The Turtle upgrade system is a little bland. Most players ignore them for most part, which shouldn't really be the case. I believe that the changes they make do not justify the time taken to click on them. So, here is the new set of upgrades, once again divided into four sets of two, in the format:
Upgrade Name(set one of four):
- Thing it does 1
- Thing it does 2
Turtle Heavy Infantry Upgrade (set 1):
- EMP Rounds for BAI Infantry
- Adds 50% infantry HP (heavy armour)
- Slows down infantry by 25% to 30%
- AA Infantry gets increased range
Turtle Assault Infantry (set 1):
- AGES rounds for BAT Infantry
- Increased RoF for AA Infantry and AF Infantry
Defence HAT Upgrade (set 2):
- Repair Drone
- Adds 50% HAT armour (heavy armour)
Assault HAT Upgrade (set 2):
- HAT MG Upgrade
- The AA Hat gets the ability to use its AA missiles as make-shift artillery
- Anti-Building Shot for regular HATs
Adaptive Infantry (set 3):
- AAF Additional Ammunition types
- AN Infantry get the ability to disable an area around them, rather than specifically targeting
Advanced Infantry (set 3):
- AN Range increase
- All Infantry get the ability to self-heal slowly
Advanced Aircraft (set 4):
- Aircraft Armour
- Double ammunition capacity for the TUBA
Advanced Fortifications (set 4):
- Building Armour
- All buildings and the Super-Heavy Vehicle get the ability to send out a shockwave to do damage to units around it.
Anyways, comments appreciated.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
TUBA update
The Turtle Ubiquitous Bomber Aircraft is receiving an update!
Previously, it has been somewhat clunky to use. Two per fairly ugly airfield, having to take off etc. And the model didn't really make much sense.
So, I'm replacing it with a much better VTOL aircraft. The airfield will be replaced with a much more compact helipad, which can fit one TUBA per pad. They will also not take up much power.
Hopefully, this will make them more popular and useful.
Previously, it has been somewhat clunky to use. Two per fairly ugly airfield, having to take off etc. And the model didn't really make much sense.
So, I'm replacing it with a much better VTOL aircraft. The airfield will be replaced with a much more compact helipad, which can fit one TUBA per pad. They will also not take up much power.
Hopefully, this will make them more popular and useful.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Rush gameplay change
It seems to me as though Rush has become the primary steam-roll faction. This is because of a few things:
Turtle players are unwilling to build artillery pieces to bombard civilian structures.
Rush players tend not to attack until they have an overwhelming force, while using their force build up to harrass any attack forces that leave an enemy base.
So, I have a change proposal:
Each Rush unit will take up power. Each Rush command building will give around 15-30 power. If the Rush player runs out of power, then his production stops.
This means that Rush players will either have to build a lot of command buildings (wasteful), or fairly constantly harrass opposing players (which is what I want). Hopefully, players will choose the latter, and come up with relatively creative ways to attack their opponents so that each strike does at least some damage.
Turtle players are unwilling to build artillery pieces to bombard civilian structures.
Rush players tend not to attack until they have an overwhelming force, while using their force build up to harrass any attack forces that leave an enemy base.
So, I have a change proposal:
Each Rush unit will take up power. Each Rush command building will give around 15-30 power. If the Rush player runs out of power, then his production stops.
This means that Rush players will either have to build a lot of command buildings (wasteful), or fairly constantly harrass opposing players (which is what I want). Hopefully, players will choose the latter, and come up with relatively creative ways to attack their opponents so that each strike does at least some damage.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Mission ideas
I'm just going to be dumping down mission ideas here. Read for spoilers and stuff. The story will be a bit weird, especially involving such factions as Rush, Turtle and Stealth.
Introducing Rush:
Goals:
Introduces Rush resource mechanic
Basic Anti Infantry Infantry
Basic Anti Tank Infantry
Building Hub
Infantry Command
Construction Vehicle
Mission Progression:
Player starts with a construction vehicle and $5000.
Player is given access to the building hub
Player is asked to build a building hub
Once the building hub is complete, the player is asked to upgrade it to an infantry command
Once the infantry command is upgraded, the player is asked to build five BAII
The player is asked to mount the infantry, and move to the next clearing, dismount, and eliminate the infantry that have formed up there.
The player is then given access to BATI, and then asked to eliminate the two HATs parked in the next clearing.
The player is then asked to move any remaining infantry up to the group of houses past the HATs, and garrisoning the buildings
The economy mechanic is explained.
The player is then asked to eliminate some infantry and a bunker with his current available tech.
Once the player has done this, the mission ends.
Suggestions as part of an overarching campaign:
The commander has been given orders to eliminate this Turtle controlled area, no reasons given
A new war between these two factions after masses of tension
Possibly a break from a lull in fighting in a massive on going war.
Ignites lots of fighting (that will presumably unlock weapons as warfare escalates)
Introducing Rush:
Goals:
Introduces Rush resource mechanic
Basic Anti Infantry Infantry
Basic Anti Tank Infantry
Building Hub
Infantry Command
Construction Vehicle
Mission Progression:
Player starts with a construction vehicle and $5000.
Player is given access to the building hub
Player is asked to build a building hub
Once the building hub is complete, the player is asked to upgrade it to an infantry command
Once the infantry command is upgraded, the player is asked to build five BAII
The player is asked to mount the infantry, and move to the next clearing, dismount, and eliminate the infantry that have formed up there.
The player is then given access to BATI, and then asked to eliminate the two HATs parked in the next clearing.
The player is then asked to move any remaining infantry up to the group of houses past the HATs, and garrisoning the buildings
The economy mechanic is explained.
The player is then asked to eliminate some infantry and a bunker with his current available tech.
Once the player has done this, the mission ends.
Suggestions as part of an overarching campaign:
The commander has been given orders to eliminate this Turtle controlled area, no reasons given
A new war between these two factions after masses of tension
Possibly a break from a lull in fighting in a massive on going war.
Ignites lots of fighting (that will presumably unlock weapons as warfare escalates)
Friday, October 2, 2009
Mod abstract
I'm going to be setting up a moddb page, and I have to have, for want of a better word, an "abstract". My perusing has made an approximation of length, 200 words or less.
So here's where I will dump it before I put it up there.
Goals: Get people to know what my mod is about without specifying anything specific. Specific information about units or teams will belong in other pages beyond the abstract on the front page.
