Skip to Content
 

Results of the playtesting of the new balance

5 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

This is in regards to my other topic. When a game has "immortal" units. And it is regarding my wargames in general.

My goal was to have the HnR units being weak enough that they would no longer succeed in other tasks than to bring pain to the default units.

The "immortal" units are basicly untouchable by any other unit that has 3 less attack range and 1 less movement speed. This is in theory. Because you can still trap HnR units on enclosed maps.

However, the 2 natural counters showed different effectivness as well. Which lead me to suspect in what direction I should rebalance the game. The faster counter needs to be slightly more expensive as well.

***

Preparations:

There are 9 classes that would fight each other.
The only ones that are truly important are the upper bounds compared to the default units.
However, the default units are the middle and serve as a HnR as well against the "sitting ducks". Defences that can deal damage, but have no attack range etc. Thus the default attack range is still 1 more than the 0 attack range plus the 1 bonus attack range.
Simply said, the default is 2.

All bodies with different movement speeds have the same health value's. No matter which balance is used.
The only thing that will change is the damage value.
Except for.... the damage value that is used at the default movement speed of 2. This is always the same for every system.

The "sitting duck" and HnR units will have different damage value's altogether.

***

Some numbers...
But these are only to calculate balances.
I kept the 5/6th roll as well. While the H/D ratio is 3 in my testgame. For some time, the default attack range forced the balance to that extra roll.

Health value's from 0 to 12 movement speed:
300 225 180 150 129 113 100 90 82 75 70 65 60

Damage value's from 0 to 12 attack range, with default movement speed of 2 in the other tests:
100 66,7 50 40 33,3 28,6 25 22,2 20 18,2 16,7 15,4 14,3

A movement speed of 6 would always result in being 1 shotted by an unit that has 0 attack range. Regardless of movement speed of that unit.
And this holds true to any balance, once the movement speed is actually 2.
In that case, we have 2>6.
Where the 2 movement speed with 0 attack range, instantly defeats a movement speed of 6.

In the original, it was thus possible to design an unit with ease that could catch and instant kill a fast unit. Simply by making it faster.
In all other cases. This is now made harder.

***

There are 5 settings that I tested:
The original calculation.
Movement speed is added for 50% to the weapon weight.
Movement speed is added for 100% to the weapon weight.
Movement speed is multiplied by 50% for the weapon weight.
Movement speed is multiplied by 100% for the weapon weight.
I will name them:
Original;
+50%;
+100%;
x50%;
x100%;

I looked at how prices of the units develop.
I also looked at how the damages develop.

When looking at the damage thresholds. The movement speeds are now of influence. But also, what movement speed the target has.

***

Sitting Ducks

The "sitting ducks", which function as barriers in the games. In other words, they keep enemies outside the barrier as long as this barrier is able to "intercept" any unit that tries to move over to the other side. This is the basic, will the chicken cross the road, question. A road of sitting ducks.
How much damage will they do? What movement speed is allowed on the targets in order to still cross the barrier without being destroyed?

Yip, these have an attack range of 0 and a movement speed of 0. Still usefull if someone is taking a risk.

Please keep in mind, this is with average value's and designs.

Original; 100 damage, which allows 5 or less movement speed.
+50%; 150 damage, which allows 2 or less movement speed.
+100%; 300 damage, which allows... nothing. And is kinda like the mines. Somehow it feels overpowered.
x50%; 125 damage, which allows 4 or less movement speed.
x100%; 150 damage, which allows 2 or less movement speed.

In a sense, I don't like the +100% calculation. How did it end up with such a mind blowing damage value? Well, it is due to how it is calculated.
The +50% and x100% show the same damage value. Which is good. And on a side note, a movement speed of 2 can cross the sitting ducks. But can also be targeted by the sitting ducks when the +1 bonus range is applied.
I kinda like this nerf, but must keep in mind that these can be 2 shotted now. This means that the barrier is kinda counting 3 layers now for completely stopping the default units.
The x50% shows only a little bit of improvement. There are still units that can cross the barrier at a good moment. This means that the original of 3 to 5 has shrunk to 3 to 4.
Not sure what is good. But there are still 8 more classes to be tested.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Second test round

It is important to keep track, what I want to test exactly. Sometimes I test something. And later on, it shows that the test was not needed. Or the results bring nothing. This was certainly the case for looking at the default units.

