Author Topic: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)  (Read 4679 times)

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2016, 02:20:54 AM »
Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behavior => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

Actually, Archer beats both.

Kinds of why I put the nitpicker alert =). Pretty sure the numbers were off. And... please don't base a game balance against "reality" =), if that's what you're trying to do. Because I'd feel like I'd have to be noisy about limited number of arrows and pikemen dominating battlefields until firearms were in, but that would be useless and distracting and I don't want that.

I'm out.
Please, do not. I do not mean to be a cheerleader. But in previous endeviours with Arcen I always thought to myself "This is not for me" and I later regretted it. Everyone's input is valuable.
+1 to that one, but in my case, I value your posts more than other persons from the forum.

Please rephrase this in a more succinct way please. There are a lot of tangents and arbitrary numbers that distract from what you mean I feel.
I'm building on the quadrangle idea, only with a triangle. I don't like the bonus to damage that were put there to have the quandrangle working. I think it's doable by respecting some archetypes, like it's done in most strategy games via cavalry, infantry and archery.

I don't understand the "cap ship" category - I'd have to get examples, because currently it's concepturally empty to me, whereas the "fighter" category has about half the stuff AI War classic had. So I don't build on that one.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 02:22:32 AM by kasnavada »

Offline Pumpkin

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,197
  • Neinzul Gardener Enclave
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2016, 02:23:16 AM »
I'm out.

Please, do not. I do not mean to be a cheerleader. But in previous endeviours with Arcen I always thought to myself "This is not for me" and I later regretted it. Everyone's input is valuable.
If I answer I'll answer emotionally. I'll try to keep it as objective and concise as I can.
1) Include notions of average range, speed, firepower and tankyness in your class descriptions.
2) Give classes emblematic (or even reserved) perks. AoE, cloaking, evasion, engine damage, etc.
3) Bag of perks is bad. I keep saying that. Kill "specialists" (or spec ops or whatever).

Overall, I'm tired of this. Emotionally tired. I'll just be out of that class discussion and be back post-KS with an implementation.
Please excuse my english: I'm not a native speaker. Don't hesitate to correct me.

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2016, 08:40:37 AM »
Well you somewhat misunderstood me from yesterday a little. Nothing bad about that.


Right now I am running a multi-superweapon fallen spire campaign running into 8 hours. I am playing on a x with 90 planets so far I only have taken a few systems due to subcommander being tougher to take out (both AI troop accelerator tucked under shield). I am already rolling with two golems (botnet meh, cursed golem awesome!) and I am barely taking space enough for two cities.

At version 1 it may not be a huge problem. But later on it could skewed the balance one way or another as more expansion/superweapon get added.

It would feel weird that the "only way" to fight Leviathan is another Leviathan and what if you have something equivalent like hive golem (nevermind that it take a WHILE to build up firepower) which only can "tickle" another Leviathan? See where I am going?

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,231
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2016, 10:58:54 AM »
Whew, okay:

1. Sorry to anyone I have offended here.  I understand that my last post or two were pretty brief (on individual responses to points, not overall length), and may have come off as dismissive.  That was not my intent, but if you see the latest topic today about the schedule and so on perhaps that will give some more insight into my own state of my mind.

2. At any rate my intent is not to stymie discussion and most definitely not to hurt anyone's feelings, though I realize I may have done so.  But we're passing a point where I think we are at "good enough for a first pass, and I bet things change during the alpha quite a bit, as is only natural."

3. When it comes to things like the leviathan class being only weak to other leviathans or whatnot, bear in mind that basically any class can defeat any other class... but it's dependent on how much you wind up throwing at it.  If you have 5x as many bombers as a tac-sup group, you'll absolutely wreck the tac-sups by sheer numbers alone... and take some heavy casualties in the process.  It wasn't efficient, but hey you got the job done.  If you outnumber tac-sups 20:1 with bombers against them, you might have so much overwhelming firepower that you just demolish them before they have much time to even do anything.

What this chart represents is "like for like" combat.  Think of this as "serving size" in food.  You can get far more calories from lettuce than a Big Mac if you're willing to eat that much lettuce.  But eating one serving of each leads to incredibly more calories from a Big Mac.  If you are dead-set on eating only lettuce as your primary source of calories, then you could certainly do so, but it would be inefficient (and I'm obviously ignoring vitamins and whatnot that you'd need from elsewhere -- just talking raw calories).

4. The artificial bonuses are something that people have argued about back and forth for seven years now, and the conclusion for years has been that it doesn't work without them.  Basically if you take away the artificial bonuses of types versus other types, then pretty much every ship suddenly has a relationship to every other type of ship.  It gets to be a bit nuts, and is a balance nightmare, because even the most basic of tac-sup ships couldn't possibly be good against all the other things without also being too good against what it is supposed to be weak against, and/or having lots of strange exceptions.  The natural non-bonus-based approach works super elegantly when the number of units is very small and can be polished to perfection, but in something like AI War (or many other RTS games) it gets to be a nightmare.

