Regarding Balancing and Suggestion

[TntAttack]

Question about Game Balancing
(To developer and whom it may concern)
Q) What is AoWW's primary focus, single player or multiple player?

I have made some observations, and to me, single player campaigns are quite the scenario type whereas most multiplayer games are civilisation inspired (that is, you got one city and expand your empire).

The differing types of gameplay inspire different types of balances. What may balance units in multiplayer may not balance well with single player and vice versa.

Although one could say that by attaining the most historically accurate (with minor adjustments for playability) stats is the ideal balancing solution, I disagree.

Fundamentally, players in campaigns rather less micromanagement and more fluid fast battles that suit the scenario. E.g. Advance wars styled gameplay.

(Of course, exceptions exist)

Players in competitive, although I haven't discussed this with anyone, perhaps you guys can chip in your thoughts, prefer more diverse options and maneuvability i.e more micromanagement as that is (in my humble opinion) much more catering towards skill based gameplay.

It doesn't help that inequality exists in this world, and to the dismay of some (Banzai, haha sorry man), some fractions aren't just up to par.

Historical accuracy with inferior units/fractions may not be a glaring issue in singleplayer, in fact it may increase player immersion but it simply wouldn't stand in multiplayer.

Therefore I propose that the dev makes a separate patch of balancing for competitive multiplayer. It could even be modulated...
e.g. Scenario mode or Competitive Mode

• No builders
• No Naval
• Capital City
• Player Mods / Custom Rules

[*] Ban Units *drop down or inventory style list*

In conclusion, unit balancing will only go so far. To make this game truly great, nerfing op units is a must for the competitive scene but with single player, go ham!

Who cares if the player can build an insane and broken unit that the AI can't counter. E..g spamming adrolo (spelling wrong)
It's historically accurate and fun! Don't make singleplayer a competitive chore, although map makers are free to their discretion.

One example of this would be concrete arty/aa. As of the time of writing, it's pretty broken and on the competitive scene, players can spam such buildings and not be penalised.

You are literally creating value out of thin air, provided you have 4 builders and a 4 tiles of unobstructed land.

But, in singleplayer, by all means keep it. Player scenario E.g capturing the enemy towers or destorying fortified enemy defenses...

It's fair game.

[Stratego (dev)]

Although one could say that by attaining the most historically accurate (with minor adjustments for playability) stats is the ideal balancing solution, I disagree.

i think no one thinks this, historical accurate would not bring balance, but this alternative must got to historical accurate way naturally on some exceptino if that ruins balance, so on this alternative both are impoirtant balance AND historical accurate.

Who cares if the player can build an insane and broken unit that the AI can't counter. E..g spamming adrolo (spelling wrong)
It's historically accurate and fun! Don't make singleplayer a competitive chore, although map makers are free to their discretion.

actually it is me caring on that, both multiplayer and single player should be using same balance system and units

One example of this would be concrete arty/aa. As of the time of writing, it's pretty broken and on the competitive scene, players can spam such buildings and not be penalised.

thanks! we need ALL examples in balancing section so we can tune them to be not OP.
starting with this concrete artillery one.

[DreJaDe]

Although one could say that by attaining the most historically accurate (with minor adjustments for playability) stats is the ideal balancing solution, I disagree.

i think no one thinks this, historical accurate would not bring balance, but this alternative must got to historical accurate way naturally on some exceptino if that ruins balance, so on this alternative both are impoirtant balance AND historical accurate.

Jason is kinda already thinking of this though... This is the reason why Type 21 sub can be a two turn sub after all. And that OP jet in tc.

Yeah, mix is nice but Jason doesn't really much agree to that.

[Stratego (dev)]

i updated my post with more answers.

Jason is kinda already thinking of this though... This is the reason why Type 21 sub can be a two turn sub after all. And that OP jet in tc.
Yeah, mix is nice but Jason doesn't really much agree to that.

It can happen Jason or me not seeing something that is OP or out of balance, that is the reason of this forum so best players can say if this or that gone out of balance so we can figure out a new way to set a balance in a historical "accurate" way

[DreJaDe]

I actually agree that Singleplayer shouldn't be a multiplayer chore.

Though it really is indeed hard for me to agree that we should limit the multiplayer units to be like others in games like AOE, Warcraft and the likes. I think we might be able to think more about how this could work...

(One thing I see is accepting the idea of Banzai to disallow some of the concept units in multiplayer.)

Separating the balance of unit though is kinda impossible. The stats is what I mean. Allowance of unit is indeed possible.

[DreJaDe]

Ok, wait I think I know how to limit the multiplayer scene like on Age of Empires and the likes....

The "no upgrades" option

Dang that's a good idea.

And concept units would be on fun games. Though some units does indeed needed to be in both since some Faction are just too weak without them

[TntAttack]

Separating the balance of unit though is kinda impossible. The stats is what I mean. Allowance of unit is indeed possible.

What about unit pricing? Instead of an op German sub that costs 2 in campaign, we bump it up to 3 in competitive multiplayer?

I think this applies a bit to Stratego as well, I meant more so adjust unit prices then nerfing every op unit's stats, although if you are willing to walk that path, I wouldn't stop you.

Expanding on unit costs, why just stop there? Previously the dev mentioned that he didn't want to add anything that increased micromanagement.

Well, since its competitive multiplayer, why not change some game rules (I know this is harder than it sounds, apologies, keep up the good work!) and innovate towards something more asymmetrical and standardised e.g. additional currencies or even just plain cash.

One needs money to purchase stuff, and such change would even out the playing field even when the player's fraction is lacking.

Imagine that, a 2 turn op German uboat that quite expensive. Or to build buildings e.g. concrete arty/aa, it costs quite a bit of money.

No more battleship and carrier spam.