So, instead of testing the default units, I actually tested in how they are being dealt with.

Default units get recked?

The default units have a movement speed of 2 and an attack range of 2.
The health is 180 and the damage is 50.

Any HnR unit that stays out of trouble, will have a certain effectivness. The threshold compared to the original will now be a combination of movement speed and attack range. The minimum requirement was with an attack range of 5 and a movement speed of 3.
With 150 health and a damage of 29. It could receive 3 hits, while having to deal 7 hits. Maybe look at these value's? After all, it is also a value to "downtime" of where a player is forced to play in a way. Well, the receivable hits remains 3 for all systems. So it is only the dealings, because the damages here can be different.

Original; Damage 28.6. Dealing 7
+50%; Damage 27.3. Dealing 7
+100%; Damage 26.1. Dealing 7
x50%; Damage 26.0. Dealing 7
x100%; Damage 24.5. Dealing 8

Ok, that is dissapointing.
Only the x100% shows a little difference now.
So, what is the result when this minimum HnR is going to deal with the base?
We need the 300 health now.

Base gets recked??

Original; Damage 28.6. Dealing 11
+50%; Damage 27.3. Dealing 11
+100%; Damage 26.1. Dealing 12
x50%; Damage 26.0. Dealing 12
x100%; Damage 24.5. Dealing 13

From 11 to 13. Is not the desirable improvement.
We want the down time for a HnR to be a bit NOTICABLE more than the original. However, it was the minimum requirement.

We also need to see how the comfortable HnR will work in the systems.
Because the absolute minimum vs default works like this:
It shoots the default at a distance of 5. Then the default moves in to 3. The HnR needs to shoot and move here, thus dealing less damage. But it will be out of harm for a while. It will move back to a distance of 5 this way. It can go to 6, but then the default might not hunt anymore, or starts running away sooner.
So, 1 clean hit, and then 6 hits with lower chances.

The comfortable HnR unit will be able to keep a distance and do more clean hits often. The first design in this has a movement speed of 4. The attack distance has to be 7.
Now the combat will be as following.
At a distance of 7 and then 5, there will be 2 clean hits. At 3, the HnR needs to distance. It will be 7 again. So 1 clean hit at 5. And followed by doing the HnR at 3 again.
So, 2 clean hits, followed by alternating between a lower chance and a clean hit.

Default units get comfortably recked?

Original; Damage 22.2. Dealing 9
+50%; Damage 20.7. Dealing 9
+100%; Damage 19.4. Dealing 10
x50%; Damage 18.5. Dealing 10
x100%; Damage 16.7. Dealing 11

Ok, so the comfortable HnR just got slighlty less comfortable. But the issue is still, the base can be destroyed too fast.

Base gets comfortably recked??

Original; Damage 22.2. Dealing 14
+50%; Damage 20.7. Dealing 15
+100%; Damage 19.4. Dealing 16
x50%; Damage 18.5. Dealing 17
x100%; Damage 16.7. Dealing 18

From 14 to 18 is a big improvement. The other options are less in this regard.
Somehow, the x100% comes out decently here.

But the true HnR unit has yet to be tested. And the lower limits to these are with 5 movement speed and a attack range of 9.
The other HnR unit that is also annoying, is one that has the attack range of 7 and a movement speed of 7. This last one is truly annoying to deal with, while it deals with the base as well.

5/9 against default
Original; Damage 18.2. Dealing 10
+50%; Damage 16.7. Dealing 11
+100%; Damage 15.4. Dealing 12
x50%; Damage 14.0. Dealing 13
x100%; Damage 12.1. Dealing 15

Well, the x100% makes a leap here. 50% longer battle time. We are getting somewhere. Let's see the base then.

5/9 against base
Original; Damage 18.2. Dealing 17
+50%; Damage 16.7. Dealing 18
+100%; Damage 15.4. Dealing 20
x50%; Damage 14.0. Dealing 22
x100%; Damage 12.1. Dealing 25

Again a nice 50% longer for the x100%...
I might choose this one with the current results. But the designing is relatively harder, than when using the addition system.