Required information, in order of importance.
The RTSmod is a total conversion for C&C Generals: Zero Hour
It has three factions
Each faction has unique resource gathering mechanics, build mechanic, tech trees, units and structures
All units are useful throughout the course of a game
Each faction has a significantly divergent playstyle
Much more dynamic gameplay than Zero Hour
Teams are Rush, Turtle, and Stealth
Enhanced urban combat
Intuitive interface
Team names!
Test abstract:
The RTSmod is a total conversion for C&C Generals: Zero Hour which strips out the teams of Zero Hour and replaces them with three factions with significantly divergent playstyles. Each faction has its own resource gathering mechanic, build mechanic, tech tree, and units and structures. It features highly dynamic gameplay, as well as enhanced urban combat. All units have a very specific role in the mod; no unit is useless, or left behind as the game progresses. The teams, Rush, Turtle, and Stealth, are very well defined in their roles while still being balanced at all stages of the game.The interface is simplified so that icons are easy to read, and ordered in an intuitive fashion, while the game is still complex enough to be engaging for a long time. This means that it is very easy to pick up, while still rewarding experience and skill.
*changelog*
Moved teams sentence immediately after units sentence
Moved ease of play to end of abstract
Changed wording of units sentence ;; Again
So here's where I will dump it before I put it up there.
Goals: Get people to know what my mod is about without specifying anything specific. Specific information about units or teams will belong in other pages beyond the abstract on the front page.
Required information, in order of importance.
The RTSmod is a total conversion for C&C Generals: Zero Hour
It has three factions
Each faction has unique resource gathering mechanics, build mechanic, tech trees, units and structures
All units are useful throughout the course of a game
Each faction has a significantly divergent playstyle
Much more dynamic gameplay than Zero Hour
Teams are Rush, Turtle, and Stealth
Enhanced urban combat
Intuitive interface
Team names!
Test abstract:
The RTSmod is a total conversion for C&C Generals: Zero Hour which strips out the teams of Zero Hour and replaces them with three factions with significantly divergent playstyles. Each faction has its own resource gathering mechanic, build mechanic, tech tree, and units and structures. It features highly dynamic gameplay, as well as enhanced urban combat. All units have a very specific role in the mod; no unit is useless, or left behind as the game progresses. The teams, Rush, Turtle, and Stealth, are very well defined in their roles while still being balanced at all stages of the game.The interface is simplified so that icons are easy to read, and ordered in an intuitive fashion, while the game is still complex enough to be engaging for a long time. This means that it is very easy to pick up, while still rewarding experience and skill.
*changelog*
Moved teams sentence immediately after units sentence
Moved ease of play to end of abstract
Changed wording of units sentence ;; Again
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
New experience mechanic
I can see the purpose of experience in games. Almost any modern RTS has experience (under whatever name). A couple of exceptions, like Universe At War, Dawn of War, possibly other RTS games with 'war' in the name...
Anyway, the purpose is this:
Experience (of unit or player sort) rewards the player for engaging the enemy. Depending on the game, it rewards you for doing well against an opponent. Some games include a mechanic for rewarding the engagement itself (in Red Alert 3, you get additional player experience if you lose lots of units), although most don't.
Experience can be called any number of things, although experience is probably the most popular one. An example of something that is the 'experience' mechanic that isn't called that is the "Tactical Aid" mechanic from World in Conflict, a sort of player experience.
Unit experience is experience that a unit acquires to improve itself, and only gets it from units it kills directly (or, by supporting other units, ala lieutenants from Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts). Unit experience does not benefit all of a player's units typically.
Player experience is experience that is gained from any of the owning player's units. It typically results in benefits for all or some of that player's forces, or the player's pools of resources.
I have decided to change around my unit experience mechanic. The goal of this is to make the experience bonuses curve more graded. Currently, units simply get 120% attack range for getting up to rank 3.
However, I have planned to change the unit experience as thus:
At Rank 0: A unit has 100% rate of fire and range
At Rank 1: A unit has 110% rate of fire and range
At Rank 2: A unit has 120% rate of fire and range
At Rank 3: A unit has 130% rate of fire and range
If you remember from before, a unit goes up one rank by killing twice its own value.
There are several reasons for this:
Firstly, it is more intuitive. You now know, 1 rank up means +10% rate of fire and range, across the board.
Secondly, it means that the benefits of experience gain are much more immediate. A rank 1 will beat a rank 0 of the same unit in a head on fight. A rank 2 will beat a rank 1 and so on.
Finally, the benefits don't really show themselves in a short battle, but only in longer battles. So, experience doesn't really help for ambushes (range notwithstanding), but serves much better for battles that last longer than one volley. Artillery reloads faster, snipers can shoot marginally faster, HATs turn enemy tanks into paste faster, and so on.
There is a possibility that infantry ranges may be a little more tightened than they currently are, but we shall see.
Anyway, right now, I'm fairly happy the mod has survived the worst of my emotional pits, and has gotten to the point where I can show people progress that isn't pure code stuff.
Hopefully, I shall have a decent playtest session on friday, and do some balance updates then (and also get some proper reaction, maybe even written up!). Currently, Stealth is still a little underpowered (so, perhaps a price drop on advanced infantry and vehicles), but not enough games have been played. Turtle may be a little too powerful at the moment.
Anyway, the purpose is this:
Experience (of unit or player sort) rewards the player for engaging the enemy. Depending on the game, it rewards you for doing well against an opponent. Some games include a mechanic for rewarding the engagement itself (in Red Alert 3, you get additional player experience if you lose lots of units), although most don't.
Experience can be called any number of things, although experience is probably the most popular one. An example of something that is the 'experience' mechanic that isn't called that is the "Tactical Aid" mechanic from World in Conflict, a sort of player experience.
Unit experience is experience that a unit acquires to improve itself, and only gets it from units it kills directly (or, by supporting other units, ala lieutenants from Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts). Unit experience does not benefit all of a player's units typically.
Player experience is experience that is gained from any of the owning player's units. It typically results in benefits for all or some of that player's forces, or the player's pools of resources.
I have decided to change around my unit experience mechanic. The goal of this is to make the experience bonuses curve more graded. Currently, units simply get 120% attack range for getting up to rank 3.
