There's nothing run with a positive feedback look as long as it doesn't lead to an early runway situation. There needs to be an equilibrium so that small wins provide a cumulative advantage until you reach a tipping point and quickly dominate. But those wins shouldn’t be so great that a small number equals victory.
For instance you could have it so that I win a battle and kill 3 units, lose 2 of my own but gain enough gold to replace one. Now in that situation I’ve got a net gain +2 units a small win, but enough of them should allow me to come out the victor.
If you look at Risk for instance the more territory you capture the more units you have at your disposal each turn, but at the cost that the faster you spread the less units you have in anyone place making it easier for other players to capture your territory. In this way player have a balance between growth and units until one take total control.
Unit restrictive RTS
Author
I had originally planed for their to be multiple players (my idea was 8) and have two teams of 4 in a fragile alliance style set up. I thought this would add a interesting game play mechanic as they would have to team up to take down the leader but could then back stab their team mate to get more gold and take care of potential threats
Quote:Original post by black01
Hi, I'd like to start by thanking you for reading this
I just thought of a RTS type of game where you are only allowed to have a maximum of 30 units.
I wonder if this would lead to a stalemate most of the time? In most RTS' it takes an overwhelming force to defeat an enemy.
Author
Quote:Original post by cdotyQuote:Original post by black01
Hi, I'd like to start by thanking you for reading this
I just thought of a RTS type of game where you are only allowed to have a maximum of 30 units.
I wonder if this would lead to a stalemate most of the time? In most RTS' it takes an overwhelming force to defeat an enemy.
Yes but the combined units (and maybe teamwork) could be used to break such a stalemate especially if you implemented a system like rock paper scissors where one unit would do double damage again't another.
Quote:Original post by Platinum_Dragon
Edtharan, a smaller positive feedback has the feeling of a negative feedback to players that expect a large positive feedback. The psychological feelings of the players matters more than the absolute effect of the game.
True, it might feel that way to the players, but as we are talking aobut game balance, then the feel, although important, is not actually the subject here.
I have played some board games that feel like the game is balanced, but the game actually suffers from a runaway leader effect. If you pay attention to the ruels and try to predict who will win in these games, it is almost always the player who gets the early advantage. However, when playing the game it doesn't feel like it.
These games have very short lifespans because players are not stupid. They will recognise these effects and will be able to know who is going to win, and if who is going to win is sorted out in the first few rounds of the game, then why would they want to keep playing all the other rounds of it? The game becomes boring and players quickly stop playing it (why play for an hour when the game is won or lost in the first 5 minutes - I've played games where the winner is effectivly determined on the draw of the cards at the start of the game).
So, yes, it might have the feeling of a negative feedback, but it is not a negative feedback and when it comes who who wins or looses, how it feels is irrelevent.
However, every instances have to be in a certain context.
In multi-player games, the balance does not need to be as exact as one-on-one. The runaway leader will always fail in a multi-player game if the players understand the runaway leader effect(unless the players are clueless).
The concept I am making is this:
A positive feedback to the underdog is a negative feedback the leader because both method decrease the gap between the leader and follower. The net result is what matters, not the method.
Edit:
Developer's perception:
`There is not such thing as fair system that is balance, or a balance system that is fair.
-Fair: Victory is decided by chance.
-Balance: Victory is decided by skills of the player.
`The two state are mutually exclusive, yet players will always demand both.
Player's perception:
-Fair: to win more often then losing
-Balance: to win without effort
In multi-player games, the balance does not need to be as exact as one-on-one. The runaway leader will always fail in a multi-player game if the players understand the runaway leader effect(unless the players are clueless).
The concept I am making is this:
A positive feedback to the underdog is a negative feedback the leader because both method decrease the gap between the leader and follower. The net result is what matters, not the method.
Edit:
Developer's perception:
`There is not such thing as fair system that is balance, or a balance system that is fair.
-Fair: Victory is decided by chance.
-Balance: Victory is decided by skills of the player.
`The two state are mutually exclusive, yet players will always demand both.
Player's perception:
-Fair: to win more often then losing
-Balance: to win without effort
What if when a unit died, the creation cost went back to the player who built it, as well as half the mana?
