I've got a game that is MMO in nature. It's one of the browser-based games. It's been around for a while and has a somewhat large "cult-like" following. Recently I started making a new feature where the player collects Achievements (such as exploring X% of the galaxy, or refining X pieces of ore, etc.) Each achievement completed gives the player a point, which can then be invested into either technology, or the ability to conquer/colonize more planets. Getting more planets is basically how the player grows the economy. So here's the problem - some players invest 100% of their points into planets, while most of them go for tech. The player with the huge economy then spams 100's or 1000's of technologically-weak ships at the players who have high tech ships. The weaker ships win out because right now, new tech prices go up as the tech gets stronger and the people with tech don't have as big of an economy to purchase the amt of ships needed to match the guy with weak tech. I'm trying to come up with a solution. Any one got ideas on how to create more balance? Could making new tech cost the same as the prior version be a valid idea?

The classic solution is fireball.

And by that I mean give some tech that creates area of effect damage hurting everything in the region a fair amount. Boom, good by large numbers of small ships. Total damage from this is usually proportional to the number of targets hit; one large ship hit takes X damage, but N small ships hit each take X, total X*N. This makes it more effective against small ships, without overpowering it against large ones.

Other options:
-Tech which improves your economy
-Increasing "overhead" or "upkeep" costs for large armies
-Shields which absorb minor damage

Just some ideas.

One thing you can do is give small bonuses to those players who continuously invest their points into a certain technology.

Example, if a player constantly upgrades his shield tech, where he spent 3 of his last 10 points on shield tech this let him gain a small bonus when he researches shield tech again gaining a small 3% cheaper 5% faster in research. This rewards players who focuses on tech research and adds a little strategy when players wanna maximize this bonus.

Do take note those players who didn't focus on tech nor planets will be the least well off.

Quote:

Original post by Si Hao One thing you can do is give small bonuses to those players who continuously invest their points into a certain technology. Example, if a player constantly upgrades his shield tech, where he spent 3 of his last 10 points on shield tech this let him gain a small bonus when he researches shield tech again gaining a small 3% cheaper 5% faster in research. This rewards players who focuses on tech research and adds a little strategy when players wanna maximize this bonus. Do take note those players who didn't focus on tech nor planets will be the least well off.

So in theory, I could accomplish this by simply making each new level 3% cheaper and 5% better it seems.

For example, say my plasma weapons go up to level 10. Right now the costs for each upgrade goes up equal to the amount that the damage goes up. So if level 2 does 5% more damage than level 1, then the cost goes up 5%. With your proposal, the cost of each level would go up only 3%.

Am I understanding what you are saying?

Quote:

Original post by Chumad I'm trying to come up with a solution. Any one got ideas on how to create more balance? Could making new tech cost the same as the prior version be a valid idea?

Maybe lower the cost of Tech until the high tech players win half the matches.

Quote:

Original post by Chumad Quote: Original post by Si Hao One thing you can do is give small bonuses to those players who continuously invest their points into a certain technology. Example, if a player constantly upgrades his shield tech, where he spent 3 of his last 10 points on shield tech this let him gain a small bonus when he researches shield tech again gaining a small 3% cheaper 5% faster in research. This rewards players who focuses on tech research and adds a little strategy when players wanna maximize this bonus. Do take note those players who didn't focus on tech nor planets will be the least well off. So in theory, I could accomplish this by simply making each new level 3% cheaper and 5% better it seems. For example, say my plasma weapons go up to level 10. Right now the costs for each upgrade goes up equal to the amount that the damage goes up. So if level 2 does 5% more damage than level 1, then the cost goes up 5%. With your proposal, the cost of each level would go up only 3%. Am I understanding what you are saying?

For example, the last 5 points investment is as follows...
1. Planet
2. Shield
3. Shield
4. Plasma
5. Shield

If I invest my 6th point into Shield, I would gain a small bonus in time and cost savings due to my previous investments in Shield tech (2nd, 3rd and 5th points). This bonus is cumulative so the more you spent Shield investment the more bonus you get. This gives a player an advantage if they focus their tech research to certain fields (say 2 to 3 fields) as pass research grants the player a bonus in future research.

A logical way to look at it will be, the more time a nation spent their effort on a tech field (example USA's NASA) the easier and cheaper it is for them to go down the current field (space related tech) compared to other countries who has not spent the same level of effort on the field (New Guinea).

I dont really understand why you have to change too much. I mean if you got the two strategies "tech only" and "expansion only" and the later beats the former the game isnt broken yet. Maybe you should just avoid an inferior strategy and go for some mixture of teching and expanding. If such a mixt strategy beats the expansion strategy but not the tech only strategy you end up with a classic rock-paper-scissor balance.

If you change the game so that every strategy is equally good (teching makes you as strong as expanding and mixtures are of similar strength as well) then the game gets boring because it doesnt mean anything which strategy you choose. On the other hand in a rock-paper-scissor environment you got the task of scouting your opponents to find out what strategy they use and pick the best counter. On the other side your opponents can try to trick you in believing you pick a certain strategy.

I wouldnt change the balance just because one matchup is not equal, you need to analyse if there is no dominating strategy and sufficiant means of adapting and changing strategies according to the situations. - at least that would be my approach ...