First, I played Warcraft 3, and didn't enjoy it very much. Too much focus on multiplayer and clickiness. Which is a shame, because Warcraft 2 was awesome.
The focus on clickiness was a design decision, it had nothing to do with the successful armor system.
Second, saying "Someone else did it, therefore it must be right" is not a useful claim.
This is a straw man argument, or a caricature of what I have said. To claim, "It has worked well before, therefore it can work well again", is much different than saying, "It has worked before, and therefore must be right". You've built a straw man implying that my
entire argument hinges on the fact that it has worked before, and you're wrong because I also provide plenty of other reasons why as well.
Third, Warcraft 3 had what, 10 unit types per race? 40-50 total? How many does AI War have? Many more.
That's exactly the point. The more complicated the game becomes, the simpler the system needs to be. The armor system I'm proposing is much SIMPLER than the hull type multiplier system that we have. The player has to remember MUCH LESS than before.
Because there are so many more, they need more ability to differetiate themselves. At the same time, since memorization isn't an option, whatever system is used needs to be obvious.
I agree, which is why the proposed system works better. With the proposed system, the exact damage reduction percentage (based on armor) can be displayed on each units bar, which makes it extremely obvious how much damage a unit will do. Much more obvious, in fact, than it currently is.
So you tell me: Which one is more complicated to the player?
A system where, before you can take into account the damage done, you must first calculate:
1. The hull bonuses of the ship firing.
2. The hull type being shot at.
3. The actual hull multipliers of the ship firing.
4. The damage of the ship firing.
5. The armor value of the ship being fired upon.
6. Multiply the damage of the hull multipliers x weapon damage.
7. Run this damage through the current (confusing) armor system.
8. Arrive at result.
In the new system it's:
1. The damage of the ship firing.
2. The damage reduction in percentage of the ship being shot at (shown on its bar).
3. Arrive at result.
Holy cow, and
my system is more complicated?
What you guys are doing here is a logical fallacy called appeal to fear. Without good evidence, you're presenting this doomsday scenario where if we change the game in a certain way, it suddenly becomes much more difficult and complicated for the player. You have presented no evidence or examples for why this would be the case, it's just your emotional appeals and doomsday theorycrafting. If anything, you would do better to argue that the new system is TOO SIMPLE, and can't accomplish as much as the current hull multiplier system - that might be a valid argument.
Aaaaand, that's the issue. You say that the actual numbers don't matter. Just low, medium, high. Then why not MAKE the values 'low', 'medium', and 'high'?
The actual numbers do matter, my point was that using either system, it's basically going to come down to the player becoming comfortable with the game. In my over 15 years of experiences with RTSes, rarely do I sit there and do these mathematical calculations in my head mid-battle, I just do a brief overlook of how units interact, then learn as a I go. I dare say this is how most players play as well, and if that is true, then a simple armor system that stays consistent is MUCH more effective than a hull type multiplier system, where a lot of memorization is required.
Why do you require the player to be experienced before they can even get an idea of how things work? That's not good. In fact, I would call that bad design.
The player already has to be experienced to get an idea of how things work, it's AI War. I'm arguing that the new system actually has a much faster learning curve that the old system. See my example above.
If you were seriously suggesting that we replace the wide range of numerical values with just two or three simple ones, I might agree with that. But you're not suggesting that, you're suggesting that we take a simple and intuitive system, and make it non-simple, obtuse, and inconvenient - aka, not fun.
What is obtuse and inconvenient about a system that can actually show you the ACTUAL damage reduction of each attack right on its bar? The system we use where 7 steps of calculation are required to reach a result, instead of 2 steps, is much more complicated than what I'm proposing. This is more fear mongering.
Personally, the best suggestion I've heard was when someone suggested we ditch armor entirely, and use a two-factor system of ship size and hull type. Armor would become more HP, and 'Armor Piercing' would become a multiplier against that type.
I'm not opposed to that.
