How to design and balance a Rock-Paper-Scissor like mechanism

If you are going to design in an RPS-3 SPACE with units being stronger or weaker well then I believe the "Method of Attack" should be the focus on how the units behave. Let me explain...

Why is that important??? Because it is possible to have DUELLING RPS-3 systems which can be like this:

Why is this significant??? Because it adds more variety to the POOL of UNITS that can be made and allows for more variability in the Units being created for the game.

So a Power/Melee unit beats and a Ranged/Skill unit ... So an ORC (Orcs) will beat a RANGER (Human) ... For example. He would have a STRONG DOUBLE EFFECT bonus (2x) for the ORC vs. the RANGER.

As you can see with TWO (2) RPS-3s you can create a bunch of units and figure out what the "Trade-offs" are when pairing the units against each other.

Another method is to create WEAKNESSES or BONUSES versus the respective RPS-3 being used. Think like Pokémon:

This is more OBVIOUS and the ACTUAL WEAKNESSES are ON THE CARDS themselves. You don't need to be a Great Strategist ... You just need to be a bit lucky when facing your opponent.

These are two (2) very different methods and ways to implement an RPS-3. In order to dive down deeper into your "question", I would need to know more about the RPS-3 you plan to use:

• Is it a DUEL RPS-3 like Warcraft RTS;
• Is it like Pokémon where there are PENALTIES vs some class of units;
• Is it something completely different???

Anyhow ... With further explanation I'm sure we can discuss the matter further. I can even explain how to implement an RPS-5 system given a limited set of RPS-3s that work in tandem to make the RPS-5 SIMPLE to decode and understand if it is more "internal" than say a Pokémon RPS system.

Please let me know how you are expecting to handle the RPS-3 and if you have considered an RPS-5 (Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock). But I would use COLORS instead and explain HOW to get it to work more intuitively.

Cheers @larienna.

You don't need to INFER the RPS-3. The Weaknesses are available to all to see and know. You don't need to even remember the standard and most common relationships such as:

Fire beats Earth, Earth beats Water, Water beats Fire.

Obviously this is a CLASS-based version of the RPS-3. Like I said, IF you are interested, I will show you how to create an RPS-5 which is VERY EASY to use and is also very intuitive to "remember".

Something like this:

Red, Green, Blue, White and Black.

or CLASS-based which could be:

Fire, Earth, Water, Life and Death.

Although these classes seem a bit like "Magic: the Gathering" (MtG) don't worry they are not. MtG doesn't really use their color pie to create a strong/weak conditions in their decks. It's more about the Deck-Strategy and how you play your cards and what ensues with the opponent's Deck-Strategy. In many instances the FASTER or "quicker" Deck-Strategy is the more optimal one and in this case, that player normally wins the duel.

So getting back to the RPS-5, here is how you break it down into FIVE (5) EASY RPS-3 relationships:

These relationships are EASY to determine and all you need to do is CYCLE through the RPS-5 primary CLASSES:

Again Fire, Earth, Water, Life and Death.

Those FIVE (5) RPS-3 cover ALL the relationships that could occur in the RPS-5. And you don't NEED to memorize or have difficulties remembering the relationships because they all could from those FIVE (5) RPS-3s...

But if you want to do more COMPLEXE RPS systems (Seven, Nine, etc.) well then you'll run into the issue that most RPS games do... It's hard for the PLAYERS to do the balance (figure which unit to pair against which foe).

So then with MORE COMPLICATED RPS systems (higher than 5) you run into the situation that there are more that ONE type of relationship and one unit can be weak to a couple of units not just one (like in Pokémon). In these cases, it would be EASIER to indicate WHICH CLASSES (or COLORS) a unit is weak to and what the PENALTY (or weakness) is...

However intrinsically ... DUELLING RPS-3s are probably the BEST IDEA I've seen and it's easy to infer the relationships. Plus it sets up a penalty/bonus set-up that is rather EASY to comprehend.

The RPS-5 although LOGICAL is a bit more complicated... And anything HIGHER needs EXPLICIT rules to follow.

That's why I would suggest DUELLING RPS-3s at MAXIMUM because they are EASY to know, use and comprehend.

Cheers @larienna.

RPS can become softer.

Such that RPS-4 and RPS-6 are also possibilities.

With units being good against all other, except for 1.

***

Edit:
I just realized, you also have different factions.

One faction cannot access the units of another faction.
And if they do, an unit might have a different value in that other faction.

Solution to this would be having the same matrix. But group the units as a whole. And have blocks with a second factor.

What I mean is that if you have for example 3 factions with each 5 units.
You get a 15 x 15 matrix to work with. But a 3x3 faction matrix right next to it. Where the average winning chance is considered. And this should be factored in.

Not sure if it works like this, and if the 3x3 matrix should be separate or imbedded. But I see it as a challenge to make something. I don't have the time right now.

Edit 2:
Of course, I could simply have multiple versions in 1 matrix of the same unit. Then a faction unit cannot target their own faction. Which automatically shows a difference in the usefullness of the same unit in both factions.
Problem solved.

Synergies do make things more complex. And I too am not that good at it.

