Art of War - Part 29

[Myll Erik]

Welcome to our new series where we will be taking a look at various RTS game-play mechanics and examining what makes certain things work. We will also be discussing various other aspects of the RTS genre, so keep checking back for new topics! Now for some ground rules :

• Stay on Topic
• Keep things as general as possible - this is not a bashing thread! We are now adding in an End of Nations spin!
• This is to encourage thought - therefore well thought out ideas are encouraged!
• Healthy Debate is also encouraged, but flaming/spamming will be dealt with swiftly.

Art of War - Part 29 Unique Units

Within the RTS genre, there have been games that use the same type of units for every playable faction and the only difference is color. Nowadays we are seeing more and more unique units and in some cases even having multiple factions that each have their own unique set of units. I'm going to go ahead and say it now, I have a love hate relationship with unique units.

Part of me really enjoys those games that have a lot of unique units per playable factions. What I like is that it makes every playable faction play a little differently and it potentially creates multiple unique strategies. I akin this scenario to the cereal isle in the grocery store. You have a lot of flavors and some of those cereals work really well together and the uniqueness of the multiple brands really helps them stand out among the rest. The one thing that does both some people is having too many unique units as then it makes it difficult to really understand the full in and out of each unit. (I think we've all seen the people who get overwhelmed when looking at the cereal isle)

The other side of the story is that my biggest gripe comes purely from the pain that multiple unique units can pose on the game itself. I've seen many many games take the route of numerous unique units only to make a handful of those units so overpowered or broken that the game-play suffers as result. (Don't get me wrong, it can be done - but it requires a lot of balance and tweaking). Unique units inherently need something about them that makes then unique and special which goes back to the whole balance concern.

This week - I'd like to hear from you about :

1. Do you like unique units? Why?

2. Would you prefer a few unique units or have every unit be unique?

3. Do you see any other problems that unique units could pose?

4. Of you the units you've seen for End of Nations - what one(s) really stand out to you? Why?

[Hadus]

1. Do you like unique units? Why?

Yes! It makes choosing a faction or army more meaningful than just which color scheme and hypothetical ideal doctrine you wish to have. It also means more variety from one battle to the next; each encounter is more likely to be different than the next.

2. Would you prefer a few unique units or have every unit be unique?

I think I'm okay with having a few basic units that are the same/similar between classes (like a basic tank). But having many unique units adds diversity.

3. Do you see any other problems that unique units could pose?

I think balance is the number one issue. It's really hard to tell in most instances whether two different factions are balanced, because no two players and no two battles are the same, so claiming "well I've been trying for months and have no idea how to stop X unit I've tried everything" is unreliable; another player may have already figured out a counter and just hasn't spoken up.

What I want to see is less nerfing and more buffing. When a unit is overpowered, instead of pulling it down to match the rest of the units, maybe it's a sign that some units got the short end of the design stick and are two weak or one-dimensional to EVER be useful. Instead of removing abilities, add some to the weaker units. I know this usually means more work for developers, but in the long run it's much more effective than nerfing one unique unit just to have the next strongest become OP.

As a hypothetical, if UBER TANK is too damaging and infantry are absolutely useless in the beta, why not buff up infantry with an ability? Let's call it Disarming Fire, and it attacks enemy weapon systems, doing only 75% damage but cutting the targetted enemy's attack power by 50% for a duration. Now these infantry have a unique, tactical ability that makes them useful, and one that also conveniently reduces the OP aspect of UBER TANK. This is a theoretical example of course; this doesn't sound like a practical solution, but that why I let Trion and Petroglyph make the game!

4. Of you the units you've seen for End of Nations - what one(s) really stand out to you? Why?

The tanks that shoot flames, whatever they are called, look pretty awesome. They go beyond the simple tank/infantry/air/AA/artillery mold, as a vehicle specializing in infantry denial.

[Zhenya]

First of all, I'm not totally sure how different this is from unique factions/races.

This week - I'd like to hear from you about :

1. Do you like unique units? Why?

2. Would you prefer a few unique units or have every unit be unique?

3. Do you see any other problems that unique units could pose?

4. Of you the units you've seen for End of Nations - what one(s) really stand out to you? Why?

1) Yes. I think it makes things more interesting, and requires you to understand a lot about different matchups and how units REALLY function in the game. That doesn't mean it is required though. Good games (Civilization, Chess) have lots of unit overlap and manage to be great games. Overall though I just enjoy there being tons of variety. This presents a difficult design decision though - making sure each unit actually matters or is useful is a tricky thing to do, even for the best at it.

2) Overall, I'd prefer every unit be unique. I think with lots of overlap but few unique untis then too much emphasis gets put on jut those unique ones


3)Mainly its just balance. It also makes balance more than a matter of numbers balance. Balance at this point starts to become a more tangible thing. (For example: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/5202424) You end up knowing things are balanced when...the matches end up close to a 50/50 win rate. Whereas overlapping units balance out based on pure math, this i smuch messier.

4) Probably the Marauder, the idea of hit and run artillery is pretty cool.

[wayward]

1. Do you like unique units? Why?

2. Would you prefer a few unique units or have every unit be unique?

3. Do you see any other problems that unique units could pose?

4. Of you the units you've seen for End of Nations - what one(s) really stand out to you? Why?

1. I really do. Unique units help give character to their faction in a complimentary way to faction art. For instance, in WarCraft 2, units were largely the same when comparing Orcs to Humans. I think human units tended to be more defensive where Orc units were more damaging, but that scarcely makes a huge balance difference. The unique units in that game were the spell casters, who really gave character to the faction.