I think that would offset the need for a loop, since as long as each player was killing and combining, they'd all be evenly matched.
You could have investment units, which have a low gold return per piece of gold spent on death (possibly higher end combination units), return units, which give back the amount you paid (base units) and fodder, which give a higher return per piece of gold spent (possibly bi-products of combinations).
This way, players are rewarded for killing and reimbursed for dying, as to prevent steamrolling.
I think that would offset the need for a loop, since as long as each player was killing and combining, they'd all be evenly matched.
You could have investment units, which have a low gold return per piece of gold spent on death (possibly higher end combination units), return units, which give back the amount you paid (base units) and fodder, which give a higher return per piece of gold spent (possibly bi-products of combinations).
This way, players are rewarded for killing and reimbursed for dying, as to prevent steamrolling.
{quote]In multi-player games, the balance does not need to be as exact as one-on-one. The runaway leader will always fail in a multi-player game if the players understand the runaway leader effect(unless the players are clueless).
This is true if the other players can work together to bring down the leader. But not all games allow this level of communication, or encourage this leave of co-operation and trust between them.
As an example:
In most RTS games you can have a 3 on 3 (team or individual) match. But rarely do the loosing players/teams co-ordinate their attacks on the leader for best effects.
Often, when I have played, these weaker teams have ended up more often than not attacking each other as this was the easiest way for them to score points.
In games where then can only be one winner, co-operation between weaker teams is discourages, and when in games there are various ranked positions (first, second, third, etc), and these confer some measure of victory (eg: on a victory ladder ranking system), then co-operation ends up being discouraged because a definite position of second is more preferable to an uncertainty of any position (because you could be betrayed, it could go wrong, etc, etc).
Co-operation is a risk, and if there is no real benifit (eg: greater risk), then this actually discoruages co-operation.
Well this is starting to get off topic, so I'll end my discussion here of it. If someone did want to continue this, I am happy to contribute to it in another thread.
This is true if the other players can work together to bring down the leader. But not all games allow this level of communication, or encourage this leave of co-operation and trust between them.
As an example:
In most RTS games you can have a 3 on 3 (team or individual) match. But rarely do the loosing players/teams co-ordinate their attacks on the leader for best effects.
Often, when I have played, these weaker teams have ended up more often than not attacking each other as this was the easiest way for them to score points.
In games where then can only be one winner, co-operation between weaker teams is discourages, and when in games there are various ranked positions (first, second, third, etc), and these confer some measure of victory (eg: on a victory ladder ranking system), then co-operation ends up being discouraged because a definite position of second is more preferable to an uncertainty of any position (because you could be betrayed, it could go wrong, etc, etc).
Co-operation is a risk, and if there is no real benifit (eg: greater risk), then this actually discoruages co-operation.
Well this is starting to get off topic, so I'll end my discussion here of it. If someone did want to continue this, I am happy to contribute to it in another thread.
Quote:Original post by Pencil Case
What if when a unit died, the creation cost went back to the player who built it, as well as half the mana?
This way, players are rewarded for killing and reimbursed for dying, as to prevent steamrolling.
Steamrolling would be mitigated by such a reimbursement only if unit creation is fast: even if lost units were converted into resources with a long term increase of net worth, if reinforcements are slower than losses the size of both armies keeps decreasing and the bigger force's advantage keeps increasing (e.g. 25 to 23 becomes 5 to 3) until the last defender of a great useless stockpile of resources is exterminated.
Even without getting rid of steamrolling, this approach could be used to keep the action moving, causing an army that avoids combat to get only a trickle of gold and an active army that kills many enemies at the price of many losses to earn, on the whole, more (even if losses match kills).
This reward structure would of course make a difference only with three or more factions in the same battle: two factions would simply demolish each other or not symmetrically, rewarding skill but not aggressiveness.
Quote:Original post by cdoty
I wonder if this would lead to a stalemate most of the time? In most RTS' it takes an overwhelming force to defeat an enemy.
In WiC you have between 4-8 units - games last 15 mins.
-----
Overall idea sounds good. They key to a game like this is to make it very tactical and structure the environment in such a way that not only defense is easy earlier on (to help prevent rushing) but also that a very smart tactician can lay traps if his main force has been crushed and slowly rebuild his force.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
