etc to fix it up again and prepare it for the next battle.
But...
I think it''d be very hard to balance units of the same type.
How do you balance Heavy Tank type 1 vs Heavy Tank type 2?
Or infantry? When the individual human beings fighting are all the same, their equipment will determine their strength in battle. As I mentioned, if Soldier 1 has a better gun than Soldier 2 (same speed, same damage, same reload speed, but with longer range for example), Soldier 1 is going to dominate the fight.
I almost think that you HAVE to factor in cost somehow. For pitched battles, take Warhammer as an example. Each unit has a certain value. Sure, you can take an all Knights Of The Realm army, but the point cost per unit is high. You could for example enlist 100 goblins for the cost of 10 knights. But even with a perfectly balanced point cost, there are still going to be units that will be preferred over others (that''s why I think if you want to balance units for online gameplay, you HAVE to include a feedback system. If unit A is used in 99% of all battles, it''s point cost will go up. If unit B is used in only 1%, it''s point cost will go down. Voila, you have an everchanging strategy for your players as they will continually pick different units depending on their current point cost)
Back to balance again. If the person fighting is the same, you''ll have to balance the equipment somehow. You would HAVE to make that longer range rifle have some sort of flaw. Something.
You would have to make that newly designed armor plate have a flaw, because otherwise every tank is going to be equiped with it. Weight could be a factor for armor plates.
It seems like cost is just the easy way out... I guess it is. And it does seem a lot easier than balancing each unit, every piece of equipment etc.
I had a good discussion awhile back with an old school grognard wargamer and a friend who was a diehard Starcraft fanatic. I fall somewhere on both sides, but the grognard made a good point:
What ever happened to making do with what you''ve got?
Many of the historical wargames I know of were about senarios where things were never exactly fair. Players exhibited strategic brilliance by improvising, and using the strengths of their force against the weaknesses of their enemy. (His contention, btw, was that players used to rock-sissors-paper would whine about imbalance and never be able to play a historical senario)
I think the idea you have is great in that it makes terrain on the map more significant, and reinforces notions of holding specific types of ground. The game map isn''t just a few resource patches and chokepoints, and becomes more meaningful as a whole. This adds a lot more strategy than just the typical high ground bonus I''ve seen in most RTS games.
BTW, if players insist on an even contest imbalance can be fine if the victory conditions are also imbalanced.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
What ever happened to making do with what you''ve got?
Many of the historical wargames I know of were about senarios where things were never exactly fair. Players exhibited strategic brilliance by improvising, and using the strengths of their force against the weaknesses of their enemy. (His contention, btw, was that players used to rock-sissors-paper would whine about imbalance and never be able to play a historical senario)
I think the idea you have is great in that it makes terrain on the map more significant, and reinforces notions of holding specific types of ground. The game map isn''t just a few resource patches and chokepoints, and becomes more meaningful as a whole. This adds a lot more strategy than just the typical high ground bonus I''ve seen in most RTS games.
BTW, if players insist on an even contest imbalance can be fine if the victory conditions are also imbalanced.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
WAVINATOR:
I think I fully agree with your friend. Don''t whine about imbalance.
You know, it would be interesting to take bridge as an example. The cards are dealt, you might be lucky or unlucky with the cards you get.
But...
The way the game works, is that it actually takes note of how good your cards were and then figures out how good you should have played. You can get the best cards in the world... play bad... and get a bad score. But, you can also get the worst cards in the world... play excellent... and get a good score (better even than the ones with the good cards).
You don''t even have to win. You just have to play to the best of your abilities.
In an RTS game, you could reflect this by somehow calculating the odds BEFORE the fight and then somehow figuring out what the end results SHOULD have been (with online games this might be easier, as you can just take an average of all games played and calculate the average odds).
Example:
Player 1 has 10 units of strength 5.
Player 2 has 10 units of strength 6.
The odds before the fight are that player 2 will win. The odds are that he will eliminate all 10 enemy units and keep 4 of his own intact.
Now, if Player 1 plays smart, he might be able to kill 8 enemy units before succumbing. The victory might go to player 2, but the glory would go to player 1.
A system I''m devicing would have players actually scout the enemy and make them decide if they want to attack or not. Say, there are 100 players online with their armies, all in one big area (let''s just take a small planet as an example).
Player 1 travels across the planet, looking for an army to attack. He spots an army that looks like it''s weak enough for him to beat. He positions his armies and attacks.
Perhaps the weak-looking army has backup forces around the corner, or maybe they have some other surprises awaiting the enemy. Maybe they find themselves overwhelmed and retreat when the enemy attacks. Maybe they call in some friends to help them.