5. Star Wars as a great example of big ships being ineffective against little ones is a good point, when it comes to Death Stars, though that was largely a design flaw issue more than anything else.  I was thinking more of Star Destroyers, and in particular how those are portrayed in some of the strategy and space sim games.  Going a bit off the road of movie canon there I guess.

6. Trying to limit things too far down in terms of things like "all siege weapons are long range and {insert whatever general trait for them}" also artificially reduces variety.  Going medieval, you have things like the trebuchet that is long range but has to be unpacked.  You have battering rams that are incredibly short range and also slow, but powerful.  You have catapults that are middle-range and middle speed.  And so on.  This is very interesting, because it's several different sub-ways to solve the same overall problem.  I don't want any triangle to get in the way of the ability for these sorts of things to exist.

7. The limitations of things like special perks to just some classes also goes against that to a large degree.  Keeping the "bag of perks" to a minimum is a good goal, I think, though.  But there has to be a "miscellaneous" category, in my opinion.  That may well disappear in alpha during testing, so I'd just leave it for now, because the proof will be in the pudding.  I'll be plenty happy to be proved wrong if there's a better model, but overall people seem to be reacting pretty positively to this one, and so this one seems to be a good one to organize around for the moment. 

8. I think that all the major arguments that the majority of people have had have been addressed, though there are still some specific arguments from specific people about some parts of it; with something like this that is still an on-paper issue, and that is under a time constraint, I think that's honestly the best I can hope for.


If there's anything incorrect in my perception there, please do let me know.  To be clear, this is the model I'm referring to:

Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #34 on: September 22, 2016, 12:16:40 PM »
Yes I have no problem with the model as it is now except for Siege having only one damage bonus.

It just feel odd that Siege only has ONE thing it is particular good at and could benefit from a second if weaker bonus against Leviathan. While everyone else within the core triangle has two strength. By weak bonus I meant Siege gets 8x damage vs capital ships while it get 2x damage bonus vs Leviathan. Otherwise we may be able to stack a few leviathan and "make meal" out of the core triangle and use tactical superiority against everything else. Numbers are not finalized and depends on how number are balanced.

For example: In AI War Classic there are AI type that uses nothing but super weapons (Golemite, Spireling etc...). All they have to do to completely lock you down is bring lot of tactical superiority if we backward port this balance triangle.

I have no problem with specialist not having any particular bonus against Leviathan like it did in earlier model.

Without knowing the exact detail of everything that will go into day 1 version of AI War 2. Crystal ball anyone? I can only use examples from AI War Classic to articulate what I feel about AI War 2 core triangle.

TD;LR: Don't make the Leviathan all about "who shoot first" and raw firepower. Artillery golem vs artillery golem anyone?

Offline Orelius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #35 on: September 22, 2016, 12:22:15 PM »
I don't really get why we need to rename the basic archetypes of ships from AI War Classic.  The Fighter/Bomber/Frigate triangle did make lots of sense by invoking real-life parallels to aircraft and ships.  Fighters are air superiority fighters, and they beat bombers but lose to frigates (ships with AA guns).  Bombers lose to fighters but are better at destroying slow-moving ships.  Frigates can shoot down fighters with their AA guns but are vulnerable to being bombed.

Instead of moving bombers out of the triangle and capital ships in, why not just merge the starship/capital ship and frigate/corvette classes into one?  Then we'd just have the fighter>bomber>capital ship > fighter triangle that makes some intuitive sense and carries over from the original.  Of course, that would make bombers some of the best ships in the game but that's okay in my opinion.  Just make bombers expensive but vital and include economic bonuses or incentives for making the other ships, such as fighters being really cheap to replace, capital ships leaving wrecks that allow for easily reclaiming and repairing, or other related things.

Specialist ships in general seem to force multipliers - they make a fleetball stronger with utility(medic frigates, boosters), covering up weaknesses(redirectors/scapegoats), or being able to generate more ships(parasites/shredders), but aren't as useful on their own.  I think it would be interesting to make some sub-classes of specialist to further define what exactly they do.  Specialist ships really shouldn't participate in the triangle though, in my opinion.  They're meant to be weak on their own already, so why not just make them consistently weak against all other ships?  Additionally, I think most melee ships (aside from maybe shredders) should be considered to be fighters, because what they excel at is chasing down small important things and killing them.  The most expensive small ship that would come to mind are bombers.

As for superweapons, I'm of the opinion that they should be sub-classified within the triangle even if they don't have the built in bonuses or maluses, just because it would make intuitive sense.  For instance, an artillery golem might be classified as a bomber superweapon, since it can take durable structures apart.  A regenerator golem would be a specialist superweapon, an armored golem might be considered a capital superweapon, etc.



Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,091
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #36 on: September 22, 2016, 12:23:03 PM »
Yes I have no problem with the model as it is now except for Siege having only one damage bonus.

It just feel odd that Siege only has ONE thing it is particular good at and could benefit from a second if weaker bonus against Leviathan. While everyone else within the core triangle has two strength. By weak bonus I meant Siege gets 8x damage vs capital ships while it get 2x damage bonus vs Leviathan. Otherwise we may be able to stack a few leviathan and "make meal" out of the core triangle and use tactical superiority against everything else. Numbers are not finalized and depends on how number are balanced.

