HP and Effectiveness

[FunkyFreaky]

This concept is mainly about the relationship between the HP and effectiveness (maybe damage, armor, speed) of a unit.

The lower the HP, the less effective it is....but not too taxing on the player by having a small effect e.g. 100% HP = 15 or 10% reduction in effectiveness.

This might prevent a badly injured, larger army from continuously raping smaller, fresh troops. Besides, it promotes careful planning on attack or retreat and use of healers.

Some units or special civilization technologies might reduce this effect, or even some units may counter this by reversing it (less HP=more effective) until their HP fall below a certain percentage..then they will lose the bonus because they are seriously wounded.

Just a random idea that pop out of my mind ^.^

[FeXoR]

I thought about that as well and I like it.

However: I am worried about the amount of features implemented in 0 A.D.. The number of different units organized in different civilizations already make the game close to impossible to balance (considering having 10 factions with 10 unit types each makes 99+98+...+2+1 = 99 * (99 - 1) / 2 = 4851 different cases to balance). To have different formations (say 5) and stances (say 3) multiplies this (if only formations with one unit type is allowed) with a factor of 5*3 = 15. Having stances with many unit types makes the number of possible combination insane (about 30k situations to balance). This all might still be possible if the ruleset of combat is kept simple but with every feature influencing combat it gets much harder.

IMO my point of view is extremely optimistic. It might turn out that that many unit types are not possible to balanced in a reasonable amount of time (say another 10 years) in the first place.

A good balanced game with only slight diversity of many different civilizations (like AoE) or a good balanced game with a great diversity of a small number of factions (like SC/WC3) is much better than an imbalanced game with a great diversity between many civilizations (like 0 A.D. seams to head it's way) in the long run.

Edited April 16, 2013 by FeXoR

[Mythos_Ruler]

However: I am worried about the amount of features implemented in 0 A.D.. The number of different units organized in different civilizations already make the game close to impossible to balance (considering having 10 factions with 10 unit types each makes 99+98+...+2+1 = 99 * (99 - 1) / 2 = 4851 different cases to balance). To have different formations (say 5) and stances (say 3) multiplies this (if only formations with one unit type is allowed) with a factor of 5*3 = 15. Having stances with many unit types makes the number of possible combination insane (about 30k situations to balance). This all might still be possible if the ruleset of combat is kept simple but with every feature influencing combat it gets much harder.

There are not 100 different units to balance. A skirmisher from one civ generally has the same stats (and importantly, same bonuses and weaknesses) as a skirmisher from another civ. Our civs are much closer to AOK-style civs (similar units) than Starcraft.

[FeXoR]

There are not 100 different units to balance. A skirmisher from one civ generally has the same stats (and importantly, same bonuses and weaknesses) as a skirmisher from another civ. Our civs are much closer to AOK-style civs (similar units) than Starcraft.

That's why I said it may still be possible to balance if the combat rules are kept simple. Diversity among units like e.g. "bonuses vs.", "armor type", "secondary attack", ... make it harder though. Even if you consider all units filling one "role" to be the same unit type it's 9+8+...+2+1 = 45 situations to balance (a bit less than AoK and it wasn't really balanced IMO). With 15 formation/stance combinations and an amount of unit combinations inside the stance of 55 (if only considering 1 or 2 unit types per stance and ignoring their ratio) we end up at 155925 situations to balance (my earlier estimation of 30K combinations was wrong). Calculation:

54*15+53*15+...+2*15+1*15 + 54*14+53*14+...+2*14+1*14 + ... + 54*2+53*2+...+2*2+1*2 + 54*1+53*1+...+2*1+1*1

= (15+14+...+2+1)*(54+53+...+2+1)

= 15*(15-1)/2 * 54*(54-1)/2

= 155925

That's still an optimistic calculation because considering each 1 or 2 unit combination inside a formation with a given formation/stance combination a different "unit type" would lead to 55*15*(55*15 - 1)/2 = 679800 combinations.

Dropping formations and/or stances would dramatically reduce this amount.

Edited April 16, 2013 by FeXoR

[sanderd17]

This concept is mainly about the relationship between the HP and effectiveness (maybe damage, armor, speed) of a unit.

The lower the HP, the less effective it is....but not too taxing on the player by having a small effect e.g. 100% HP = 15 or 10% reduction in effectiveness.

I agree with the concept, less hp is less effective. But the function should be simple. Just calculate the percentage of HP left, and apply that percentage to all attack parameters (maybe ceil them to have at least a bit of strength)

Btw, it all reminds me of this:

[FunkyFreaky]

Yeah, maybe just keep the calculation simple and maybe leave out the bonuses and special civ technology affecting the reduction.

I remember that part lol. The kicking part is totally random rofl!!! ...About the relics feature, maybe consider adding the holy grail or the true cross? (Just some random babbling thoughts)

Edited April 16, 2013 by FunkyFreaky

[wraitii]

That's something I always was interested in in RTS, because allowing units with 1 HP to perform like a fresh one basically means that it's better to aim all your units on one enemy than spread the shots, thus favoring micro players. I've always felt it was perhaps a little gamey, as a mechanic.

This should be reasonably easy to mod in, if you want to give it a try. Something like attack * ( (HP/max HP)/2 + .5) could work.

It does seem like it would favor healing, and it would tie in nicely with how formations will probably work. Perhaps units in the case of formations would either use their health or the formation average health (depending on which is higher), thus giving another bonus to using formations.

[MoLAoS]

Ah this is one of my favorite game mechanics. However there is a slight issue. HP is what mimics this, so you would be having it in the game twice. Essentially low HP works to emulate the case where in real life it would be easier for the healthy unit to control the fight and land a killing blow. But most video games are based on a system where you have no killing blow.

Consider a 1v1 fight. The unit who is tired and missing an arm would likely lose quickly. Similarly the unit with lower HP is basically destined to lose. The effect is the same, and its much easier for computers to handle.

Edited April 16, 2013 by MoLAoS

[idanwin]

However some trait for certain champion units that makes them stronger as they lose health would be a real game changer (and it wouldn't be too much micro, since it's just one special unit type)

[Mythos_Ruler]

The problem with this is that the snowball effect is very very strong. There would essentially be no way to make a comeback in a fight (all other things being equal) because from the very beginning, whoever has the most minuscule of advantages will, in the end, win HUGE almost every time.

[alpha123]

A good balanced game with only slight diversity of many different civilizations (like AoE)

That's pretty much 0 A.D as well. Our civs are very similar. It won't be particularly hard to balance.

Regarding the topic:

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, yes, the current system doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This is one of the reasons I'd prefer an alternative combat system. On the other had, it makes some sense if you look at HP as simply "the unit isn't dead yet" instead of how much damage it has taken so far. All units are equally alive/undamaged, just the more you fire at one the more likely it is to die (this is simulated by the HP going down until it reaches 0).

I'm really not sure how this would contribute to gameplay, but I'm against it for the time being (I don't think it would be good for gameplay but I can't really put my finger on why -- probably unnecessary complexity).

Edited April 16, 2013 by alpha123

[FeXoR]

The problem with this is that the snowball effect is very very strong. There would essentially be no way to make a comeback in a fight (all other things being equal) because from the very beginning, whoever has the most minuscule of advantages will, in the end, win HUGE almost every time.

That's true. Still wraitii's thoughts about formations sounds nice.

I suggested (forgot where) to add such more "natural" advantage to formations to make them useful. If units on the edge of formations would always be kept "fresh" it would grand such a natural advantage. Healers in the center could then "refresh" the injured/exhausted units safely inside the formation.

Still a slight advantage would in the end lead to a disastrous defeat on the other hand.

Sounds realistic to me in some way.

The (simplified) general strength of a unit is: attack damage/attack time*health.

If health loss also scales down the damage a unit with half life left would than only have 1/4th of the strength left compared to the same unit with full life.

Due to this defensive gameplay would be advantageous.

Edited April 16, 2013 by FeXoR

[gab]

Due to this defensive gameplay would be advantageous.

Well, in real life,it is. But we most certainly don't want an ultra realist gameplay as it would kill the fun

(there is tons of explaination on how game have to be different from life if they want to be realy fun and challenging)

(i like the way you put things into equations)

[FunkyFreaky]

Well, when I thought of this, the main scenario is actually after a skirmish or a big battle. This might give the losing player which are forced to be on the defense a comeback chance, without the offensive side gaining too much upper-hand which might GG the game early. This might lengthen the game time (can be good or bad, personal preference), it's kinda bleak to just build army and win without exploring more features of the game.

Besides, the offensive side might be suffering from troops with low HP (or stamina...waiting for implementation) which might decrease their effectiveness , but their troops have the experience accumulated and veteran level to maybe balance it out without suffering a clear disadvantage. (Maybe a small, slight vet bonus for professional soldiers as well?)

Thus, the offensive side have the option to battle all out if he has the confidence to defeat fresh enemy troops or live to fight another day, giving the player a slight advantage by having more battle-hardened veterans.

P.S : When a unit gain level, the immunity granted for it, is it intended or a bug? This might break the game, if intended to be immune, maybe make it unable to target or slight reduction in damage taken. ( I've seen some of my troops hitting them and die to other enemy units as a result )

Edited April 17, 2013 by FunkyFreaky

[idanwin]

Maybe they should only start doing the promotion animation when the battle is over (with the new battle detection system), that would solve the issue and seems realistic as well.

[alpha123]

P.S : When a unit gain level, the immunity granted for it, is it intended or a bug? This might break the game, if intended to be immune, maybe make it unable to target or slight reduction in damage taken. ( I've seen some of my troops hitting them and die to other enemy units as a result )

It's intended. I don't particularly like that feature either. The promotion animation should be a lot shorter, and UnitAI shouldn't target units currently being promoted.

[Shield Bearer]

I think that animation is actually the 'capture' animation intended for buildings, played a lot slower. Ideally, I would prefer if there was just a flash of light around the unit.

[zoot]

I never understood the invulnerability thing either. Doesn't seem quite on par with a game priding itself of historical accuracy.

[Mythos_Ruler]

P.S : When a unit gain level, the immunity granted for it, is it intended or a bug? This might break the game, if intended to be immune, maybe make it unable to target or slight reduction in damage taken. ( I've seen some of my troops hitting them and die to other enemy units as a result )

Maybe they should only start doing the promotion animation when the battle is over (with the new battle detection system), that would solve the issue and seems realistic as well.

It's intended. I don't particularly like that feature either. The promotion animation should be a lot shorter, and UnitAI shouldn't target units currently being promoted.

I think that animation is actually the 'capture' animation intended for buildings, played a lot slower. Ideally, I would prefer if there was just a flash of light around the unit.

I never understood the invulnerability thing either. Doesn't seem quite on par with a game priding itself of historical accuracy.

The immunity thing is intentional because the unit could die when playing its promotion animation and that would just be irritating. In fact, we added the immunity after playtesting showed this happening a lot and being very bad. The immunity was the lesser of two evils. It plays an animation instead of a "flash of light" or something like that because it's more immersive and less artificial. I agree that it should be shorter (maybe 1 second) and that enemy units should stop targeting it when it plays (unless tasked to do so by the player).

[idanwin]

I would give the unit the bonus immediately but only let it play the promotion animation when the battle is over. I don't think visualising it during the battle enhances gameplay in any way.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I would give the unit the bonus immediately but only let it play the promotion animation when the battle is over. I don't think visualising it during the battle enhances gameplay in any way.

The reason we gave the unit the promotion animation was because it looked odd when the unit just switched to the new actor (new clothes, new armor, new helmet) like it was no big deal. I just think the promotion time needs reduced to one second so that the fist pump is quicker. All civs' units do this, so it's not like it favors one civ over another.

EDIT: But perhaps the unit should just gain extra armor while performing this 1 sec animation, something like -50% damage all types.

EDIT2; I think ideally though, all units that survive the battle should gain the promotion together when the battle is won. Though, how this would work in practice is dubious since in my experience after about the 10 minute mark a multiplayer match is just one long battle.

[zoot]

We should experiment with the parameters of battle detection if they aren't ideal (or even tweak the logic).

Using it to delay promotion may not be the greatest solution, though, since the battle is a 'global' state, so all your units in one end of the map would have their promotions deferred indefinitely until your units in the other end of the map stops fighting.

But the promotion could be delayed until there are no more aggressive units in LOS or something like that.

[idanwin]

But the promotion could be delayed until there are no more aggressive units in LOS or something like that.

I like that.

[Dread_Boy]

Yep, I hate that animation too. I would add sparkle effect when their level increases (similar to TW) or maybe just column of light (Dota).

[idanwin]

I don't hate it, it just looks unnatural during a battle, it would look really nice when you've won a battle though.