But if you keep the synergies logical. Like for example, every infantry unit gets +1 for every artillery present. Then you can see what this infantry unit is supposed to weight WITH the bonus. And divide this bonus weight over the infantry and the artillery. That is the most logical way of implementing synergies. On the other hand, a synergy might be removed or not being applied at all. Thus the weight comming from synergy doesn't have to be 100% divided among the units.

The YES/NO principle might assist here. And asking only 50% of the total weight. (This also depends on how much the yes and no are present in a game)

Example in this could be that same infantry unit, costing for example 4, and is 4 strong. The artillery costs 12 while 12 strong. The weight for the infantry unit could be 8 if the synergy kicks in. A difference of 4, is then cut in half according to the yes/no principle. Then it is divided among the 2 units once more.

Each getting a +1 in cost.
Thus the infantry cost 5 each, the artillery 13.
Individual total worth is 16.
Total cost is 18.
Synergy worth is 20.

***

As for the elaboration on the embedded matrix.
I scrapped that idea. But I made the matrix bigger.

How does it look like?
Let's say, each faction has those 12 cards that you showed in the link.
And 3 factions? Then the matrix that I would use is 36x36 big.
Each faction will probably not fight themselves. Thus 3x12x12 are left out.

Here is an example of what I mean of 3 factions with 3 units each. Without the titles for the rows and columns. And ehm, all chances are 50% here.

------ ½½½ ½½½
------ ½½½ ½½½
------ ½½½ ½½½
½½½ ------ ½½½
½½½ ------ ½½½
½½½ ------ ½½½
½½½ ½½½ ------
½½½ ½½½ ------
½½½ ½½½ ------

Now it is "clumsy", to do this on the forum. Nor can I truly explain of what I do with it. And the results are for "a vanilla game".

I have seen the combat mechanic. In simple terms:
Each unit has X dice.
Each unit can have +Y dice against certain opponent types.
The total dice are rolled.
The player rolling the most 6's will win.

I could put this in a matrix and work it out.
As example.

What do the NUMBERS on the cards mean: "Classical Hero" in the Norse Faction has a "5". What does this "5" mean?

Furthermore he has "+4 vs. Myth"... I get the "Myth" Part... But what does the "+4" MEAN??? Is it add +4 one dice roll and compare vs. the opponent's roll. Or is the total of several (pre-determined) dice rolls and then add +4 to the total?

So the "5" = # of DICE (X) and where do you get the "Y" from the UNIT BEING ATTACKED (so Centaur "5" dice too) and what does the "+4 vs. Myth" mean? Add +4 to the TOTAL ROLL or ADD +4 DICE to ROLL?!

Not 100% sure... So I figured I'd ASK.

Cheers @larienna.

I don't understand its special abilities.

May choose to throw opponent out of battle?
+3 dice? win place until back on board?

wut?!

Is this something that you are talking about @larienna?

It is simple, yet there is RPS.
Only the balance will get a check from me.

I completed Jarl for now. 35 more to go.

Seems little Jarl for now ends up on a weight of 8.5 compared with the average of 12.
This doesn't mean it will stay that way.

I didn't include the extra stuff of the Hydra. Which has to be done 5 times.

The mummy will have an increased cost due to the fact that if a mummy fights, it can reproduce more mummies. If it costs 10 and the chance to get another mummy from a win. Then this would add 5 to it. A mummy would cost 15 then. But practical and psychological choices are key here. So, the mummy is negotiable in terms of total weight. Maybe the choices don't matter much, but we only know at the completion of the table.

As for the resurection options for some through a priest. I left that one out.

Thge cyclops... still a mystery for me.

I like the concept that no matter how many UNITS ... It ALL gets resolved with 1 vs. 1 Combat Decisions. And I like that BOTH players choose which and it is a bit RANDOM. It's this RANDOMNESS that attracts me to the concept. I'm not so concerned that there is no "Board" or "World" to conquer... Like you said a Puerto Rico with Combat (Euro + Combat). That's what the Reviewer was saying but he kept insisting that the end result was a total and utter failure. I disagree.

I had another idea to SHARE with you.

Something to do with SPATIAL MOVEMENT.

So what this IDEA is ... Has got to do with ROLLING 2D3s. It is sorta derived from the RPS-3 concept and that there are ONLY "3" SPACES. Let me explain...

What you effectively would do is ROLL 2D3s and get two (2) VALUES as follows:

• Each dice determines the RELATIVE POSITION of the two (2) units.
• Unless the POSITION is the SAME, there is a "sorta" MOVEMENT or RANGE.
• Once this RANGE is dealt with the combat proceeds as NORMAL.

How does this work? And what am I trying to explain???

Let's take my EXAMPLE of the 3 ORCS (Melee/Power) vs. 4 RANGERS (Ranged/Skill).

You ROLL the 2D3s and get 2 values. Let's say "1" and "3". What this means is that the two "armies" are 2 SPACES (Virtual) away from one another. This gives the RANGERS a "tactical advantage".

In connection with AOM, I would say something like RANGERS get +2 DICE... GIVING them extra TIME (# of attacks) against the ORCS. Something like that.

IF BOTH 2D3 rolls were "3" and "3"... They would be in the SAME SPACE and there would be no BONUS because both armies are NEXT to one-another. And of course some unit types like Melee vs. Melee do NOT benefit from RANGE since they are ONLY within proximate SPACE (Melee = Physical combat always in range...)

And of course you would have a -x DICE PENALTY for the RANGERS (Melee beats Ranged) and the ORCS would have a +y DICE BONUS (Power beats Skill).

Something like that...

What is NEAT is that you can have ADDITIONAL "VIRTUAL SPACING" ... Given 2D3s rolls which offer less room for EXAGERATED bonuses relative to SPACE (or RANGE)...

Let me know what you think... Like I said we were using DICE for POSITIONING in the Mech Game that I was working on. We abandoned that project and then I got to work on other games (since there was no interest in the Mech Game). It was a TRY to understand the mechanics of the Pocket Series of games and HOW(?) you could implement something as a SOLO DICE GAME with the engine used by all the other SPORT games.

Please share with me your thoughts... If you are already doing a VIRTUAL BOARD it may make sense to ALSO do VIRTUAL SPACING (as explained above)...?!

Cheers @larienna.

Just to be certain that I UNDERSTOOD correctly... The Hoplite vs. Chariot Archer is a ONE to ONE encounter right??? Like in my OWN scenario you can't have "3 Orcs" vs. "4 Rangers", right?!

I know @X3M was working very hard to ENABLE "balance" in multi-unit battles.

Have you thought of this or not?!?!

What is the "Group Modifier" STAT good for??? It tells you how many DICE to ADD per additional UNIT present.

So if you have a Hoplite with a "5" and a GM = "1.5" it means that for each 2x extra unit... You gain +3 Dice.

I know @X3M was working SO HARD on getting BALANCE... And I feel with ONE (1) SIMPLE COMBAT change could make a WORLD of difference.

Of course I would add the DUALLING RPS-3s and have a PENALTY and BONUS... No doubt that adds to the level of challenge and then I would also add "Virtual Spacing" (2D3s) to make it even a bit more interesting...

So the MORE "Dice" you have, the better the ODDS of DEFEATING ONE (PLUS) UNITS. And this works on BOTH SIDES. BUT! Instead of it being like in AOM where the ROLL ORDER is NOT IMPORTANT, I would say each PLAYER ROLLS 1D6 and when either side reaches the END (maxed dice count), the opponent rolls the remaining ?D6s as EXTRA and can kill units which previously survived.

I think an EXAMPLE of what I have BUILT for YOU (you can modify and improve upon it too...) gives you something that's a bit "MEATIER":

So the ORCS roll 5D6s + (3 x 1.5 = 4.5 = +4 Dice) PLUS a +2 Bonus (Power vs. Skill) = 11 Dice.

The RANGERS roll 4D6s + (4 x 1 = +4 Dice) PLUS Range bonus +1 = +9 Dice and get a -2 PENALTY (Melee vs. Ranged) = 7 Dice.

So ORCS roll 1D6 = "5", RANGERS roll 1D6 = "6" = 1 ORC dies.
Next ORCS roll 1D6 = "4", RANGERS roll 1D6 = "1" = nobody dies.
Lastly ORCS roll 1D6 = "2", RANGERS roll 1D6 = "6" = 1 ORC dies.

So the COUNT = 2 ORCS dead, 1 ORC surviving. 4 RANGERS alive.

But there are "+8 MORE ORCS" Attacks vs. "+4 RANGER" Attacks.

So ORCS roll 1D6 = "3", RANGERS roll 1D6 = "5" = nobody dies.
Next ORCS roll 1D6 = "6", RANGERS roll 1D6 = "4" = 1 RANGER dies.
Lastly ORCS roll 1D6 = "5", RANGERS roll 1D6 = "6" = 1 ORC dies.

No more ORCS present (all killed), combat ends the RANGERS victorious.

Conclusion: 0 Orcs vs. 3 Rangers left over AFTER the BATTLE!

This is my MASTERFUL implementation of an "improved" system for Battles with Troop counts ala "AOM". I too gave an example, because it would be HARD to comprehend without all the moving parts.

Let me know what you think about this MULTI-PLAYER "ARMY"/Battle Concept.

You can ONLY have ONE (1) TYPE of UNIT per ARMY. You can't have ORCS + SHAMAN. Just ORCS OR SHAMAN. So it's foundation is similar to AOM... With that 1 vs. 1 feel... But just allows for MULTIPLE units of the SAME type to do combat TOGETHER.

Again your thoughts???

Note #1: I realize this is a LOT more "complicated" but it is in a WAY more "Complete". Multiple units vs. other Multiple units (Army vs. Army) and you see what comes of it.

Remember if you NEVER roll "6", your army count SURVIVES. When you have 0 UNITS even if you still have DICE to roll... You LOSE because your army has been conquered (and you have no more units to battle with...)

But if you HOLD on to that ONE (1) UNIT... He/she can make a BIG DIFFERENCE with SOME DICE ROLLING LUCK and even out the playing field. This did NOT happen in my EXAMPLE... But it is POSSIBLE.

Cheers @larienna.