However, I have planned to change the unit experience as thus:
At Rank 0: A unit has 100% rate of fire and range
At Rank 1: A unit has 110% rate of fire and range
At Rank 2: A unit has 120% rate of fire and range
At Rank 3: A unit has 130% rate of fire and range
If you remember from before, a unit goes up one rank by killing twice its own value.
There are several reasons for this:
Firstly, it is more intuitive. You now know, 1 rank up means +10% rate of fire and range, across the board.
Secondly, it means that the benefits of experience gain are much more immediate. A rank 1 will beat a rank 0 of the same unit in a head on fight. A rank 2 will beat a rank 1 and so on.
Finally, the benefits don't really show themselves in a short battle, but only in longer battles. So, experience doesn't really help for ambushes (range notwithstanding), but serves much better for battles that last longer than one volley. Artillery reloads faster, snipers can shoot marginally faster, HATs turn enemy tanks into paste faster, and so on.
There is a possibility that infantry ranges may be a little more tightened than they currently are, but we shall see.
Anyway, right now, I'm fairly happy the mod has survived the worst of my emotional pits, and has gotten to the point where I can show people progress that isn't pure code stuff.
Hopefully, I shall have a decent playtest session on friday, and do some balance updates then (and also get some proper reaction, maybe even written up!). Currently, Stealth is still a little underpowered (so, perhaps a price drop on advanced infantry and vehicles), but not enough games have been played. Turtle may be a little too powerful at the moment.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Special Ability balancing
I thought I'd take this opportunity to talk about balancing special abilities.
Turtle:
As it stands, the Turtle tree is fairly balanced. Well, the scout side of tree is a little more useful, as bases are less important for two of the teams, and the speed penalty on the Heavy aircraft is quite high.
The latest changes I have made for this makes the heavy side of the tree recharge its abilities 30 seconds faster, so it much more useful against fortified positions (by virtue of higher damage). Also, the heavy side gets damaging ability 1 rank ($4000) earlier.
Rush:
Rush abilities are a bit harder balance, since a lot of them are situational. When playing against Turtle, the AF upgrade for Rush Anti-Tank Infantry is still quite popular. Beyond that, the Light Tank Assault Gun seems like a fairly popular choice.
I tend to choose the medium tank sonic barrage also.
Unsure how to balance this, probably associate a money cost with the upgrades.
Stealth:
During the course of a match, stealth has access to every unit available. However, some units should probably not be available at the onset, which have a cost of 3 (which require 1 rank).
Turtle:
As it stands, the Turtle tree is fairly balanced. Well, the scout side of tree is a little more useful, as bases are less important for two of the teams, and the speed penalty on the Heavy aircraft is quite high.
The latest changes I have made for this makes the heavy side of the tree recharge its abilities 30 seconds faster, so it much more useful against fortified positions (by virtue of higher damage). Also, the heavy side gets damaging ability 1 rank ($4000) earlier.
Rush:
Rush abilities are a bit harder balance, since a lot of them are situational. When playing against Turtle, the AF upgrade for Rush Anti-Tank Infantry is still quite popular. Beyond that, the Light Tank Assault Gun seems like a fairly popular choice.
I tend to choose the medium tank sonic barrage also.
Unsure how to balance this, probably associate a money cost with the upgrades.
Stealth:
During the course of a match, stealth has access to every unit available. However, some units should probably not be available at the onset, which have a cost of 3 (which require 1 rank).
Saturday, September 5, 2009
More balance stuff
Alright
Last Friday (4/09/2009) marks the finalising of all the mechanics, so only balance changes and bug fixes from here on out. Woo. The last one to be completed was the stealth Hammer Space weapon.
Monday (31/08/2009) marks the last of all vehicles, buildings, and aircraft other than Stealth MCVs to be modelled.
The smattering of playtesting resulted in the following:
The Turtle Unarmed Scout ability is now very useful against stealth for hunting down MCVs, although it is still good to have a presence around the map. Stealth players would be advised to avoid the middle of the map.
The Rush ASV also got used a decent amount, although not enough games were played to determine balance issues.
It was discovered that Stealth recovered too easily from losing an MCV. The cost of MCVs was increased to $3000, and their build time increased to 30 seconds.
It was also discovered that Stealth does not build units fast enough, especially since they can only have one of each production structure. Build times for Stealth units reduced to 7.5 seconds for basic infantry, 12.5 seconds for advanced infantry and vehicles, and 15 seconds for drones.
Stealth MCV abilities have been buffed slightly.
Turtle building commandsets have been standardised such that the first six icons are always the garrison icons, for future interface where a specific part of the interface will be cordoned off for garrisons (turtle or otherwise).
There were several bugs fixed as well.
Last Friday (4/09/2009) marks the finalising of all the mechanics, so only balance changes and bug fixes from here on out. Woo. The last one to be completed was the stealth Hammer Space weapon.
Monday (31/08/2009) marks the last of all vehicles, buildings, and aircraft other than Stealth MCVs to be modelled.
The smattering of playtesting resulted in the following:
The Turtle Unarmed Scout ability is now very useful against stealth for hunting down MCVs, although it is still good to have a presence around the map. Stealth players would be advised to avoid the middle of the map.
The Rush ASV also got used a decent amount, although not enough games were played to determine balance issues.
It was discovered that Stealth recovered too easily from losing an MCV. The cost of MCVs was increased to $3000, and their build time increased to 30 seconds.
It was also discovered that Stealth does not build units fast enough, especially since they can only have one of each production structure. Build times for Stealth units reduced to 7.5 seconds for basic infantry, 12.5 seconds for advanced infantry and vehicles, and 15 seconds for drones.
Stealth MCV abilities have been buffed slightly.
Turtle building commandsets have been standardised such that the first six icons are always the garrison icons, for future interface where a specific part of the interface will be cordoned off for garrisons (turtle or otherwise).
There were several bugs fixed as well.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Playtesting
I'm very happy about today's playtesting. I got a lot of feedback, and quite a lot of people turned up, and played it quite a bit. So, aside from bugs:
Stealth is still a little too difficult to win against. Thus, the teams are getting an upgrade to their stealth detection capabilities:
Stealth's Spy Satellite will have its reload time reduced.
Turtle's Scout aircraft now does stealth detection, but none of the variants with bombs do.
Rush's Air Transport will detect stealth
I've seen every single unit used at least once, except for the Rush air transport. I believe this is because it is far too redundant and inconvenient to use. So, to improve the usability of this unit, it will now be the Rush Aerial Fighting Vehicle! With this name change will also come a functionality change. It will only be able to transport a single infantry, but that infantry will be able to shoot out. It will also be able to detect stealth.