Anyway, there doesn''t need to be a balance. Let''s just let Darwinism rule our games. That''ll take care of a lot of headaches during design (balancing, fine-tuning etc).
I think I fully agree with your friend. Don''t whine about imbalance.
You know, it would be interesting to take bridge as an example. The cards are dealt, you might be lucky or unlucky with the cards you get.
But...
The way the game works, is that it actually takes note of how good your cards were and then figures out how good you should have played. You can get the best cards in the world... play bad... and get a bad score. But, you can also get the worst cards in the world... play excellent... and get a good score (better even than the ones with the good cards).
You don''t even have to win. You just have to play to the best of your abilities.
In an RTS game, you could reflect this by somehow calculating the odds BEFORE the fight and then somehow figuring out what the end results SHOULD have been (with online games this might be easier, as you can just take an average of all games played and calculate the average odds).
Example:
Player 1 has 10 units of strength 5.
Player 2 has 10 units of strength 6.
The odds before the fight are that player 2 will win. The odds are that he will eliminate all 10 enemy units and keep 4 of his own intact.
Now, if Player 1 plays smart, he might be able to kill 8 enemy units before succumbing. The victory might go to player 2, but the glory would go to player 1.
A system I''m devicing would have players actually scout the enemy and make them decide if they want to attack or not. Say, there are 100 players online with their armies, all in one big area (let''s just take a small planet as an example).
Player 1 travels across the planet, looking for an army to attack. He spots an army that looks like it''s weak enough for him to beat. He positions his armies and attacks.
Perhaps the weak-looking army has backup forces around the corner, or maybe they have some other surprises awaiting the enemy. Maybe they find themselves overwhelmed and retreat when the enemy attacks. Maybe they call in some friends to help them.
Anyway, there doesn''t need to be a balance. Let''s just let Darwinism rule our games. That''ll take care of a lot of headaches during design (balancing, fine-tuning etc).
mmmm I looooove discussing the mechanics of conventional warfare.
I am all for the idea of providing a "self-balanced" unit but this hinges HEAVILY on campaign gameplay with persisting forces (Homeworld!!) as opposed to unit-building gameplay (TA, C&C most everything else). If you start off with no units in every new battle, you''re obviously going to build the units that have the greatest advantages for the terrain, you''ll build only tanks to fight field battles, and only build grunts for urban/jungle/CQ (close quarters, like clearing occupying forces from an office tower or underground bunker) missions. Obviously this is in fact the way field commanders endeavor to operate, applying his assets where they are most effective, but without persistent armies, the point is moot, every mission (as there is no true campaign element) will start at zero, and acquire the dreaded moniker of being JARTS (Just Another RTS).
--------------
-WarMage
...I just flicked a booger on your windshield out in the parking lot!
I am all for the idea of providing a "self-balanced" unit but this hinges HEAVILY on campaign gameplay with persisting forces (Homeworld!!) as opposed to unit-building gameplay (TA, C&C most everything else). If you start off with no units in every new battle, you''re obviously going to build the units that have the greatest advantages for the terrain, you''ll build only tanks to fight field battles, and only build grunts for urban/jungle/CQ (close quarters, like clearing occupying forces from an office tower or underground bunker) missions. Obviously this is in fact the way field commanders endeavor to operate, applying his assets where they are most effective, but without persistent armies, the point is moot, every mission (as there is no true campaign element) will start at zero, and acquire the dreaded moniker of being JARTS (Just Another RTS).
--------------
-WarMage
...I just flicked a booger on your windshield out in the parking lot!
Building units during gameplay: this is something that should disappear in coming RTS games (in my opinion).
But, if it''s still in the game, and you want to balance units...
This is where cost comes looking around the corner again.
The units that have take the greatest advantage of the terrain of the map you''re playing could cost more in that scenario. That way, you might still consider using troops that are not effective at all (but cheaper). Logic disappears at this point (why the heck should a unit become more expensive depending on terrain? or cheaper?) but I think logic is out of the door as soon as you use a build-during battle type of design. At that point it becomes a ''how to make battles more interesting'' and ''how to make sure that players can/will always use different troops''.
But, if it''s still in the game, and you want to balance units...
This is where cost comes looking around the corner again.
The units that have take the greatest advantage of the terrain of the map you''re playing could cost more in that scenario. That way, you might still consider using troops that are not effective at all (but cheaper). Logic disappears at this point (why the heck should a unit become more expensive depending on terrain? or cheaper?) but I think logic is out of the door as soon as you use a build-during battle type of design. At that point it becomes a ''how to make battles more interesting'' and ''how to make sure that players can/will always use different troops''.
