Making lvl matter more and equipment less

Mephy wrote:

Hegorn wrote:

Has the dev team considered scaling AP costs on a per unit archetype basis (archers vs cav)? Or even on a per unit type basis (crossbowmen vs goblin archers)?

Balancing AP costs per stat per unit archetype would be one solution to rebalance the hero item AP costs. It would also help reduce the potential for counter-comps to cause such wild swings in balance per AP.

Either way, I would be interested to hear some dev insights on how you guys weigh the AP costs of a stat that might be much better for 1 unit type, but not too attractive for a different unit type.

I don't think balancing teamcomps is a great idea. It's part of the "metagame"... you either use a "safe" comp, that has an overall good win rate, or you use a comp trying to counter the most used comp, or even create something new expecting some kind of change (like using full archers expecting full assault units... don't know, just an example).
Its healthy in my opinion to have counter-comps. It works very well in successful games like MOBAs (League, DotA) and TCGs (Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh!), and many other games, including RTS (who never ran full artillery in Age of Empires or something like that, because the enemy had no cavalry?)

I agree -- to a point.

For instance, if pvp consists of mostly 1v1 battles with low AP pools and everyone is by definition building countercomp armies (because the AP level is too small to build a well-rounded army), then the amount of skill involved in winning is low. Luck starts to play too much of a factor in a person's winrate. Thats a bad thing - more so in competitive PvP.

I'm a big proponent of imperfect balance, counter comp viability, and the interesting metagame layers that those things build. That said, AP valuations should be close to balanced for that to work well. If they are not close, then the game becomes too focused on figuring out what is the most effective "AP army build." Decisions made in combat start to matter less, because only the top "AP builds" are viable. That balance between army comp strategy and battlefield tactics shouldnt be too skewed in either direction.

Also, the less balanced AP valuations are, the more costly any counter-comp build will be to unseat the current "reigning AP build." You'll notice that in games like LoL, the devs constantly tweak those balance numbers as the players start to figure out the top tier comps/champs. The devs are the ones who keep the metagame evolving at a consistent and fair pace. Its a well balanced imbalance.

Putting it all together, I think Archetypes are a good place to shoot for balancing the ratios of APcosts::StatUtility:

• It allows for more variation in how different archetypes use different stats. Intuitively, I think players appreciate that each archetype should have a relatively unique battle role.
  
• It doesnt remove the wiggle room that allows for counter comps. For instance, racial units within a single archetype are all different from each other. The abilities within an archetype are for the most part different. Both of these things would vary the utility gained from stats without varying AP costs under my proposal.
  
• AP balance will never be perfect, but it is close enough so that players who do not want to read books on AP scaling and build spreadsheets to find a good army comp can just build "close enough" and then rely on their skill on the battlefield to out-play their opponents.

RuneSlayer wrote:

As for Dobraine's comments, I just wanted to add that equal APs do not ALWAYS provide balance. The army composition does i.e. what kind of units you include in your army. I find that 2 Lights + 1 Cavalry will have a BAD day against a more balanced army of 4 Lights + 2 Heavy Infantries.

Also, I didnt interpret this to mean that balance should be done at the army comp level. I can see why it kinda sounded like that might be what the devs were saying.

I understood this to mean that the devs balance towards AP, but that balanced AP is comp agnostic. Balanced AP does not mean that counter-comping cannot happen.

Please correct me if I misunderstood that.

Hegorn wrote:

Balancing AP costs per stat per unit archetype would be one solution to rebalance the hero item AP costs. It would also help reduce the potential for counter-comps to cause such wild swings in balance per AP.

What I'm putting my self against is this. Reducing potential counter-comps is effectively reducing the skill you need BEFORE entering queue. If you just set up a random army to enter queue, then you lack skill to predict what your opponent may have. Counter-comps aren't a luck-based factor, its based on the "read the field" skills.

Mephy wrote:

Hegorn wrote:

Balancing AP costs per stat per unit archetype would be one solution to rebalance the hero item AP costs. It would also help reduce the potential for counter-comps to cause such wild swings in balance per AP.