7/7 against default
Original; Damage 22.2. Dealing 9
+50%; Damage 18.8. Dealing 10
+100%; Damage 16.2. Dealing 12
x50%; Damage 14.8. Dealing 13
x100%; Damage 12.1. Dealing 15

Interestingly the 12.1 damage stays exactly the same. This is a sign of swapping value's, yet maintaining the weapon weight. Thus the body weight could be the only factor changing. But not nesesary. It also means that if you want a fast unit to be more durable, you can simply reduce the attack range, while maintaining the damage. Which brings us to fast units that deal with a base instead. But let's observe the effect on the base for the 7/7 in order to complete this testround.

7/7 against base
Original; Damage 22.2. Dealing 14
+50%; Damage 18.8. Dealing 16
+100%; Damage 16.2. Dealing 19
x50%; Damage 14.8. Dealing 21
x100%; Damage 12.1. Dealing 25

The x100% is almost double, compared to the original.
The goal is adding 50% downtime. So the x50% is also a valid option for the 7/7 units.
The +50% and +100% completely lost in this test round. Which is a shame.

***

I want to look at the prices that all these units show, in comparison to the default units.
We can keep the health and damage value solified for this. Thus the 5/6th roll needs to remain honoured. And simply compare the sitting ducks 0/0, default 2/2, minimal HnR 3/5, comfortable HnR 4/7, true HnR 5/9 and the annoying HnR 7/7.

Next time I will also show the test results of the fastest units that have default range.
Against default units, bases and their HnR counter parts with an equal attack range.
And in a sense, I will be done testing.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Corrections....

Well, I accidenlty had 1 table different than planned.

The x100% made use of a modifier set to 4, which had to be 3...

Oof. But luckily it doesn't influence the number of hits that much.
The calculations where ranging from 4 to 11 divided by 6.
It had to be 3 to 10 divided by 5.

The situation with 25 hits needed, will now go up to 27.
I only have to adjust... Do I have to adjust?

I decided to keep the mistake in the test.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Evaluating the balances

I have come to a point where playtesting has pushed me into a direction.

At first, I thought the cumulative calculations would be the best choice. Because these would supply me with nice round numbers and an easy design route. While this holds true. Both of them do not really result in the desired balance.

The multiplication seems to yield better numbers.
So far, x100% seems to be the winner.
No matter if I observe the correct calculation. Or the mistake that I made.
Both seem to bring good numbers.

I am going to test the "mistake" a bit more.

And I guess, I need to do different kind of play tests now.
So I need to go to the drawing board and create new units to play with.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stopping the playtesting

Well, I discussed just moments ago with a fellow tester.
Reasons for stop playtesting this:

- It is more valid to have the new balance for RTS games. Where firing and moving at the same time is easy to do. Still, we could use the "correct" balance for HnR units.

- The calculations for nice round numbers in the lower regions are rather...tricky.

- There are fundamental differences with a gap that is wide enought. But if the gap isn't wide enough, the extra difference in costs is not only tricky. But also obsolete. This especially holds true for the slowest units.

- There are natural counters. These keep their original value as well. Besides, we got several maps to use, in order to nerve fast and HnR units.

- If a player manages to snowball with HnR units. They failed to use the natural counters in time.

- Downtime. Was getting higher as expected. But a bit too high with the correct calculation. See the point of the player that managed to fail anyway.

***

Assault units...are born

If I allow the new balance to be used on the assault units. I need to make sure it isn't abused.
I think I need a new topic for this.

The sitting ducks where rather cheap compared to the original. This means I need to make sure the default for assault units starts at 0.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Now, with the Assault units added

Sitting Ducks are back to normal.
It is impossible to have them become more expensive.

All other units have a normal cost too.

I want to test several factors on the movement speed, that is added to a normal weapon calculation. But only when the unit is changed into an Assault unit.

This means that this unit can ALWAYS move AND attack, regardless of the action it uses.

***

Here are the costs, where the original (Org.) is the costs for when this unit is normal.
I will not display weird percentages. Unless the original design is normal.

Sitting ducks 0/0, accuracy 100.%:
Org.: 60%
0.25: 60%
0.50: 60%
0.75: 60%
1.00: 60%
1.25: 60%
1.50: 60%

That looks good.

Default units 2/2, accuracy 100.%:
Org.: 110%
0.25: 115%
0.50: 120%
0.75: 125%
1.00: 130%
1.25: 135%
1.50: 140%

Default units 2/2, accuracy 83.3%:
Org.: 100% <--- Absolute default uit
1.50: 125%

Default units 2/2, accuracy 66.7%:
Org.: 90%
0.75: 100%
1.50: 110%

***

If 0.75 makes the cut. The default unit with accuracy 5/6 would be just as expensive as the assault default unit with accuracy 4/6. Making the default unit 25% more effective in the long run.
Not only that, but if the assault unit fire's in combination with moving around. There is a penalty at the maximum range, to the damage. And this is minus 31%. If a player doesn't want this penalty, the units need to move into melee.

