taltamir taltamir

Rock Paper Scissor approach

▼

Rock Paper Scissor approach

from Elemental Forums

So, there is a lot of gnashing of teeth on the balance issues. How about a RPS like system (to clarify, I am thinking more of a mixed unit tactics which I believe is supposed to be called RPS approach. There has been some contention about the terminology early in this thread) where:

AoE (Mages, Horrors, etc) single unit aka a stack of one unit that deals low damage to each unit in a stack. Thus they are effective in wiping out whole stacks in 1 to few attacks but deal piddling damage to singulars and AoE type enemies.

Singulars (Melee or archery sov/champion, giant beasts, etc) a stack of 1 unit which deal large amounts of damage but only to a single unit in a stack per attack. Making them effective against other Singular types and very effective against AoE type. but ineffective against an army/swarm.

Group (hundreds to thousands of soldiers or human-ish sized monsters). They are each individually weak, but there is a whole bunch of them. When engaged with an enemy they "swarm" all over them. If its another swarm/army they duke it out unit v unit. But if its a single or an AoE they try to pile up on them and eventually wear them down, which requires they get some bonuses against single type enemies, (although stronger AoE type will have defenses against that; such as a cloak of fire... of course you could custom build an army with a ring of fire resistance for each soldier to counter exactly that specific unit...).

To go more in depth:

Mages should have primarily AoE (aka overkill in elemental terminology, where damage is multiplied by toon count) spells that affect whole armies or everyone on the battlefield. Those naturally perform poorly against a melee hero who is too tough to bring down with such spells. They COULD attack a singular opponent for trivial mana costs and extra damage to it compared to using an AoE on a single unit stack. But it should leave them at a disadvantage (aka, only win a 1v1 against such an opponent if they are much high level)

Melee heroes should do massive damage, but to a limited amount of toons per attack, and the more toons you have the higher your accuracy (aka, armies don't really miss, but do low enough damage that it takes some time to finish off a melee hero via attrition).

Armies should increase unit count in armies by 10x at least (while keeping their costs the same, and also boosting gold production and construction rates so you could actually field any at all).

All those together mean you get mixed unit armies (rock paper scissors like) game and that you would be fielding all 3 unit types and actually have reason to do strategic battles rather then just soloing everything with your sov.

Note that all of the above are general approaches rather then absolutes. Elemental lords and dragons can have a combo of both AoE and Singulars (or even AoE and swarm for some more bizarre lords). And its not a guaranteed win to attack an AoE with a single or a group with an AoE... it merely confers a large significant advantage. A sov could also be an AoE/Single combo unit (just wont be as effective in both as a specialist).

The only place where there is a hard limit really is in a singular vs a group. Singulars cannot kill groups so they must bring with them their own groups or AoE to do that.

26,027 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

Oh dear lord, no!

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

I actually modded GalCiv2 to have a better RPS system. I made defense do double what weapons could do and reduced the weapon damages. I made mass drivers only go to tier 3 while missiles and lasers went to tier 4-6 for most races. There was no armor in the game, so mass drivers could do some damage and were ideal for fighters due to their small size. Lasers and missiles were larger, but had higher damage bases. So the game had 3 weapon types, but it slightly modified a standard RPS to make things more interesting. I find that any RPS system that strictly follows the formula is quite boring. I know no one wants that.

 

The great thing about FE is we can have the RPS system on several different layers of combat from several different types of enemies. 

Star Control: Origins
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting James009D, reply 25

Quoting taltamir, reply 24
You can have a tactical RPS with more then 3 elements. You cannot have it with less then 3.

Sure you can.

And claiming RPS can have more branches basically defines every game under a RPS game. Every game can have RPS elements but that doesn't classify them as RPS.

Also, the RPS "orientation" in Galactic Civilizations 2 is due to the fact that if someone builds a fleet of Laser ships you will have to build yours with Shields to beat it. Its not a "spear beats horse" example but a variant on the idea (armor, shields, and chaff). I'd argue it has six elements, not three.

it has 6 elementals which are not related to each other. 3 groups of 2 related elements.

And rather then argue the definitions of RPS which we obviously disagree on, how about the actual suggestions?

Seems to me you agree with me on all points

1. Make it an actual ARMY (or swarm)

2. Make mages AoE be much more effective.

3. Make melee heroes less effective (more HP).

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

As previously stated I liked Kamamura_CZ suggestion about weapon differentiation based on damage types. I think with a greater variety of weapons that have more interesting and impactful effects you could have a more interesting combat experience.

I think the Armies should be reworked so they are more viable. Perhaps they get hit less by solo units, have more HP, and are more effective in combat (miss less, hit harder). The main thing Elemental needs is Army viability, they have to be more important and should be difficult to kill.

Mages AoE certainly needs to be more effective, yes.

Champions/heroes should be nerfed a bit when fighting armies and unable to utterly devastate them. Champions should be good against solo units, monsters, and other champions... not so effective against larger armies. Basically, he larger the army, the less effective a hero is. However, if that is the case then perhaps heroes should be better at "escaping" battles.

 

You asked me why a RPS model was a "cop-out", I only tried to explain my reasonings. I'm not attacking you or specifically attacking your model, I'm just stating that the RPS model, in general, is not very good game design.

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting James009D, reply 29
You asked me why a RPS model was a "cop-out", I only tried to explain my reasonings. I'm not attacking you or specifically attacking your model, I'm just stating that the RPS model, in general, is not very good game design.

It is fine, this has been a peaceful debate and you have not personally attacked me.

So far we agree about everything except for the definition of RPS (and as a direct result, which games are RPS). Every single suggestion of implementation I made you agreed with and vice versa.

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting puntarenas, reply 17
Combine it with another idea I read on the forums. Let's say each individual has to be attacked and taken down seperately

I am the one who posted that idea in other threads as I was formulating the suggestion I made here. And this idea is the very cornerstone on which my suggestion builds.

The rest of your post seems to basically be exactly what I had in mind.

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

Adding a skill /trait to every creature and unit that determines how many figures in a unit can be attacked is what I proposed in another thread. Adding this stat to all units across the board would enable this depth.

 A warrior champion only attacks one figure in a stack at a time until he upgrades thay skill to enable him to attack more. Badass monsters have an inherently higher skill.

 Magic spells would also have this, so like the OP said, a fireball would devastate a stack, while a firebolt spell would be more effective vs a single unit.

 To me, what I think of as the rock paper scissors element in this game is weapon damage type versus armor protection type, and magic element vs resistance to a given element.  This needs to be expanded and woven into the  essential strategy of the game. More armor types that mainly protect against one type of damage. Then the types of units and spells you employ would depend on your opponents.

Reply #33 from Elemental Forums Top

Well said Chizzops.  It needs to be expanded and implemented better.  I also believe things like chain armor, getting an extra 100% defence to cutting should instead just take 50% more damage from cutting.  Same goes for plate and blunt weapons.  As far as the magic system,  there needs to be a whole crap ton of work.  having equal amounts of damage doers in all elemental flavors and various ways to protect oneself from them is key.  Summons should do magic type damage, additional magic type damage, or have some spells/ability.