What I'm putting my self against is this. Reducing potential counter-comps is effectively reducing the skill you need BEFORE entering queue. If you just set up a random army to enter queue, then you lack skill to predict what your opponent may have. Counter-comps aren't a luck-based factor, its based on the "read the field" skills.

A few quick points:

• When I mentioned players who didnt enjoy min-maxing their army comps, I didnt mean they would use random comps. I agree that not building a well-rounded army should incur a risk. That said, it takes about 400 AP to build a minimally well-rounded army. All armies below 350-400AP have some glaring weakness. Below 400 AP pvp has a higher chance of being a counter-comp battle compared to PvP above that point.
  
• There is no way to "predict" what your opponent is bringing. Not with any level of reliability except to maybe call on chat for <400 AP PvP matches and troll the leaderboard to counter comp newbie armies with a much higher chance of finding low level LINFs and maybe archers. Thats not skill in my eyes - at least not one worth rewarding.
  
• The more balanced AP scaling gets, sure it might reduce how profound the effects of counter-comping can be, but it actually increases the number of viable counter-comp builds. The counter is less pronounced, but there are more comps. It certainly doesnt remove the possibility of counter-comp builds. A single archer will still be able to counter several HINFs.

Hero items are a good example of this. Right now, there is no choice or strategy in using hero items. Theyre just very expensive AP wise. In the current environment, we will never see army builds that rely on well geared heroes. They just wont succeed and they contribute nothing to the metagame.

If either the stats on hero items increase, or the AP costs on them decrease, then perhaps using well geared heroes will be viable to include in your army comp. Right now, theyre not.

Like I said before - there has to be a balance between pre-battle strategy and in-battle tactical skill. I think finding the sweetspot for this sort of thing will take iteration and will likely perpetually evolve.

Hegorn wrote:

When I mentioned players who didnt enjoy min-maxing their army comps, I didnt mean they would use random comps. I agree that not building a well-rounded army should incur a risk. That said, it takes about 400-450 AP to build a minimally well-rounded army. All armies below that point have some glaring weakness. Below 450 AP pvp has a higher chance of being a counter-comp battle compared to PvP above that point.

I see no problem here. If players don't want to think a lot about their armies, its their problem. There is a minimal point for a well-rounded army, but even these comps can't be "perfect" and have a counter.

Hegorn wrote:

There is no way to "predict" what your opponent is bringing. Not with any level of reliability except to maybe call on chat for <450 AP PvP matches and troll the leaderboard to counter comp newbie armies with a much higher chance of finding low level LINFs and maybe archers. Thats not skill in my eyes - at least not one worth rewarding.

There is. Not for a specific battle, but if you find out the most used strategy, you should counter it, as you have the most chance of finding a good matchup for you. Reading the possibilities of the most used strategies and find one that, let's say, can beat more easy the three most common strategies, it's skill. Now if you get matched against a bad matchup, its because you read the field the wrong way or the enemy predicted your move. Luck can still exist, but is less of a factor.

Hegorn wrote:

The more balanced AP scaling gets, sure it might reduce how profound the effects of counter-comping can be, but it actually increases the number of viable counter-comp builds. The counter is less pronounced, but there are more comps. It certainly doesnt remove the possibility of counter-comp builds. A single archer will still be able to counter several HINFs.

Not arguing here. AP should be balanced, godlike itens can really turn the fight without any real skill from the user.

Hegorn wrote:

Hero items are a good example of this. Right now, there is no choice or strategy in using hero items. Theyre just very expensive AP wise. In the current environment, we will never see army builds that rely on well geared heroes. They just wont succeed and they contribute nothing to the metagame.

If either the stats on hero items increase, or the AP costs on them decrease, then perhaps using well geared heroes will be viable to include in your army comp. Right now, theyre not.

Like I said before - there has to be a balance between pre-battle strategy and in-battle tactical skill. I think finding the sweetspot for this sort of thing will take iteration and will likely perpetually evolve.

Agreed, I only use hero items in PVP to match the enemy AP if mine is lower and I can't reach it. AP does need balance. But just removing counter-comp because "its luck-based" is not the correct answer. AP has nothing to do with countering, to be honest, as well-rounded armies still have flaws that can be exploited. Countering is a strategy that doesn't need to be thought off, it just exists because the players do want it. Trying to remove it is remove a tactical option.