There is an action that allows an unit to do hit'n'run in one go. If the assault unit does this, a movement of 1 doesn't make a difference, but the movement of 2 will be split in getting 1 closer, then taking a distance of 1 again. This is literly +1 weapon range for the assault. And thus, 0.75 should be the new minimum factor.

***

HnR minimum 3/5, accuracy 100.%:
Org.: 165%
0.50: 180%
1.00: 195%
1.50: 210%

HnR minimum 3/5, accuracy 83.3%:
0.50: 160%
1.50: 185%

HnR minimum 3/5, accuracy 66.7%:
Org.: 130%
0.25: 135%
0.50: 140%
0.75: 145%
1.00: 150%
1.25: 155%
1.50: 160%

HnR comfortable 4/7, accuracy 100.%:
Org.: 205%
0.25: 215%
0.50: 225%
0.75: 235%
1.00: 245%
1.25: 255%
1.50: 265%

HnR comfortable 4/7, accuracy 83.3%:
NO!!!

HnR comfortable 4/7, accuracy 66.7%:
Org.: 160%
0.75: 180%
1.50: 200%

***

While I suspect by now that 0.75 is the correct factor. It looks like I have to discus this last section backwards.
The accuracy of 4/6 makes the weapon cost 90, while the body costs 70. This is imporant to know, because the assault variant has a weapon cost of 110.

It is a support unit, and getting into danger should indeed not add much costs. However, a situation of 9 against 8 units shows that the extra costs are way to low. Why? Because the AP costs and the ability of the unit increases. I do have to keep in mind that the maximum penalty, this time linked to the movement speed. Is 4, or a minus 52%. Which actually turns the situation in a 9 vs 4 (durability still 8).

On a side note; super fast melee units. Will have less penalty. Perhaps even minus 0%.

Second side note; if a normal unit does an assault action, it will pay the penalty as well. While the AP costs is 3 instead of 1.

Third side note; an assault unit doesn't have to move. Then the attack will always do 100% damage. An assault unit doesn't have to attack either, but that would be a waste on it's costs.

***

I am not going to look at the other designs just yet.
I just realized that a certain attribute can be used to make assault units super effective.
When the attribute removes the penalties. The weapon range is multiplied by 1.5 in the balance.
I should do the same to the movement speed for assault units.
It is as if the movement speed and attack range for default units is suddenly 3/3.

Default units 2/2, 0 penalty, accuracy 100.%:
Org.: 135%
0.50: 150%
1.00: 165%
1.50: 180%

Default units 2/2, 0 penalty, accuracy 83.3%:
0.50: 135%
1.50: 160%

Default units 2/2, 0 penalty, accuracy 66.7%:
Org.: 110%
0.25: 115%
0.50: 120%
0.75: 125%
1.00: 130%
1.25: 135%
1.50: 140%

***

2 things:
- The penalty roll starts to feel very steep.
- Weapons that change the penalty roll feel overpowered in combination with assault units.

I am considering that 0.75 is the most logical option. But I need to make sure.

I look at the following default units:
Cost 100; Accuracy 83.3%, AP = 3, maximum Pf = 69.4%
Cost 125; Accuracy 83.3%, AP = 3, maximum Pf = 100.%
Cost 100; Accuracy 66.7%, Assault, Maximum Pf = 69.4%
Cost 125; Accuracy 100.%, Assault, Maximum Pf = 69.4%
Cost 125; Accuracy 66.7%, Assault, Maximum Pf = 100.%

To be fair, I should only look at the damages. Thus the units that cost 125, their weapons cost 75. Thus the effectivness is divided by 1.5, not 1.25.

The effectivnessess:
58% - 83%
56% - 56%
46% - 67%
46% - 67%
44% - 44%

Uhhhhmmm....
This changes at higher movement speeds and attack ranges in combination with the penalty removal. But right now it looks...decent tbh.
Should I change the penalty all together?
For example, a fixed die roll when attacking moving targets? Regardless of movement speed or attack range?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut