Making lvl matter more and equipment less

RuneSlayer wrote:

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

It's a bit off topic, but I have to agree with Hegorn. We don't know how battle mechanics work.

Even if we consider only melee stat : how RNG work for it ? Does the game roll a D100, add attackers melee, retain defender's one, check if > 50 it lands a hit ? Or a table, like in warhammer ? Like that :



Depending on both, there is a different % to hit, then D100 roll ? We know the PURPOSE of each stat, but not the maths (how they really interract with each other).

Hegorn wrote:

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 share your vision of progression. This is a strategic game. RNG is good when it's used in battles. It reprensents the luck, or events that can't be prevented / anticipated. It add fun and frustration, but it's the common life of generals, when something doesn't work according to plan and you have to deal with it.

When randomness affects army composition, like the stats gained on each level, it's a really bad thing. For item, it's totallly different, as you can destroy them and make another, it only cost money (I mean in game currency like gold). Leveling another units is really time consuming. It should be something that players can control.

---

Something more on topic now :

When randomness affects AP costs, it stops to make any sense at all !
Considering that for a unit type, stats have different weights depending on their role. ie : Cavalry (not the ironfort I guess) get more advantage from melee / strenght then from endurance / armor, as they fit a damage dealing role. But when it comes to leveling, each +3 stats raise the AP for the same amount... That seems quite random.

About items, it seems there is a great part of randomness too. Quick comparison of 3 cavalry armors : they are all at their max durability on this images. All of them got the same stats : endurance and armor.





We can see that 7 endu + 7 armor = 17 AP, 9 endu + 9 armor = 19 AP. Hard to get how that's calculated, or we have to count the increased durability on the 17 AP ones as something that has an AP cost... But that doesn't make sense since durability doesn't help in winning battles. btw... Why do items of the same rarity have different durabilities, without the + dura stats ? They should at least be at the same to keep balance... And I guarantee you that the max durability displayed is the max stat of the item.

I'm OK with stats being random on crafting, but AP calculation should be pure maths. Rounding can explain some differences, perhaps the maths in AP calculation explain that the first one cost 16,51 AP (bring back to 17) and the second one cost 19,49 (bring back to 19 after rounding) wich would, in fact, be a 3 AP cost difference, and not 2 as displayed. Ok, there can be some flaw in the system, and we can deal with them if they are minimals.

Then, how do you explain this (armor that you can get from the cav booster pack with gems) :


Ah, epic... When it start to be really stupid. Same AP cost (19)... For + 3 endu, + 1 armor + 13 dura... I'm just asking how it can be explained ?

AP is meant to bring balance to the game. You need to have static numbers for it. They can be linear or exponential depending on items and stat value, I'm ok with both systems as long as it's consistent and bring an interesting balance. But an epic that give more stats than a rare for the same AP value just destroy the balance of the game.

btw, talking about AP :

• +3 melee through researching : no AP cost (it really hurts when 2 players at different tech level pvp...)
  
• +3 melee through item : around 3 to 5 AP cost...
  
• + 3 melee through leveling : 1 to 4 AP cost, depending on unit's type...

Do you see what I mean about constancy and balance ?

Latexlord wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

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

It's a bit off topic, but I have to agree with Hegorn. We don't know how battle mechanics work.

Even if we consider only melee stat : how RNG work for it ? Does the game roll a D100, add attackers melee, retain defender's one, check if > 50 it lands a hit ? Or a table, like in warhammer ? Like that :



Depending on both, there is a different % to hit, then D100 roll ? We know the PURPOSE of each stat, but not the maths (how they really interract with each other).

Hegorn wrote:

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 share your vision of progression. This is a strategic game. RNG is good when it's used in battles. It reprensents the luck, or events that can't be prevented / anticipated. It add fun and frustration, but it's the common life of generals, when something doesn't work according to plan and you have to deal with it.

When randomness affects army composition, like the stats gained on each level, it's a really bad thing. For item, it's totallly different, as you can destroy them and make another, it only cost money (I mean in game currency like gold). Leveling another units is really time consuming. It should be something that players can control.

---

Something more on topic now :

When randomness affects AP costs, it stops to make any sense at all !
Considering that for a unit type, stats have different weights depending on their role. ie : Cavalry (not the ironfort I guess) get more advantage from melee / strenght then from endurance / armor, as they fit a damage dealing role. But when it comes to leveling, each +3 stats raise the AP for the same amount... That seems quite random.

About items, it seems there is a great part of randomness too. Quick comparison of 3 cavalry armors : they are all at their max durability on this images. All of them got the same stats : endurance and armor.





We can see that 7 endu + 7 armor = 17 AP, 9 endu + 9 armor = 19 AP. Hard to get how that's calculated, or we have to count the increased durability on the 17 AP ones as something that has an AP cost... But that doesn't make sense since durability doesn't help in winning battles. btw... Why do items of the same rarity have different durabilities, without the + dura stats ? They should at least be at the same to keep balance... And I guarantee you that the max durability displayed is the max stat of the item.

I'm OK with stats being random on crafting, but AP calculation should be pure maths. Rounding can explain some differences, perhaps the maths in AP calculation explain that the first one cost 16,51 AP (bring back to 17) and the second one cost 19,49 (bring back to 19 after rounding) wich would, in fact, be a 3 AP cost difference, and not 2 as displayed. Ok, there can be some flaw in the system, and we can deal with them if they are minimals.

Then, how do you explain this (armor that you can get from the cav booster pack with gems) :


Ah, epic... When it start to be really stupid. Same AP cost (19)... For + 3 endu, + 1 armor + 13 dura... I'm just asking how it can be explained ?

AP is meant to bring balance to the game. You need to have static numbers for it. They can be linear or exponential depending on items and stat value, I'm ok with both systems as long as it's consistent and bring an interesting balance. But an epic that give more stats than a rare for the same AP value just destroy the balance of the game.

btw, talking about AP :

• +3 melee through researching : no AP cost (it really hurts when 2 players at different tech level pvp...)
  
• +3 melee through item : around 3 to 5 AP cost...
  
• + 3 melee through leveling : 1 to 4 AP cost, depending on unit's type...

Do you see what I mean about constancy and balance ?

Latexlord,

APs are calculated purely by using math. There is no randomness there.

Tech bonus is calculated in the unit's APs.

Different stats have different weights and therefore the APs are different. Melee stat for example has more weight in battle than armor.

Thanks for taking time to answer, RuneSlayer, but I have to argue about this.

RuneSlayer wrote:

APs are calculated purely by using math. There is no randomness there.

Please, explain me the math that lead AP cost to be the same (19 AP) for two armors with different stats (+3 endu + 1 armor on one of them) then.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Tech bonus is calculated in the unit's APs.

I only checked for 2 upgrades (as they are really long to get)... So I could had misread something... But I didn't see any differences in AP cost after getting the research done for all of my units... it could have take some time to load... And once they leveled up, it start to be hard to track... I'll be more carefull next time.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Different stats have different weights and therefore the APs are different. Melee stat for example has more weight in battle than armor.

Maybe I was too agressive, and that was a bit confusing, I beg your pardon... I didn't mean that you don't value them differently, I was just asking for precisions about how they are distributed and if it's the same weight for every unit type.

Quote :

Please, explain me the math that lead AP cost be the same for two different armors with different stat then (and by a large amount).

Simple! It's probably wrong! lol I am looking into it. The breastplate's APs are correct. Looking into the other one.

Quote :

Maybe I was too agressive, and that was a bit confusing, I beg your pardon... I didn't mean that you don't value them differently, I was just asking for precisions about how they are distributed and if it's the same weight for every unit type.

I wouldn't have it any other way. Passion shows interest.

Latexlord wrote:

I share your vision of progression. This is a strategic game. RNG is good when it's used in battles. It reprensents the luck, or events that can't be prevented / anticipated. It add fun and frustration, but it's the common life of generals, when something doesn't work according to plan and you have to deal with it.

When randomness affects army composition, like the stats gained on each level, it's a really bad thing. For item, it's totallly different, as you can destroy them and make another, it only cost money. Leveling another units is really time consuming. It should be something that players can control.

Thanks. My overall hope for this game's endgame play has always been for an evolving metagame that makes players want to constantly try new army builds and new units to see how they can accomplish a variety of goals. It is a model that leads to long-term fun for players and consistent monetization opportunities for devs.


To create that endgame environment, you need a few key things:

• A wide range of different strategies / tactics are not only viable, but they are necessary to succeed in every aspect of the endgame.
  - Multiple objective-based game modes add a layer to this (attack/defend, escort, etc).
  - Various Unit Formations add to this (wedge, loose, tight, etc).
  - Different terrain types with different tactical advantages add to this (trees, boggy land, etc).
  
  
• Once there is a real exigency for a variety of tactics, now players can build multiple armies that have specific focuses targeting various strategies/tactics.
  - There should be an evolving need for any selection of these tactics based on the flow of the map. Perhaps when the enemy is at the capital gates, there are more attack/defend game modes available.
  - Perhaps for a guild to create a trade line to another guild, they have to complete escort missions.
  
  
• As the devs add new game modes / maps / units to the game, or as they tweak the balance of the units, those metagame layers will constantly evolve and keep players interested in trying to adapt to the changing endgame.
  
  Each of these additional game systems adds more interactions with existing game systems and exponentially increases the horizontal choice in how to play the game. Thats what creates real longevity in an endgame.
  

So far, I think every thread I've seen from players requesting a big game feature boils down to creating a more complex endgame environment. Philosophically, I think this is what the devs want for the game too.


But this is also where the disconnect happens --

• If players are not empowered to build their armies how they want, or cannot understand how their choices affect their gameplay, they will not be as invested in their army or in the endgame.
  
• I'm sure the devs are very aware of this. They build games for a living. Whenever you build something yourself and make it your own, there is always a sense of emotional attachment to it. Thats a powerful thing to evoke in gamers. Right now, Battlecon is not tapping into that potential.
  
• RNG can be great for a lot of the reasons discussed in the thread already. It can also be bad for a lot of reasons and one of them is when players do not understand how RNG affects them. That is why I push for more transparent game formulas.