What''s so bad with RPS? All strategy games use RPS. The only way not to use RPS is to make an imbalanced game.

no not all strategy games use RPS, its just the current fad. Because its easier for the designers to implement and the players don''t have to think as much since they can see okay, he''s attacking with infanty, so according to the in game help I counter with archers, because archers beat infantry.


There are many ways to balance a game other the RPS and there is no reason other then bad design that would prevent some one from doing so. For instance there is the power, speed, and cost pardigm. where changing one effects the other 2 and you balance the game that way. So increaseing a units power makes it cost more and lowers it speed.




-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote: Original post by TechnoGoth
no not all strategy games use RPS, its just the current fad. Because its easier for the designers to implement and the players don't have to think as much since they can see okay, he's attacking with infanty, so according to the in game help I counter with archers, because archers beat infantry.

You say that as if this is a bad thing. However, it's also a fact of life--if the archers are mobile enough, they will win against infantry because they can inflict damage without risking being on the receiving end. Mounted enemies are faster than archers, so horsemen can ride down archers. Etc. (For an exception, look at the battle of Agincourt (Henry V)--the French had many mounted knights, and thus should've won, but they got bogged down in the mud, which allowed the English longbowmen to inflict far greater damage than otherwise.)

Basically, if there's a melee ground unit (soldier) coming at me, I'm going to try to counter with a ranged unit (archer), if I have one that's mobile enough, because mobility is a good thing. Alternatively, if he's attacking with a ranged unit (archer) and I have something that can get inside that range quickly (knight) or something that has a longer range (catapult), I'm not going to send in my slower melee units (soldiers), because they're just going to get chewed up. Why do I do this? Because of the in-game help? No, not really. I rarely look at that--this decision is based solely on the characteristics of the units that are available.

Sure, add in other factors to affect the outcome of the battle (mud slowing down movement, trees preventing charges & longer-ranged attacks, armor, magic arrows, etc.) But it's still going to be an RPS--given a set of circumstances, with units x, y, and z available, if I'm being attacked by unit a, one of x, y, or z will be the most logical choice to respond with (unless the correct answer is to use a combination of x and y). Is the field muddy? Ok, then I can't guarantee that my knights will be able to reach the archers fast enough, so that catapult is looking really good. Am I in a forest? Well, the catapult can't shoot well, and I can't charge with my knights, looks like the infantry and archers are top dog. And so on.

Basically, unless you make the results of combat based on random chance , you're in a situation where unit a will be able to kill unit b, and unit b can kill unit c, and unit c can kill unit d--and unless unit d can kill unit a, closing the loop, there will be no point at all to having unit d, and thus your game is imbalanced (it becomes a race to unit a--the "uber unit"). (Example: if soldiers are so slow and weak that they never stand a chance against knights, archers, or catapults (assuming only those four units are possible), anyone who wastes time building one will be at a disadvantage.) But once you close the loop, and get a>b>c>d>a, you've got an RPS situation (R<P<S<R).

-Odd the Hermit

EDIT: cleaned up my <'s to actually display.

[edited by - Odd the Hermit on September 24, 2003 9:37:26 AM]

ever read the book the art of war? try getting an english version of it and check it out. basicly what it comes down to is war is really just a big old game of RPS.

a balanced game is automatically RPS, period.

To the guy who couldn''t "penetrate the defenses" in StarCraft... man you must suck! Each race had at least 1 unit with greater range than the defensive units/towers.

Defense NEVER (let me repeat... NEVER) lasts in StarCraft. The game is all about offense.

RPS balancing is very contrived, the problem is that it has nothing to do with stats or environment. Instead it is a system of bonus and penalites depending on the unit and the target. For instance an archer should beat a infanty because it has supieor range and equaivlant damage and lose to a cavalry because the cavalry has the mobility to reach the archer alive. Instead the RPS approach allows the archer to beat the infantry because it does double damage to infantry and lose to a cavalry because it does half damage to cavalry.

A balanced game does not have to be RPS and if thats the only way you can balance a game then maybe you should reexamine your game mechanics.


-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
To the guy who couldn''t "penetrate the defenses" in StarCraft... man you must suck! Each race had at least 1 unit with greater range than the defensive units/towers.

Defense NEVER (let me repeat... NEVER) lasts in StarCraft. The game is all about offense.

Terran defense > any offense. To take down a base fortified with Missile Turrets, Bunkers, and Seige tanks, it usually requires an army twice three or four times the size (costwise) or it requires you contain and starve the terran until they can no longer produce.

The problem was the seige tank could out-range any other artillery and any base defense, making it simultaneously the best siege AND anti-siege weapon. It also did hideous splash damage. If you sent a group of 20 zerglins towards a base with 4+ seige tanks, half your lings would be killed in the first volley. Even if tanks are higher on the tech tree, they should be so damn powerful!

And with the exception of guardians, any static defense > air. Air offense is only useful as a surprise in the game (save isls maps).


/¯\_/¯\_/¯\_/¯\_/¯\_/¯\
"You TK''ed my chicken!"
\_/¯\_/¯\_/¯\_/¯\_/¯\_/

In starcraft A friend of mine used to use a very effective cloacked carrier invasion fleet. That was almost impossible to stop unless you where prepared for it.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote: Original post by TechnoGoth
In starcraft A friend of mine used to use a very effective cloacked carrier invasion fleet. That was almost impossible to stop unless you where prepared for it.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I'm a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

I was about to suggest the same (except with an arbitor recall to pass the defenses and halucinations to save $$ and protect the arbitor(s)). In truth, there are dozens of strategies to disprove Tac-Tics generalizations...no offense meant.

______________________________________________________________
The Phoenix shall arise from the ashes... ThunderHawk -- ¦þ
MySite
______________________________________________________________

[edited by - Thunder_Hawk on September 24, 2003 6:37:36 PM]