Balance preperation.

[:1]Is the game going to have unit modifiers so that units can be individually buffed against a particular unit?
For instance CoH has a very good implementation of this. I would really like this to be implemented in K&C as it would allow the game to be fine tuned without any of the massive problems that arises from buffing one aspect that has global consequences.|||And/or maybe give them different attacks for different things. So a sniper unit would use its rifle when an enemy is far away and then use a short sword when they are nearing melee range. That way, the different weapons can have different damage and balance the game in a similar way bonuses will. If necessary bonuses can also be added so that the sniper does more damage to heavy infantry than other light infantry. But try not to go overboard with the bonuses.|||I'm pretty against the concept of buffing one unit against another; it's one of those things that a player has to remember (counter intuitive, how is a new player expected to know what counters what).
That said, I am all-for having multiple weapons for different tasks.|||BulletMagnet|||I don't deny it's a useful tool - I'm just saying that it's noob-unfriendly, and counter intuitive.
Also, there's other things that determine balance - front-loadedness, accuracy, movement of the thing you're shooting, etc.|||BulletMagnet|||BulletMagnet|||Multiple weapon rules.
Using swords against buildings is not how things should be done.
Different blast templates, firing speed and weapon trajectories would do the balancing. For example, a cannon could hit everything in a narrow fan and turns slowly which make it advantageous to flank it. skirmishers might hit every unit in a straight line, making them effective at breaking formation, ect ect.|||AngryZealot|||Wow guys stay on topic here. I'm not talking about what or where to balance. I'm talking about implementing a mod table for each unit so that the subtleties can be ironed out later in the games lifespan.
So keep your arguments about actual balance out of this thread.|||Whilst I can see the advantages of such a table, I'm wary of creating someting so arbitrary, especially if its only for one unit vs. one unit rather than unit type vs. type. It just seems "wrong", I can't really find the right word, somewhere between "not usual" "less than optimum" and "frowned upon".
To my mind, "Gadgeteer Cogwrights do 150dps to all targets except Ulfserker Warriors to whom they do 225dps" comes accross as if the game is slightly broken and can't stand up by itself, as if it has been sellotaped up instead of fully repaired. Once or twice may be fine, but if you do this multiple times the game will be a mess.
The trouble, with projectile speed, fire arcs and accuracy as balancers is that a lot of combat will be in melee where none of that is relevant.
I love the idea of multiple weapon types, TW series did this very well indeed.|||This is purely about balance. I would think balance would be MUCH more important rather than something a bit "arbitrary". Think about it, how otherwise would you solve a particular unit vs unit imbalance?|||Supcom balancing always has been a pain in the *** because everything affects everything else pretty evenly.....gotta admit that much at least. :/|||TheWord|||Balance ≠ uninteresting.
Balance ≠ no factional diversity.
Why do you think this though? It's rather annoying when people basically advocate for an unbalanced game. Why is an unbalanced game better in any way? I am completely stupefied by your post.
And this would be a way to FINE TUNE balance. Rather than the main mechanism. You still haven't answered how otherwise we would solve unit versus unit balance.|||I don't see why having different types of modifier would be noob-unfriendly.
Take supcom 2 - if this had been implemented, the basic concept is unchanged - AA is used against Air.
Then if gunships need to be tweaked, then the AA tower damage is increased vs gunships.
The basic concept, which a noob will get (or else he really IS retarded), is therefore unchanged, whilst helping the game balance.
As for the argument of "what unit is best vs what", that falls under the title of "that's waht the high-skill players go after", that all out "getting best edge" on the battlefield. IF a noob gets concerned about it, then he's either not a noob, or just trying to be difficult.|||TheWord|||In TA Spring units have groups they belong to, self being the most obvious, so if you want to spesify bonuses/handicaps against certain unit, you just state it's name in appropriate place. If I remember correctly these were, BTW, spesified per weapon. You can add how many of these you wish, so the allaround unit X does basic damage against infantry, less against cavalry, even less against air and because it was so weak against dragons even when mass produced it would do high damage against dragons (being only one unit, not like there was multiple different dragons in the game). This way you could give anti-air to all units, like infantrymen throwing rocks at dragons, hitting very rarely and when they actually manage to, they deal ridiculously low damage, but when you have 2000 infantrymen they actually help the handful of archers left.
You could also mean normal gunships and sooprizers, ACKs, AForts etc. at the same time but after a while of testing decrease the damage against sooprizers because they suck overall.
(Altho, realistically speaking in that kind of scenario it would be more likely to see the people run and hide rather than provoke by throwing rocks.)|||Quote:|||CT has never had this as a matter of principle.
So, I don't think so.|||Xagar|||The only time he's had it was so that Overcharge didn't pop ACUs in one hit in Sup1/FA.|||BulletMagnet|||As a slight aside, I've always thought it would be more friendly to have a game where it's not useful to learn about hard statistics.
One aspect of it, would be a degree of randomness in the game. Put away the pitchforks for a moment :P Randomness is ok when it's applied many times rapidly (like the firing randomness of projectiles.)
So rather than a unit having 104 DPS, for example, you just know that it has "Heavy" damage. (and its DPS is variable between 80-150 DPS, for example.)
And rather than 500 HP, it just has "Average" health, etc. (and possibly each produced unit of a type has slightly different health too!)
But, at the same time, you have the unit vs. unit adjustment tables, which further alter the numbers anyways. Plus a bunch of other modifiers for terrain and situation. (eg. unit does less damage when HP is low.)

So in the end the point is to muddle up the numbers so much that you can only think of it in terms of general trends, rather than being able to theorycraft with precise statistics.
Would it work? Dunno. People still use averages to compare statistics when randomness is present, and presumably people will examine files and do tests to work out exactly what the modifier is in every situation, so they can still play with their statistics (since internally the game cannot avoid stats). But perhaps making it so fuzzy and complicated will discourage them :P

Anyways, I mention this idea because it means you can have unit type vs. unit type adjustments, and it won't impact on how easy the game is to learn (because you're not suppose to learn about precise statistics under this system).
As long as the table is being used for small balance adjustments rather than a brute-force way of enforcing RPS, then I think it's fine.|||Wouldn't work with ACUs nor Kings, otherwise I'd love to try it.