Also, now units should automatically shoot at enemy structures. Since you cannot capture enemy buildings, there is no real incentive behind keeping them there.
The AGES has been nerfed, though not by as much as initially decided.
POW could be changed to do subdual damage instead of normal damage (as its effect is currently very little). Name change possible?
Stealth needs a bit of a boost, maybe? We shall see.
Stealth is still a little too difficult to win against. Thus, the teams are getting an upgrade to their stealth detection capabilities:
Stealth's Spy Satellite will have its reload time reduced.
Turtle's Scout aircraft now does stealth detection, but none of the variants with bombs do.
Rush's Air Transport will detect stealth
I've seen every single unit used at least once, except for the Rush air transport. I believe this is because it is far too redundant and inconvenient to use. So, to improve the usability of this unit, it will now be the Rush Aerial Fighting Vehicle! With this name change will also come a functionality change. It will only be able to transport a single infantry, but that infantry will be able to shoot out. It will also be able to detect stealth.
Also, now units should automatically shoot at enemy structures. Since you cannot capture enemy buildings, there is no real incentive behind keeping them there.
The AGES has been nerfed, though not by as much as initially decided.
POW could be changed to do subdual damage instead of normal damage (as its effect is currently very little). Name change possible?
Stealth needs a bit of a boost, maybe? We shall see.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
More playtesting
I hosted some more playtesting yesterday.
Results:
Anti-Fortication Infantry were used quite widely. They actually seemed a little too powerful. The speed of the round has been reduced, and the scatter radius has been increased. This keeps them effective against their intended target type, while making them worse against mobile units.
Various stuff happening thanks to bugs that I have not fixed yet.
I am fairly happy with the fact that players seem to have to use about three different units, lest they wish to lose against every enemy who does. I'm surprised at how balanced it seems to be, although more playtesting will obviously determine how good the balance actually is.
Results:
Anti-Fortication Infantry were used quite widely. They actually seemed a little too powerful. The speed of the round has been reduced, and the scatter radius has been increased. This keeps them effective against their intended target type, while making them worse against mobile units.
Various stuff happening thanks to bugs that I have not fixed yet.
I am fairly happy with the fact that players seem to have to use about three different units, lest they wish to lose against every enemy who does. I'm surprised at how balanced it seems to be, although more playtesting will obviously determine how good the balance actually is.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Playtesting results
We only managed to get a couple of games going, both of which were Turtle vs Rush.
It was discovered that Turtle is a little more powerful than Rush, and that Turtle defence is stronger than Rush offence.
Changes based on this observation:
- Rush Anti-Fort infantry have had a range increase
- Rush Anti-Fort infantry no longer require line of sight
- Turtle Anti-Fort Support Upgrade was too effective against enemy units, increased scatter, increased min range, removed the auto-target
It was noted that Turtle players seem to have a massive aversion to using vehicles, or even building a war factory. It was also noted that Turtle players are not aggressive at any stage of the game, allowing for very easy mid-game economy harrassment.
This does not have changes based on it, as it is due to poor management by opponent
Turtle Support Abilities had some debug prices and reload times left in. Those have now been removed.
Should have Turtle tactical weapon online at some stage
It was discovered that Turtle is a little more powerful than Rush, and that Turtle defence is stronger than Rush offence.
Changes based on this observation:
- Rush Anti-Fort infantry have had a range increase
- Rush Anti-Fort infantry no longer require line of sight
- Turtle Anti-Fort Support Upgrade was too effective against enemy units, increased scatter, increased min range, removed the auto-target
It was noted that Turtle players seem to have a massive aversion to using vehicles, or even building a war factory. It was also noted that Turtle players are not aggressive at any stage of the game, allowing for very easy mid-game economy harrassment.
This does not have changes based on it, as it is due to poor management by opponent
Turtle Support Abilities had some debug prices and reload times left in. Those have now been removed.
Should have Turtle tactical weapon online at some stage
Monday, July 27, 2009
Playtesting on friday
This is mostly for self-reference.
I have running playtesting on Friday, and thus need to come up with a match-list:
Turtle vs Rush x 2 (switch players)
Rush vs Rush x 2
Turtle vs Turtle x 2
Stealth vs Stealth x2
I have running playtesting on Friday, and thus need to come up with a match-list:
Turtle vs Rush x 2 (switch players)
Rush vs Rush x 2
Turtle vs Turtle x 2
Stealth vs Stealth x2
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Testing
Hello all
Work hasn't yet finished, but there isn't very much to write about.
Just started some actual multiplayer testing, and this has brought to light a few interesting things.
Good:
The teams work fairly well internally.
Rush and turtle are fairly fun teams to play and to play against.
Infantry are good all game
Bad:
Stealth are difficult to play against and play
Disguise mechanic not working well, switched to them not showing up on RADAR
Some differentiation issues, as I'm still using same models for different units (needs fixing)
Balance stuff:
Stealth units are too expensive
Stealth detectors (mainly infantry) are not good enough at it.
Stealth MCV is now not stealthed when deploying, bit too good before
Stealth units build too quickly, particularly for early game
Stealth units stealth too quickly
Thus far, Rush and Turtle haven't really met on the field. Turtle has faced off against turtle, and it was discovered artillery was too accurate, and the SIFV healed itself too quickly.
Rush v rush has not yet been tested yet.
I will update more posts about the testing when more gets done.
Work hasn't yet finished, but there isn't very much to write about.
Just started some actual multiplayer testing, and this has brought to light a few interesting things.
Good:
The teams work fairly well internally.
Rush and turtle are fairly fun teams to play and to play against.
Infantry are good all game
Bad:
Stealth are difficult to play against and play
Disguise mechanic not working well, switched to them not showing up on RADAR
Some differentiation issues, as I'm still using same models for different units (needs fixing)
Balance stuff:
Stealth units are too expensive
Stealth detectors (mainly infantry) are not good enough at it.
Stealth MCV is now not stealthed when deploying, bit too good before
Stealth units build too quickly, particularly for early game
Stealth units stealth too quickly
Thus far, Rush and Turtle haven't really met on the field. Turtle has faced off against turtle, and it was discovered artillery was too accurate, and the SIFV healed itself too quickly.