RuneSlayer wrote:

As for Dobraine's comments, I just wanted to add that equal APs do not ALWAYS provide balance. The army composition does i.e. what kind of units you include in your army. I find that 2 Lights + 1 Cavalry will have a BAD day against a more balanced army of 4 Lights + 2 Heavy Infantries.

I know.

Lets just hope the pvp battleroom solves my problems.

Sorry to hear about the bad day, have a beer for me sir.

Hegorn and Mephy


At least we all ended up agreeing that it is imbalanced.

Dobraine wrote:

Hegorn and Mephy


At least we all ended up agreeing that it is imbalanced.

After you see someone winning fights with only one unit against four, being flanked and reared, the single unit with less AP (he had two "ghost" units just to get the minimum 3 troops), you can't say that godlike items have a balanced AP

Mephy wrote:

Dobraine wrote:

Hegorn and Mephy


At least we all ended up agreeing that it is imbalanced.

After you see someone winning fights with only one unit against four, being flanked and reared, the single unit with less AP (he had two "ghost" units just to get the minimum 3 troops), you can't say that godlike items have a balanced AP

That was the original point of the post, thanks to bring it back.

Hegorn wrote:

When I mentioned players who didnt enjoy min-maxing their army comps, I didnt mean they would use random comps. I agree that not building a well-rounded army should incur a risk. That said, it takes about 400-450 AP to build a minimally well-rounded army. All armies below that point have some glaring weakness. Below 450 AP pvp has a higher chance of being a counter-comp battle compared to PvP above that point.

indeed, not to mention building it in a way that supports your own strategy and way of playing best, offering the strategic depth said wargames always had(And why I love this game)
that said, yes, most early PvPers will suffer due to a small army ATM, which is somewhat of an issue, but not too much given 2 weeks of work can get you heavies in no time.

Mephy wrote:

Now if you get matched against a bad matchup, its because you read the field the wrong way or the enemy predicted your move. Luck can still exist, but is less of a factor.

My point is that under 350 AP, getting counter comped is not a choice for newer players. It is not that those players read the field incorrectly. They just dont have the ability to field the "right" army comp since they are limited to 1-2 (maybe 3) unit types. Smart veteran players will counter comp LINFs and Archers and will do disproportionately well.

The whole metagame approach is only valid if *everyone* in the PvP pool has similar access to the "minimal core" of archetypes so they can build "close enough" to the major metagame choices. They dont have to access everything. In fact, reaching every corner of the metagame map is a good way to offer meaninful horizontal progression to players (and also a good/fair way to monetize getting there faster).

I agree there is a skill in reading the field, but it is not applicable in this game right now - or at the very least, it is not allowed to reach a fun and fair potential.

I actually did this myself early on, so I've seen how profound this imbalance can be. Most of my PvP was done early and in the sub-300 level (also before the item AP rescaling, so my rares were quite powerful). It was too easy to know exactly what most players could field and subsequently it got boring to PvP.

Latexlord wrote:

Hegorn wrote:

When I mentioned players who didnt enjoy min-maxing their army comps, I didnt mean they would use random comps. I agree that not building a well-rounded army should incur a risk. That said, it takes about 400-450 AP to build a minimally well-rounded army. All armies below that point have some glaring weakness. Below 450 AP pvp has a higher chance of being a counter-comp battle compared to PvP above that point.

Well... Players who don't play around min-maxing their army comps won't be good at pvp. Strategy + optimized army lead to victory. That's the traditional components of strategic boardings games from which BC is inspired.

I'm one of those guys who loves to analyze comps and emerging strategies. I completely understand that. That said, I know a lot of people who enjoy RTS games purely for the snap-tactics that occur on the battlefield. This game isnt a turn based strategy game or a tabletop strategy game. It may borrow a lot of its mechanics from them, but it is an RTS game -- or perhaps a hybrid once the map gets more interesting. Balance cannot be skewed completely in favor of counter-comping.