I kind of agree with this.  Siege is still going to lose the fight, but compared to any other group they'll perform better.  You'd still need a whole frakton of ships to deal with a leviathan, but giving Siege an extra bit of kick would be nice.

I don't really get why we need to rename the basic archetypes of ships from AI War Classic.

There have been a few threads, but the TL;DR is this:
  • Missile Frigate needed a new one-word name. Chris didn't like the fact that it required an ammo type in its name.
  • Bombers had an out-sized role in the triangle: they were good at murdering forcefields, structures, command stations, fortresses, and a whole slew of other units.
  • Fighter/Bomber/Frigate didn't really describe roles very well.  Where in those three descriptors do Electric Shuttles fit?
  • Probably two other things I'm forgetting
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 12:27:22 PM by Draco18s »

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,231
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #37 on: September 22, 2016, 12:27:23 PM »
In terms of the core triangle and the reasons for that change, there has been an incredibly large amount of discussion about that, and my rationale has been explained through there.  I really don't intend this to be a brush-off and please don't take it that way, but it was a long conversation and I can't really summarize it here while keeping up with my other work.

Yes I have no problem with the model as it is now except for Siege having only one damage bonus.

It just feel odd that Siege only has ONE thing it is particular good at and could benefit from a second if weaker bonus against Leviathan. While everyone else within the core triangle has two strength. By weak bonus I meant Siege gets 8x damage vs capital ships while it get 2x damage bonus vs Leviathan. Otherwise we may be able to stack a few leviathan and "make meal" out of the core triangle and use tactical superiority against everything else. Numbers are not finalized and depends on how number are balanced.

I kind of agree with this.  Siege is still going to lose the fight, but compared to any other group they'll perform better.  You'd still need a whole frakton of ships to deal with a leviathan, but giving Siege an extra bit of kick would be nice.

All right, in the end I'm sold on that one.  So, now:

Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #38 on: September 22, 2016, 04:20:48 PM »
This thread is a great example of what I mean in that an idea has a short leash but is allowed to wander. Now I feel this issue, in my eyes at least, is pretty clear where before it all started I was so confused I had no idea how to tackle it.

The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,091
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #39 on: September 22, 2016, 04:34:13 PM »
The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.

I think that aspect can be balanced once we've got something to actually play with.  I figure its in the same vein as siege being good against leviathans.  It's not like you're going to take out a golem with a full cap of z-bombs.

Instead, the specialist ships mix into your fleet, and while individually less effective against the enemy, do "strange and wonderful things."

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #40 on: September 22, 2016, 04:42:52 PM »
The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.

I think that aspect can be balanced once we've got something to actually play with.  I figure its in the same vein as siege being good against leviathans.  It's not like you're going to take out a golem with a full cap of z-bombs.

Instead, the specialist ships mix into your fleet, and while individually less effective against the enemy, do "strange and wonderful things."

I agree. But I am in this weird position where I think "this matter, pre kickstarter, is settled. Therefore it should be closed." It is arrogant for me to think such a thing. But that point in logic must come, for there are tons of matters still floating around and the discussion needs to be funneled to those issues. Which means "solved" ones are closed.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Captain Jack

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
  • Just lucky
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #41 on: September 22, 2016, 06:05:00 PM »
The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.

I think that aspect can be balanced once we've got something to actually play with.  I figure its in the same vein as siege being good against leviathans.  It's not like you're going to take out a golem with a full cap of z-bombs.

Instead, the specialist ships mix into your fleet, and while individually less effective against the enemy, do "strange and wonderful things."

I agree. But I am in this weird position where I think "this matter, pre kickstarter, is settled. Therefore it should be closed." It is arrogant for me to think such a thing. But that point in logic must come, for there are tons of matters still floating around and the discussion needs to be funneled to those issues. Which means "solved" ones are closed.
Shelved, not closed. This is an Arcen game.  :P

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2016, 01:34:26 AM »
6. Trying to limit things too far down in terms of things like "all siege weapons are long range and {insert whatever general trait for them}" also artificially reduces variety.  Going medieval, you have things like the trebuchet that is long range but has to be unpacked.  You have battering rams that are incredibly short range and also slow, but powerful.  You have catapults that are middle-range and middle speed.  And so on.  This is very interesting, because it's several different sub-ways to solve the same overall problem.  I don't want any triangle to get in the way of the ability for these sorts of things to exist.

Minor nitpick there, but all weapons you're putting in this post are in the demolition category =). More seriously, I see your points about "hybrid" units.
My opinion is that they're potential balancing headaches, but it's true they can fill a niche.

Offline Mánagarmr

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,272
  • if (isInRange(target)) { kill(target); }
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2016, 03:31:14 AM »
Been following this discussion without putting much input in, but it's been moving in the direction I've wanted anyway so I felt it unnecessary to add clutter. Now, however, I feel I need to add my

+1


Looks good now.
Click here to get started with Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports.

Thank you for contributing to making the game better!

Offline zharmad

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,075
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2016, 02:03:38 PM »
Seems good to go for the KS.