This was something I hated about Red Alert. (And something I''ve complained about in previous threads here.) It seemed that their approach to balance was to look at any powerful unit, and make another unit that could ''beat'' it. (ie. X credits spent on new unit type B could destroy X credits worth of old powerful unit A, while not being entirely destroyed itself.)
This moved battles from being about tactics or strategy, to being about reacting as quickly as you could... ie. seeing what you were up against and bringing the counter-unit to bear upon your foe as soon as you could. If they used infantry, you can be sure my base would have more kennels than walls. Helicopters or planes, and my base would be a heaving mass of SAM sites. And as far as offense goes, it always became a case of "systematically remove one type of their defence, then send in the unit type that said defence was there to repel."
Given a big enough map and decent reaction times, not only was it just a game of Stone Paper Scissors, it was a game of Stone Paper Scissors where you can see what they''ve chosen and you have 2 minutes to pick your response. A bit pointless, really.
Isn''t it time that designers started using more detailed criteria for deciding battles. Instead of deciding ''Unit A beats Unit B'', perhaps they should go 1 level deeper, and analyse ways in which those units can be used effectively, or ineffectively.
Simple example: make a tank unit have strong armour at the front, but not so strong at the sides. This adds tactical implications immediately - 2 separate tanks are going to be easier to take out (by a ground-based opponent) than 2 tanks travelling closely side-by-side. Such a simple consideration, and yet it''s now brought in the importance of formation for the defender and flanking for the attacker... an added dimension of play at almost zero cost to the designer. I''m sure there are others.
This moved battles from being about tactics or strategy, to being about reacting as quickly as you could... ie. seeing what you were up against and bringing the counter-unit to bear upon your foe as soon as you could. If they used infantry, you can be sure my base would have more kennels than walls. Helicopters or planes, and my base would be a heaving mass of SAM sites. And as far as offense goes, it always became a case of "systematically remove one type of their defence, then send in the unit type that said defence was there to repel."
Given a big enough map and decent reaction times, not only was it just a game of Stone Paper Scissors, it was a game of Stone Paper Scissors where you can see what they''ve chosen and you have 2 minutes to pick your response. A bit pointless, really.
Isn''t it time that designers started using more detailed criteria for deciding battles. Instead of deciding ''Unit A beats Unit B'', perhaps they should go 1 level deeper, and analyse ways in which those units can be used effectively, or ineffectively.
Simple example: make a tank unit have strong armour at the front, but not so strong at the sides. This adds tactical implications immediately - 2 separate tanks are going to be easier to take out (by a ground-based opponent) than 2 tanks travelling closely side-by-side. Such a simple consideration, and yet it''s now brought in the importance of formation for the defender and flanking for the attacker... an added dimension of play at almost zero cost to the designer. I''m sure there are others.
Author
quote:
How do you balance Heavy Tank type 1 vs Heavy Tank type 2?
Or infantry? When the individual human beings fighting are all the same, their equipment will determine their strength in battle. As I mentioned, if Soldier 1 has a better gun than Soldier 2 (same speed, same damage, same reload speed, but with longer range for example), Soldier 1 is going to dominate the fight.
Simple... if Soldier 2 doesnt offer any tactical advantage over soldier 1, then soldier 2 gets dropped completely. It is a pointless unit.
The idea is that all units are equal in terms of overall tactical value, cost is just a separate issue. Tanks have a massive advantage over infantry due to their heavy armour, greater speed, heavy firepower. However they suffer equally heavily from being completely useless in certain terrain, and completely incapable of stealth. Factoring cost in, the infantry would probably be cheaper than the tanks. Would infantry dominate? That depends on where you are on the map. The tanks would dominate the open areas, but the infantry would rule the forests. Now the player has an interesting tactical choice.. do I spend money on the more powerful tanks, or do I go for the cheaper, more flexible infantry? If I go for the infantry, can I avoid the open areas where they will get cut to pieces by the enemy tanks and long range support troops? Paying more money gets you a unit with bigger pluses, and bigger minuses.
quote:
Building units during gameplay: this is something that should disappear in coming RTS games (in my opinion).
But, if it''s still in the game, and you want to balance units...
I am not going for unit building as such - I am currently thinking along the lines of requesting reinforcements. You dont have 100% control over what units get sent though, which might make things more interesting - it doesnt matter if a particular unit is dominating because the game can control how frequently it is used.
quote:
What ever happened to making do with what you''ve got?
I agree wholeheartedly. If you can pick and choose your forces with complete freedom, you just have loads of your favourites. Things are much more interesting when you have a mix - you have to work out how to make the best of what you''re given.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