What will likely happen is that the hardcore twitch RTS gamers who do not enjoy over-analyzing comps will simply follow the metagame. They will still use currently viable army comps, but they are not likely experimenting with their army. The game should still be fun for them too. As a side note, theyre also probably not the type of player who spends much time on forums either (have to work on that APM!).

The people who enjoy both sides of the coin - the ones who are excellent tacticians and prescient strategists are the ones who evolve the metagame. Arguably theyre also the ones who should succeed the most in combat.

Mephy wrote:

Dobraine wrote:

Hegorn and Mephy


At least we all ended up agreeing that it is imbalanced.

After you see someone winning fights with only one unit against four, being flanked and reared, the single unit with less AP (he had two "ghost" units just to get the minimum 3 troops), you can't say that godlike items have a balanced AP

You want weaker items (godlikes, anyways), I want to be able to use them without being so heavily penalized. Similar, that.

Were they to lessen the stats on these items, everything involving them should also scale down. i.e AP, value, repair cost/time.

It has the potential to solve many problems at once, but I don't claim to know how they should go about this.

Dobraine wrote:

Mephy wrote:

Dobraine wrote:

Hegorn and Mephy


At least we all ended up agreeing that it is imbalanced.

After you see someone winning fights with only one unit against four, being flanked and reared, the single unit with less AP (he had two "ghost" units just to get the minimum 3 troops), you can't say that godlike items have a balanced AP

You want weaker items (godlikes, anyways), I want to be able to use them without being so heavily penalized. Similar, that.

Were they to lessen the stats on these items, everything involving them should also scale down. i.e AP, value, repair cost/time.

It has the potential to solve many problems at once, but I don't claim to know how they should go about this.

I still feel like I'm missing something here. It sounds like you would just prefer using Rares or Epics. Less AP, less stats, less maintenance costs.

Do you not want there to be any other options for gear beyond that point somewhere around Epic quality?

Latexlord wrote:

I have imagined a reworking on how stats are distributed on item, by narrowing the stats distribution:

Rarity	Total number of stats	Number of combat stats	Number of non-combat stats	Stat low bound	Stat high bound
Godlike	4	2 - 3	1 - 2	13	15
Epic	3	2	1	10	12
Rare	2	1 - 2	0 - 1	7	9
Uncommon	1	1	0	6	8
Common	1	1	0	3	5

Combat stats are the one that are used in battle : melee / strenght / missile / range / endurance / armor / morale / movement (but it deserve a special treatment).
Non-combat stats are the one that improve exp gain, drop rate or item durability (and I suggest that they don't cost AP...)

Overall the goal is to make crafting less random and have a better prediction of the stat distribution on items.

Auto-quoting king
That's what I suggested : to reduce the stats differences beetween items. That would artificially improve commons / uncommons and drastically nerf the epic / godlike. Calculating AP is only a matter of numbers and balance, but it would definitly be diminished for rarest items if their stats are reduced.

Hegorn wrote:

What will likely happen is that the hardcore twitch RTS gamers who do not enjoy over-analyzing comps will simply follow the metagame. They will still use currently viable army comps, but they are not likely experimenting with their army. The game should still be fun for them too. As a side note, theyre also probably not the type of player who spends much time on forums either (have to work on that APM!).

Battle are fast, armies get to contact pretty quick... Those who have fun with only pure RTS game have a good niche in this. I think you can have fun with any army randomly gathered, but maybe not in nightmare

[quote="Hegorn"]

Dobraine wrote:

I still feel like I'm missing something here. It sounds like you would just prefer using Rares or Epics. Less AP, less stats, less maintenance costs.

Do you not want there to be any other options for gear beyond that point somewhere around Epic quality?

I don't particularly WANT to sacrifice stats on items, I just feel it might make a reasonable compromise to achieve an overall balance. I'm currently attempting to heavily incorporate drop rate into my gear to see if this makes it more managable for me to get the frags. Some extra durability on higher tier items (naturally, not an added stat) might also help make the gold 'feel' more managable...it's not as though building upgrades come cheap and one can afford to drop 10+k a dozen times in a day on repairs.

Godlike items are what makes the game unbalanced, I hate to see a single unit overwhelmed by my entire army slaughtering everything without losing at least half of its troops, if you want the game to be played by godlike buyer or bug exploiter then consider me out, there are many other fair games to play where my money are well spent...sorry if this sounds hard to listen...

Hegorn wrote:

Yea. I agree completely that refinement is needed for some of the AP values.

For others though, it may just be a matter of finding the right niche that makes them work well.

In the case of hero gear, I am very hard pressed to think of any army comp that would do better by spending AP on a fully geared hero vs spending the AP on some combination of unit gear or additional units. If this is true, then hero gear AP is completely over valued.

I would not want to see the situation where the power gains from items overwhelm the power gains from research or unit XP -- per AP.

There was a post from RuneSlayer saying they would evaluate hero item AP costs maybe a week or so ago.

I checked the last three levels for one of my heavy infantry : AP cost of the unit raised by 3 points for each level. I hardly found this neglectable. It's roughly the same than equipping, but you can't choose the stat allocation...

Latexlord wrote:

Hegorn wrote:

Yea. I agree completely that refinement is needed for some of the AP values.

For others though, it may just be a matter of finding the right niche that makes them work well.

In the case of hero gear, I am very hard pressed to think of any army comp that would do better by spending AP on a fully geared hero vs spending the AP on some combination of unit gear or additional units. If this is true, then hero gear AP is completely over valued.

I would not want to see the situation where the power gains from items overwhelm the power gains from research or unit XP -- per AP.

There was a post from RuneSlayer saying they would evaluate hero item AP costs maybe a week or so ago.

I checked the last three levels for one of my heavy infantry : AP cost of the unit raised by 3 points for each level. I hardly found this neglectable. It's roughly the same than equipping, but you can't choose the stat allocation...

I've found that the Stat:AP ratios vary quite a bit - so I havent been able to nail down numbers with the small sample sizes I have. That said, I'll toss some very rough numbers into the discussion because you do make a pretty valid point.

Table of AP Cost of +1 Stat

Stat	Num Items	Low	Avg	High
MEL	26	1.44	2.58	3.75
STR	17	1.44	1.62	1.83
END	11	1.22	1.5	1.86
ARM	7	0.88	.99	1.2

Again, these are very rough numbers from small sample sizes. These numbers should NOT be used say anything more than there is significant variation in Stat:AP ratios.

From an AP standpoint, these numbers *could* mean that we should want +Melee for level ups. Armor on the other hand *may* actually be cheaper on items than it is from level up increases.

TLDR in Blue.

Overall, I think there is too much RNG variation in too many places.

• It makes everything feel too wishy/washy.
• It changes unit/army development to being less of a series of meaningful choices to being more of a grind-till-you-are-blessed-by-the-RNG-gods.
• Even after a grind, you cant even be sure that youve been blessed because of the large amount of variation caused by the RNG.
  
• I dont mind some RNG in combat. I like when RNG is used to provide enough variation that the outcome of combat is not automatically known.
  
• That said, RNG to the point that players cannot make good informed choices about their own development? Thats a bad thing and diminishes the desire of investing into progression. For a grind-centric game that monetizes on making that grind faster, thats a bad thing.

Players should be able to envision a realistic goal for their army. A grind without realistic goals is a recipe for frustration.

• That realistic goal should be based on the real combat mechanics.
• In BattleCon right now, players have goals, but they are often unrealistic because they are using their own personal interpretations instead of being based on transparent combat mechanics.
• Everyone has their own nebulous idea of what think their given army build should be able to accomplish.
  
• If players can create realistic goals that are based on the real mechanics of the game, they will have much more motivation to progress towards those goals. The grind doesnt feel like such a grind anymore and players do not get disappointed/frustrated that they have spent money/time building towards something that isnt supported by the game mechanics.

I think if you read many of the complaints on these forums about imbalances, it boils down to that 1 thing -- players built towards something and then they were disappointed and frustrated that they did not get what they had hoped for. That should never happen in a well designed game.

Even in games that have permadeath or item loss, gamers always know what they are getting into. In those games, the frustrations they feel is mostly at themselves because they know exactly why they did not reach their goal. In battlecon, it still feels like despite investing time into the game and honing your battlefield skills, you might still lose because of too many things that are out of your control (gear does not have good Stat:AP ratios, Units/Heroes with bad stat rolls). Those two things especially require a large grind to obtain. That they are so RNG based is detracting from the fun of progression in this game.

I've said it before -- the two biggest recommendations I can give are:

• Make the combat formulas known publicly
• give players more choice in how their units are developed. Give players more control over their development and they will be more invested in it.

Monetize on:

• Fixing goofs (like time-limited stat rerolls)
• Providing faster access to a steadily evolving metagame so that players always want to try the next viable army build. Build the matrix of army comps large enough and there will *always* be something new for players to try. It is the basis of F2P success found in games like LoL.
• It is starting to feel like the monetization is based purely on a long grind that is intended to make players *hope* that they somehow improve their progression over time. I dont want to see Battlecon turn into a bad skinner box game.

The mechanics are out Hegorn. We haven't kept something secret. All the answers lie in the forums.

RuneSlayer wrote:

The mechanics are out Hegorn. We haven't kept something secret. All the answers lie in the forums.

I have to disagree.

Players do not know any of the combat formulas. That alone makes understanding how much RNG affects things impossible. It makes it impossible to compare any two stats to make informed choices on what gear to wear.

It also means that players have to grind and try something many times to get a feel for any choice they make - only to have a high chance of being disappointed that the choice was incorrect.

The more grind and the more RNG involved in the system, the worse that process is. It sorely disincentivises the fun of progression.

Hegorn wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

The mechanics are out Hegorn. We haven't kept something secret. All the answers lie in the forums.

I have to disagree.

Players do not know any of the combat formulas. That alone makes understanding how much RNG affects things impossible. It makes it impossible to compare any two stats to make informed choices on what gear to wear.

It also means that players have to grind and try something many times to get a feel for any choice they make - only to have a high chance of being disappointed that the choice was incorrect.

The more grind and the more RNG involved in the system, the worse that process is. It sorely disincentivises the fun of progression.

http://www.battleconforum.com/t142-new-player-help-understanding-stats-and-combat-mechanics

I know I'm suggesting something that would be a pretty big change for the game. I hope that other players consider what I've said and speak up if they agree with me.

If not, I certainly do not want to push something that isnt desired by players. There are many ways to build fun and I've played enough games to know that not every game is for everyone.

RuneSlayer wrote:

http://www.battleconforum.com/t142-new-player-help-understanding-stats-and-combat-mechanics

Heh. I thought you might have added something to that thread. Reloaded a couple times to make sure you didnt add a list of formulas or something.

But yes, that is my thread and I have certainly tried to be a champion for a well-informed community. That said, we still have absolutely no understanding of how RNG affects the stats through the combat formulas. We also dont know how to relate any stat to another stat quantitatively. Those are things that play a large role in combat, yet players are unable to use that info to make good choices.


I'm not saying that the lack of transparent combat formulas is the sole cause of the problem - I'm saying that it is a combination of 3 things that makes BattleCon's progression system very prone to causing player frustration:

• Relatively high RNG variation in progression of all aspects of combat effectiveness (except Research which provides the least amount of progression). This makes it very difficult for players to know how much benefit they get from choices they make - both before and after they make that choice.
  
• Lack of transparent combat formulas that also make it difficult for players to know how much benefit they might get from choices they make before they make them.
  
• Long grinds for both Gear and Unit progression.
  

When choices are costly to make because of the time involved grinding (or payment of Gems), it is very frustrating to make choices that do not give the player what they expected. I'm proposing that a lot of the frustration players have on the forums boils down to that combination above.

I said in another thread that one sign of balance is when everyone is complaining that the other side is OP, but that same effect can be produced by having too much RNG. There is a lot of RNG in the system right now.

The people who get hit with bad RNG just feel worse off - but without even knowing for sure that they are worse off and just have to resign to the position of feeling frustrated and unsure how to fix their situation. They come up with all sorts of reasons why they might be worse off and throw them on the forums in frustration. Beyond that, their only recourse is to grind some more and hope for better luck next time.