Rush v rush has not yet been tested yet.
I will update more posts about the testing when more gets done.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Still implementing changes.
Still coding through the changes I mentioned last week.
I still need to think of several things, and then crank out maps while I deal with models and crap.
Things to think about!
- Stealth Abilities
- Medium Tank special ability
- Turtle, and feasibility of various bits of code.
I still need to think of several things, and then crank out maps while I deal with models and crap.
Things to think about!
- Stealth Abilities
- Medium Tank special ability
- Turtle, and feasibility of various bits of code.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Getting back to it
Alright, in the hiatus I managed to find someone to do texturing, so while he is getting prepped for that, finishing studying etc. I've started to polish up my code.
There are a bunch of rather messy things in the code that I have left, on the basis that I will come back and redo them later. And so I have.
One of the things that I have changed is the Turtle defence and vehicle repair.
Turtle no longer have specific AT or AA defence structures.
Now, instead, they have a dedicated bunker structure, which fills no purpose other than to be a bunker. As a result, it is a lot tougher than other non-HQorSuperweapon buildings.
So what about that anti-air anti-spam weapon? That's being moved over to the HAT AA vehicle.
And if you want it to be a base defence. Dump it in a building! Same with the HAT, although the high power autocannon is being removed entirely. Yes, this does mean vehicles can now be placed in buildings. You may have one HAT variant inside a building, or five infantry. It repairs all of those, which means that the factory no longer has a dedicated repair bay, and instead simply functions as a bunker in combat.
This means that you won't have to have a frontline factory, instead just having bunkers for forward bases.
This also makes the HAT self-repair module a slightly less attractive choice, rather than what it has been during playtesting, a no-brainer choice, which is something I want to avoid.
Stealth has been getting a make-over in terms of their support abilities powers, the details of which can be found in the overview post, down at the bottom. But for most part, the abilities are being split up over the MCVs, and diversified to six different abilities. I still need a sixth one, and maybe a fifth.
Rush has probably received the least change, as all they have is coding cleaning and bug fixes. There is one issue of the third Medium Tank upgrade, which I suspect will turn into a rather micro heavy one. I'm thinking possibly a next shot double damage ability, or something like that. Interestingly, the Medium Tank is the most upgradable of anything that Rush has, so it's supposed to be the main part of any force. None of its upgrades make it able to beat a HAT one on one, but they do generally tip the scales in its favour in different situations.
Anyway, that's all for now, hopefully we can get to work on the artwork, and post some next week.
There are a bunch of rather messy things in the code that I have left, on the basis that I will come back and redo them later. And so I have.
One of the things that I have changed is the Turtle defence and vehicle repair.
Turtle no longer have specific AT or AA defence structures.
Now, instead, they have a dedicated bunker structure, which fills no purpose other than to be a bunker. As a result, it is a lot tougher than other non-HQorSuperweapon buildings.
So what about that anti-air anti-spam weapon? That's being moved over to the HAT AA vehicle.
And if you want it to be a base defence. Dump it in a building! Same with the HAT, although the high power autocannon is being removed entirely. Yes, this does mean vehicles can now be placed in buildings. You may have one HAT variant inside a building, or five infantry. It repairs all of those, which means that the factory no longer has a dedicated repair bay, and instead simply functions as a bunker in combat.
This means that you won't have to have a frontline factory, instead just having bunkers for forward bases.
This also makes the HAT self-repair module a slightly less attractive choice, rather than what it has been during playtesting, a no-brainer choice, which is something I want to avoid.
Stealth has been getting a make-over in terms of their support abilities powers, the details of which can be found in the overview post, down at the bottom. But for most part, the abilities are being split up over the MCVs, and diversified to six different abilities. I still need a sixth one, and maybe a fifth.
Rush has probably received the least change, as all they have is coding cleaning and bug fixes. There is one issue of the third Medium Tank upgrade, which I suspect will turn into a rather micro heavy one. I'm thinking possibly a next shot double damage ability, or something like that. Interestingly, the Medium Tank is the most upgradable of anything that Rush has, so it's supposed to be the main part of any force. None of its upgrades make it able to beat a HAT one on one, but they do generally tip the scales in its favour in different situations.
Anyway, that's all for now, hopefully we can get to work on the artwork, and post some next week.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Still breaking
Still taking a break. Found someone to help with texturing, so we'll start doing up some models and pasting them here.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Taking a break
I'm currently taking a break. BBL! Hopefully. It's disappointing to see many hopefuly projects fail. I hope mine doesn't become one of them.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Gamer Profiles
While reading about various games and game design, and who you have to think about when making a game, ultimately you have to consider who you're catering to. Quite a lot of people have written about the topic, but I think I shall too, with regards to RTS games in general and specifically my mod.
I might touch up on this later, but without further ado, player archetypes, using names of various sorts from the various other authors on the topic.
Power Gamer: This is the pro-gamer, and the kid who wants to be etc. I personally don't hold this sort of person in high regard, as they tend to follow trends and patterns with various patches. One thing I do respect is the reason they play, which is to win. Generally, methodology is flawed in that once a "winning strategy" has been found, they generally stick to that.
This doesn't necessarily apply to all power gamers, as many good ones can be imaginative and insightful.
To curb the 'winning strategy' idea, I have tried to make many paths to victory, and all of them have efficient counters, so long as you know your opponent is using them. Thus, no one single strategy should win you every game. Some are better than others, others are definitely worse (the sell-all building at the start of the game 'strategy' should never net you a victory).
Similarly, there is no such thing as a "one unit army". You should not be able to devise an uncounterable army made up of a single unit, even two units are fairly hard pressed.
Given that the 'power gamer' mindset is fairly prevalent, I would not simply lock them out entirely. The Rush team is effectively built around the pro-gamer ideal. During playtesting, Rush is very fast to attack. More importantly, however, is that the player is almost always doing something. There is hardly ever any waiting time for Rush. If you're not doing something, you're probably losing and out of money.
Rush is also all about micromanagement, which is also difficult, as they also have the largest numbers on their side. A pro-gamer may find himself comfortable with Turtle or Stealth, but Rush is specifically designed to cater to a pro-gamer style of play.
Casual Gamer: Everyone knows who this is. If you play computer games a decent amount, you'll run into a few of these as well. Their reasons for playing are mostly to destress and unwind. Winning would be nice too, but isn't necessary. Casual gamers prefer longer games. They also tend to play less, which means they often come away from their last game of the day thinking about something new to try.
The source of this inspiration is sometimes in the back of their head, based on something that happened during the last game (if only I had done...), something someone else did (that's really clever), or off the internet (forums or guides and the like).
While I think thinking about it is rather good, the behavior of casual gamers tends to be rather lazy. Generally, once the casual gamer has completed all of his things that he wanted to do during a game, he will generally be contented and happy that that particular part of his strategy worked.
Casual players will generally also enjoy playing against the AI more, and also enjoy 'comp-stomps', battles with fellow players allied against a dastardly and automated foe. Most likely the reason for this is that an AI can often be relied on fairly well to be predictable. While the casual player may not win against the AI, he may think about what caused him to lose, and try again next time. Not a good strategy for playing against thinking human players, who will also change strategies between games.
Turtle is definitely the casual gamer's team. A turtle is competitive in its own right, but is less aggressive than Rush, and not as tricky as Stealth. It requires less short term thought than Rush; a Casual gamer does not change his plans on the fly very well. However, it definitely requires a lot more long-term strategy than Rush, as its units are generally not very good strategic assets.
Because of a casual gamer's playstyle and ideology inherently has its own fairly large weaknesses, casual players will tend to lose more against human players. Hence having a team based around the casual gamer mindset is helpful in that it can make things challenging for a power gamer while still being beatable. The Turtle team is not helped by being able to micro fairly well, as their units do not respond quickly enough to receive a huge benefit from, uh, 'uber micro'.
A casual gamer may attempt to play one of the other two teams, but will generally be hurt by the massive number of things one has to take care of. With Stealth, one has to be mindful of everything, and with Rush, there are many things to be done and taking a short break will hurt them very badly (especially with their lack of automated defence).
Casual gamers also tend to like big, powerful things and flashy stuff, which Turtle probably has the most of. Awesome but whatever.
I can't really think of a good game for this, but in Magic there is a character archetype called "the Johnny", who likes customisation and personalisation above almost everything else. This sort of player will tend to have a favourite set of upgrades that they will go for first in RTS games. In games with mutually exclusive upgrades, they will only have those, and often try to get them to work rather than change.
To those players, I offer mutually exclusive upgrades. Especially with Rush, and partly with Turtle. While I suspect there will be some favourites, Johnnys who play those teams will definitely have their sets and their orders in which they get them. Stealth has this to an extent, but it can eventually get all upgrades by the end of a game. There will most likely be an order as people strive for their favourite units at the start of the game.
Rush has upgrades for its different units, purchasable through its upgrade system. There are 11880 combinations of upgrades, many of those combinations, possibly even most, useful in some way or another.
There is definitely room to move in there. Turtle has a whole 4 bits worth of combinations (16), and those too are pretty independent.
At this point it may be worth noting that archetypes can overlap. I do know at least one person who is a very casual gamer, and makes no qualms about being intellectually lazy, but these people are few and far between.
Hmm... Probably time to post now.
I might touch up on this later, but without further ado, player archetypes, using names of various sorts from the various other authors on the topic.
Power Gamer: This is the pro-gamer, and the kid who wants to be etc. I personally don't hold this sort of person in high regard, as they tend to follow trends and patterns with various patches. One thing I do respect is the reason they play, which is to win. Generally, methodology is flawed in that once a "winning strategy" has been found, they generally stick to that.
This doesn't necessarily apply to all power gamers, as many good ones can be imaginative and insightful.
To curb the 'winning strategy' idea, I have tried to make many paths to victory, and all of them have efficient counters, so long as you know your opponent is using them. Thus, no one single strategy should win you every game. Some are better than others, others are definitely worse (the sell-all building at the start of the game 'strategy' should never net you a victory).
Similarly, there is no such thing as a "one unit army". You should not be able to devise an uncounterable army made up of a single unit, even two units are fairly hard pressed.
Given that the 'power gamer' mindset is fairly prevalent, I would not simply lock them out entirely. The Rush team is effectively built around the pro-gamer ideal. During playtesting, Rush is very fast to attack. More importantly, however, is that the player is almost always doing something. There is hardly ever any waiting time for Rush. If you're not doing something, you're probably losing and out of money.
Rush is also all about micromanagement, which is also difficult, as they also have the largest numbers on their side. A pro-gamer may find himself comfortable with Turtle or Stealth, but Rush is specifically designed to cater to a pro-gamer style of play.
Casual Gamer: Everyone knows who this is. If you play computer games a decent amount, you'll run into a few of these as well. Their reasons for playing are mostly to destress and unwind. Winning would be nice too, but isn't necessary. Casual gamers prefer longer games. They also tend to play less, which means they often come away from their last game of the day thinking about something new to try.
The source of this inspiration is sometimes in the back of their head, based on something that happened during the last game (if only I had done...), something someone else did (that's really clever), or off the internet (forums or guides and the like).
While I think thinking about it is rather good, the behavior of casual gamers tends to be rather lazy. Generally, once the casual gamer has completed all of his things that he wanted to do during a game, he will generally be contented and happy that that particular part of his strategy worked.
Casual players will generally also enjoy playing against the AI more, and also enjoy 'comp-stomps', battles with fellow players allied against a dastardly and automated foe. Most likely the reason for this is that an AI can often be relied on fairly well to be predictable. While the casual player may not win against the AI, he may think about what caused him to lose, and try again next time. Not a good strategy for playing against thinking human players, who will also change strategies between games.
Turtle is definitely the casual gamer's team. A turtle is competitive in its own right, but is less aggressive than Rush, and not as tricky as Stealth. It requires less short term thought than Rush; a Casual gamer does not change his plans on the fly very well. However, it definitely requires a lot more long-term strategy than Rush, as its units are generally not very good strategic assets.
Because of a casual gamer's playstyle and ideology inherently has its own fairly large weaknesses, casual players will tend to lose more against human players. Hence having a team based around the casual gamer mindset is helpful in that it can make things challenging for a power gamer while still being beatable. The Turtle team is not helped by being able to micro fairly well, as their units do not respond quickly enough to receive a huge benefit from, uh, 'uber micro'.
A casual gamer may attempt to play one of the other two teams, but will generally be hurt by the massive number of things one has to take care of. With Stealth, one has to be mindful of everything, and with Rush, there are many things to be done and taking a short break will hurt them very badly (especially with their lack of automated defence).
Casual gamers also tend to like big, powerful things and flashy stuff, which Turtle probably has the most of. Awesome but whatever.
I can't really think of a good game for this, but in Magic there is a character archetype called "the Johnny", who likes customisation and personalisation above almost everything else. This sort of player will tend to have a favourite set of upgrades that they will go for first in RTS games. In games with mutually exclusive upgrades, they will only have those, and often try to get them to work rather than change.
To those players, I offer mutually exclusive upgrades. Especially with Rush, and partly with Turtle. While I suspect there will be some favourites, Johnnys who play those teams will definitely have their sets and their orders in which they get them. Stealth has this to an extent, but it can eventually get all upgrades by the end of a game. There will most likely be an order as people strive for their favourite units at the start of the game.
Rush has upgrades for its different units, purchasable through its upgrade system. There are 11880 combinations of upgrades, many of those combinations, possibly even most, useful in some way or another.
There is definitely room to move in there. Turtle has a whole 4 bits worth of combinations (16), and those too are pretty independent.
At this point it may be worth noting that archetypes can overlap. I do know at least one person who is a very casual gamer, and makes no qualms about being intellectually lazy, but these people are few and far between.
Hmm... Probably time to post now.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Points of commonality and Map Design
I wonder what points of commonality there are between my three teams. It will probably be shorter than the differences.
Obviously the teams are not totally unrecognisable to each other. Every unit should be useful against the other teams. You shouldn't stop using, say, AA Drones just because you're facing rush today.
Alright, so first point of commonality:
Production buildings: Each team's production buildings are divided into infantry, vehicles, and aircraft.
Basic Infantry: Each team has basic anti-infantry, basic anti-tank, and basic anti-air. They can fulfill all the basic combat roles with those.
Err... ???
I could come up with that, at least.
Oh, they all use infantry, tanks, and aircraft.
Enough of that.
Map design!
Obviously I can't really use the original Generals maps, as the mod would be unbalanced for most cases, especially those maps with little to no garrisonable buildings. This would force Rush into an all-or-nothing game.
It's also important for turtle, as there should be at least a few defensible positions that are also vulnerable to artillery. No single structure should be able to defend three choke points, so the chokepoints must be layed out at around 300 units from each other.
For stealth, map design doesn't matter as much, since their economy and bases aren't reliant on terrain. However, it's useful to leave a few cars lying around here and there.
Also, with map design, try to make it so that each team's weaknesses and strengths are emphasised. For instance, you'll notice in a few of my map designs that areas where combat would be likely are separated, thus emphasising the difference between, say, a HAT and a light tank.
Similarly, there are generally several civilian buildings near a supply depot, to force conflict between Rush and Turtle players. However, there tend to be less buildings than straight up zones of either kind, so that the defender does not have too much of an advantage.
Of course, a turtle player could start killing off civilian buildings so that a Rush player would lose one incentive to strike at a particular location (although resource denial is still very important).
You can assume that players will be performing economy harrassment, so you should have more buildings than you need, at least purposes of Rush. On the same vein, make it so that turtle expansion points are relatively defensible.
The placement of cliffs is also important. Try to avoid having areas of the map which are entirely inaccessible to everything but aircraft. To that end, I've fenced a lot of areas off with cliffs. This is good, as players tend to ignore cliffs as "impassable zones", and a Stealth player could take advantage of that using advanced infantry.
Obviously the teams are not totally unrecognisable to each other. Every unit should be useful against the other teams. You shouldn't stop using, say, AA Drones just because you're facing rush today.
Alright, so first point of commonality:
Production buildings: Each team's production buildings are divided into infantry, vehicles, and aircraft.
Basic Infantry: Each team has basic anti-infantry, basic anti-tank, and basic anti-air. They can fulfill all the basic combat roles with those.
Err... ???
I could come up with that, at least.
Oh, they all use infantry, tanks, and aircraft.
Enough of that.
Map design!
Obviously I can't really use the original Generals maps, as the mod would be unbalanced for most cases, especially those maps with little to no garrisonable buildings. This would force Rush into an all-or-nothing game.
It's also important for turtle, as there should be at least a few defensible positions that are also vulnerable to artillery. No single structure should be able to defend three choke points, so the chokepoints must be layed out at around 300 units from each other.
For stealth, map design doesn't matter as much, since their economy and bases aren't reliant on terrain. However, it's useful to leave a few cars lying around here and there.
Also, with map design, try to make it so that each team's weaknesses and strengths are emphasised. For instance, you'll notice in a few of my map designs that areas where combat would be likely are separated, thus emphasising the difference between, say, a HAT and a light tank.
Similarly, there are generally several civilian buildings near a supply depot, to force conflict between Rush and Turtle players. However, there tend to be less buildings than straight up zones of either kind, so that the defender does not have too much of an advantage.
Of course, a turtle player could start killing off civilian buildings so that a Rush player would lose one incentive to strike at a particular location (although resource denial is still very important).
You can assume that players will be performing economy harrassment, so you should have more buildings than you need, at least purposes of Rush. On the same vein, make it so that turtle expansion points are relatively defensible.
The placement of cliffs is also important. Try to avoid having areas of the map which are entirely inaccessible to everything but aircraft. To that end, I've fenced a lot of areas off with cliffs. This is good, as players tend to ignore cliffs as "impassable zones", and a Stealth player could take advantage of that using advanced infantry.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Balancing stuff
It's something that I was always going to have to do, but it's time to talk about balance.
I have just about finished all the coding associated with gameplay mechanics, and am about to start, in earnest, the aesthetic feel of the mod (which I have talked about before, although some things have changed, ye shall see!).
It's been apparent for a while that balancing this mod will be quite difficult, and there most likely never be a possible configuration that something this diverse can be completely balanced. But damn it, I'm going to try.
And in this post, I'll just dump down ideas I have for that.
The first sort of balance method is using what I shall call "Move to Range Calculations". This is very simple, and most likely inaccurate in most cases. However, it can work for some cases, particular with specific unit counters. If a unit can beat an equivalent cost of its intended counter, then something should probably be done.
The way it works is you have an imaginary battlefield, with the equivalent cost of two units arranged on either side. The battlefield is as wide as the longest ranged weapon's range. The shorter ranged unit (or units) move towards the longer ranged the unit, with the longer ranged unit firing as fast as it can.
This is obviously very simple, and doesn't work for things like artillery, which miss moving targets, and doesn't account for anything like novel maneuvers or anything like that. It also doesn't work for support units that do no damage. It becomes more complex, although not impossible, for weapons that scatter and have a blast radius.
It does work for very simple things, though, for instance HAT vs Rush AT Infantry. The calculation shows that the HAT would kill one Rush AT Infantry before being killed by the other five. Definitely, a hard counter. It also shows that in HAT vs Rush Light Tank, the HAT would win after being reduced to 330 HP.
Obvious disreprencies occur if, say, Rush AT Infantry were found to be beating equivalent costs of Turtle Anti-Infantry Infantry, or Stealth Advanced Anti-Infantry Infantry.
Anyway, this method's major weaknesses are obvious, and its major strength is that it can be done entirely in the head, without the need for firing up the game.
Of course, unit match-ups are only a small part of balance. All the unit match-ups could be balanced, and yet some team would be better than another, as things like ease of resource collection, ramping up eco, strategic concerns etc.
For instance, while a HAT will win most armoured disputes, it is strategically weak as it cannot relocate to deploy its considerable firepower. Hence the best way to determine balance, if the most costly, is by actually playing lots of games, and then examining how various units and abilities change the game, probably while watching replays. You don't want to mistake one player's incompetence for their units being underpowered.
Once you have identified the unit that is balanced or unbalanced, you can go about the problem is several ways. It's obviously not going to be every aspect of the unit that is unbalanced, so you have to identify what it is causing it. The unit will be too fast, too powerful, too tough, or maybe too cheap and plentiful.
The various was of going about that are quite varied. If a weapon is too powerful drop its power, or increase its reload time. Maybe give it a pre-attack delay. Shortening the range could also work.
One of the things that will most likely crop up during playtesting is the three team's income will probably not be balanced. So it needs changing. Turtle is very easy, as I can change the number of collectors spawned, the speed at which they travel, how much money they pick up per trip... That's about it. But quite a lot can be changed. With Rush, it is slightly more complex, as I can simply change the amount of money each building gives you. However, a significant portion of the Rush economy is map dependant.
So, once I've made a map, with that, I can control how many buildings in total are on the map, how many buildings are in a cluster (important, as 10 buildings in two clusters are more defensible than ten buildings in 4), where the buildings are located in relation to choke points etc. All of this, I'll figure out when I go over map design.
With Stealth, it goes a little backwards. Normally, one would be able to change how much of a unit's price they get in return. However, for this, it means that a Stealth vs Stealth game would occasionally run down to almost nothing (scratch occasionally). So with Stealth, to make their economy "worse", you make everything on the Stealth Faction more expensive, and to make their economy better, you make everything on the Stealth Faction less expensive.
I have just about finished all the coding associated with gameplay mechanics, and am about to start, in earnest, the aesthetic feel of the mod (which I have talked about before, although some things have changed, ye shall see!).
It's been apparent for a while that balancing this mod will be quite difficult, and there most likely never be a possible configuration that something this diverse can be completely balanced. But damn it, I'm going to try.
And in this post, I'll just dump down ideas I have for that.
The first sort of balance method is using what I shall call "Move to Range Calculations". This is very simple, and most likely inaccurate in most cases. However, it can work for some cases, particular with specific unit counters. If a unit can beat an equivalent cost of its intended counter, then something should probably be done.
The way it works is you have an imaginary battlefield, with the equivalent cost of two units arranged on either side. The battlefield is as wide as the longest ranged weapon's range. The shorter ranged unit (or units) move towards the longer ranged the unit, with the longer ranged unit firing as fast as it can.
This is obviously very simple, and doesn't work for things like artillery, which miss moving targets, and doesn't account for anything like novel maneuvers or anything like that. It also doesn't work for support units that do no damage. It becomes more complex, although not impossible, for weapons that scatter and have a blast radius.
It does work for very simple things, though, for instance HAT vs Rush AT Infantry. The calculation shows that the HAT would kill one Rush AT Infantry before being killed by the other five. Definitely, a hard counter. It also shows that in HAT vs Rush Light Tank, the HAT would win after being reduced to 330 HP.
Obvious disreprencies occur if, say, Rush AT Infantry were found to be beating equivalent costs of Turtle Anti-Infantry Infantry, or Stealth Advanced Anti-Infantry Infantry.
Anyway, this method's major weaknesses are obvious, and its major strength is that it can be done entirely in the head, without the need for firing up the game.
Of course, unit match-ups are only a small part of balance. All the unit match-ups could be balanced, and yet some team would be better than another, as things like ease of resource collection, ramping up eco, strategic concerns etc.
For instance, while a HAT will win most armoured disputes, it is strategically weak as it cannot relocate to deploy its considerable firepower. Hence the best way to determine balance, if the most costly, is by actually playing lots of games, and then examining how various units and abilities change the game, probably while watching replays. You don't want to mistake one player's incompetence for their units being underpowered.
Once you have identified the unit that is balanced or unbalanced, you can go about the problem is several ways. It's obviously not going to be every aspect of the unit that is unbalanced, so you have to identify what it is causing it. The unit will be too fast, too powerful, too tough, or maybe too cheap and plentiful.
The various was of going about that are quite varied. If a weapon is too powerful drop its power, or increase its reload time. Maybe give it a pre-attack delay. Shortening the range could also work.
One of the things that will most likely crop up during playtesting is the three team's income will probably not be balanced. So it needs changing. Turtle is very easy, as I can change the number of collectors spawned, the speed at which they travel, how much money they pick up per trip... That's about it. But quite a lot can be changed. With Rush, it is slightly more complex, as I can simply change the amount of money each building gives you. However, a significant portion of the Rush economy is map dependant.
So, once I've made a map, with that, I can control how many buildings in total are on the map, how many buildings are in a cluster (important, as 10 buildings in two clusters are more defensible than ten buildings in 4), where the buildings are located in relation to choke points etc. All of this, I'll figure out when I go over map design.
With Stealth, it goes a little backwards. Normally, one would be able to change how much of a unit's price they get in return. However, for this, it means that a Stealth vs Stealth game would occasionally run down to almost nothing (scratch occasionally). So with Stealth, to make their economy "worse", you make everything on the Stealth Faction more expensive, and to make their economy better, you make everything on the Stealth Faction less expensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)