[DreJaDe]

What about unit pricing? Instead of an op German sub that costs 2 in campaign, we bump it up to 3 in competitive multiplayer?

This can done to be honest and your other suggestion. The problem is that the dev has to make another unit to do this of the same name. One is for singleplayer and one for mutiplayer

This is already done in Age of strategy btw but I don't know if @Stratego (dev) would agree with many of that copy paste units.

I do agree that that German sub should have more cost than it has currently.

One needs money to purchase stuff, and such change would even out the playing field even when the player's fraction is lacking.

I don't see this ever happening. The game concept would be different in this case. A building that produces the supply cart is possible to make the cost of units more cheap but changing the way the turn cost system works is no go for this game.

On the ship spam, I think a better way is to make other ship more viable. Like cruiser and destroyer being able to engage battleship and survive. I do have some idea but I dont prefer to talk about them for now because of the lack of player engagement which would just make the idea rust.

[Stratego (dev)]

This is already done in Age of strategy

it is not done in any alternative, or what do u mean?
no we will not double the units for having 2 type of balance systems - no, that is not a way we can go

One needs money to purchase stuff

it is not possible as "quick balancing", however any idea can have its own topic, and i think we havethis already under AOS section (as that is the core game having the "core" change ideas)

[DreJaDe]

it is not done in any alternative, or what do u mean?
no we will not double the units for having 2 type of balance systems - no, that is not a way we can go

This is already done in AOS in the form of Yari Ashigaru, one for Map Editor which are used in campaigns, one for multiplayer.

There's also (I forgot the AO variant) from other variants where they have the same unit with same stats and name but just different looks. Though both are for multiplayer, and is done because they wanted a different looks of the same unit (not talking about skin.

[Stratego (dev)]

those are reasoned by making totally new units "accidentally" under same name - so not only a few property change but totally new units.
those are not for having double balance states in game.

so no, this is not a way we go anytime.

[TntAttack]

One needs money to purchase stuff

it is not possible as "quick balancing", however any idea can have its own topic, and i think we havethis already under AOS section (as that is the core game having the "core" change ideas)

Using ingame points as currency

Well, I don't suppose if it's too complicated to make a new currency system, why not use what we already have.

The points system. Left bottom corner, utterly useless with the exception of giving you an estimate on you and your opponent's power. (Undermines competitive nature of fog of war but that's another balancing idea)

(In the event you much appreciate a system of power reference, make one easier to read, perhaps its accessible via one of the buttons in the top left. You could even include stats and numerial power balances for single player e.g. 20 enemies left)

Why not make it so that every unit costs points. It would keep the points relatively stable and gives off strategic freedom.

And the thing about tracking unit exp and stuff for leveling up... Well, you can still do it, total points spent + remaining points.


But back towards the main topic:
I guess I will put this matter of dual balancing to rest for now. But I honestly think the way forward is decent, just highly ridiculous at times. Banzai observed that the Russian had an aircraft carrier just called aircraft carrier cause apparently they didn't have one or something. But in order to balance the Russian out, they have a pretty op navy, esp their battleships.

I can't imagine their real life counterparts to be as "glorious" but sure. Surrealism is fine to an extent, perhaps even so in this case.

Then you got the nerfed germans, cause otherwise they will absolutely destroy any nation in a one vs one.

[Stratego (dev)]

yes we ned to find a balanced way to keep out nice historical approaches.
and yes we must be flexibe a little: eg. we can not let russins not having an aircraft carriers even they had no irl (but maybe in plans they had idk)

so yes sometimes we need to make compromises.

[Jasondunkel]

yes drejade my approach is to make it somehow historically correct based on the units. the fact that there are always small inequalities is intended.

I find the unit template boring.
In order to keep or adjust the game balance, we have many prototypes and sketch units in the game for this reason. even if i don't like many of them and would also prefer not to have them in the game.

Despite the differences, you can win with any nation
and there are already so many of these equal laws games.


but as far as I'm concerned, we / I can also leave this path and set everything the same, which would make this game boring for me

I'm certainly not always right with all decisions, and I don't always see everything, there's the forum here

tnt
your idea with the money or resources is a good one, but it would change the game completely. it would certainly speed up the game from the middle of the game, since the weaker player suffers more, his rounds of money or resources become significantly smaller. therefore the probability of winning then becomes even lower

[DreJaDe]

I definitely don't want everything to be equal here but the way this game is set is definitely in no way that every faction can win against each other tbh.

I definitely agree that copy pasting stats of units is boring but I also disagree with so many units put here that is just breaking the balance, so many of which is in Germany for some reason.

If you can see many of my suggestion here that is not related to pricing, you would see that that is what I want already but is ultimately ignored and not talked about.

Like some of my grenade suggestion which would definitely change the way the rifleman works but you settled with just +%200 bonus against all infantry (which I didn't really agree but is put there already so I just look at it as a way to test how it would look) and my others not being engaged in a conversation.

I really wanted to start with the fundamentals like changing the way infantry works and for each nation to have somewhat different use to them but yeah... No one engaged on that that much.

[Stratego (dev)]

please send me the topic where you suggested it - thanks!

[DreJaDe]

please send me the topic where you suggested it - thanks!

I kept it all in small varied suggestions on the forum like that giant varied suggestion on dev version.

Though I did made now an overall grenade suggestion which is in the
http://www.ageofstrategy.net/viewtopic. ... 78&t=12676

[Stratego (dev)]

small varied suggestions on the forum like that giant varied suggestion on dev version

yes, i always suggest to open a dedicated topic for important ones as discussing here and there will be probably missed or forgot, a dedicated topic will be always there until gets intentionally closed. this is the main advantage of having it on forum (not in DC or chat or "version changes" mixed topic talking)