Contrast this with WarCraft 3, where in many cases, the units for each faction weren't even directly comparable: the Footman had a much different purpose than the Grunt or Ghoul in WC3. I really like this: a situation where counters are considered more than a direct relation of unit function. A situation where units on opposing factions do basically the same thing as their counterpart in the opposing faction is a lot more boring than a model like SC2 where units in opposing factions are interconnected in a more complex fashion.

2. I really think this depends on the scale of the game. In Supreme Commander, the units were pretty similar, especially in Tier 1 and 2. The slight differences built up with the number of units to give the various factions a different character when played. Contrast this to Dawn of War 2, where you have like 5-10 squads, each being very different to each other as well as when compared to other classes. In DOW2, a Space Marine squad can equip a rocket launcher, good vs vehicles, or (forgive me, it's been a while) I think a lascannon, or other weapon better against infantry. Or a Chaos squad can spec for melee or ranged attacks. Kitting out each individual unit would be too much in SupCom, where having every squad be the same, or directly mirrored, would be really boring in Dawn of War 2.

The larger the scale of the game, the more you're looking for just a few units, like ACUs and SCUs, or Experimentals, that really stand out, where in a smaller scale game, it makes sense to have every unit be more or less unique and exploitable like in DOW2.

3. Nothing really new here... Balance is a big issue with unique units. Activated abilities or "spells" are often highly exploitable, and if not balanced well can cause huge issues. Look at the High Templar. If not for this unit, the massed armies of Marines or Zerglings/Hydralisks etc pose a huge problem to Protoss forces (yes the Colossus is another counter). The huge damage of Psionic Storm is balanced against the higher numbers that Terran and Zerg forces can leverage against the protoss.

I don't have a great example of where this doesn't work well, but I hope you get my point.

I will contrast my view of balance to zhenya's however. In my opinion, balance is seen where there are a large number of viable strategies that are employable by every faction, with viable counters on the opposing side. This should result in close to a 50% win rate on either side, but as zhenya says, with a situation as is seen in many modern RTS games, balancing unique units and unique faction philosophies is much trickier than mirrored factions (though more interesting).

One of the biggest problems with balancing an SC2-style system is player understanding of the game. If one faction's players learn certain tricks or strategies, the other factions can have a sometimes considerable time lag in figuring out a counter. This doesn't mean that the other faction(s) are underpowered, just that they need to re-think the compositions and strategies that they've been using. This is seen most readily in SC2 in the Protoss/Zerg matchup, where "balance" has been in flux more or less since game launch.

4. That's a good question. From a uniqueness perspective, I think the Orion or Ragnarok stand out to me. As for the Ragnarok, I always like to see heavy air units or aerial artillery, and a giant helicopter is visually pretty interesting to me. The Orion uses a slow mechanic with its special, which I don't recall seeing a whole lot in RTS games. Snares/slows seem more like an MMORPG mechanic to me, and I'm interested to see how this will shake out/

Also, the idea of the commander as a "spell caster" seems interesting to me. I always like seeing superweapons like in DOW2 or the Command and Conquer games. And these superweapons seem kind of CnC-esque to me: damage bonuses, speed boosts, the ability to disable healing...

[Maffia]

1. Do you like unique units (UUs)? Why?
Personally I like shiny thing, and things like all civs/factions having unique units is definitely a shiny thing providing it makes sense within the game. Added to that as I'm mostly a PvE player a lot of the issues associated with UUs don't really cause a problem as long as it's done sensibly.
UUs also make different factions feel more different, even 1 or 2 UUs per faction can change how that faction plays much more than blocking off parts of a tech tree could.

2. Would you prefer a few unique units (UUs) or have every unit be unique?
To me that largely depends on the game and how things fit in the game, something historical like the Age Of.... or Total War series it makes a lot of sense for most units to be shared, as that how things actually were(ish) back then, where as something more based in fantasy or fiction like SC2 or EoN, go nuts as long as it doesn't detract from the game either gameplay or otherwise.

3. Do you see any other problems that unique units (UUs) could pose?
Other then the obvious balance, especially in the case of UUs from different factions having very different mechanics, I think one of the main issues is unit identification (even if you only get the very basics such as long rang/close range/mobility), if you flood the battlefield with too many unique units you can quickly loose perspective on what each unit is and what role it fills, this is especially the case if UUs don't look different enough from each other or you have similar looking units filling different roles, there are only so many ways to draw a kickass tank with a BAMF gun until you start getting that sense of déjà vu after all.

4. Of you the units you've seen for End of Nations - what one(s) really stand out to you? Why?
Whatever those HeliPlanes (I think it was the Ragnarock) that I used at EuroGamer last year were, they kicked ***

[hahahaweee]

1. Do you like unique units? Why?
-Yes because without them then why even have different factions? They add variety and sometimes even help flesh out the world they are in and I like both those things.

2. Would you prefer a few unique units or have every unit be unique?
-I think I'm leaning toward more unique units rather than less as it helps make choosing a faction more meaningful and lets you specialize more.

3. Do you see any other problems that unique units could pose?
-Well balance was brought up already but I have a different concern which is giving away tactics and role in advance. This shouldn't be too terribly hard to avoid though as long as there isn't a "navy faction, air faction, infantry faction, etc" and they have some flexibility.

4. Of you the units you've seen for End of Nations - what one(s) really stand out to you? Why?
-Ragnarok stands out for me as well probably because I always thought the a-10 warthog was cool and it seems to fill a similar role.

[Okie]

1. Unique units define the differences between opposing factions more than a story IMO. In the old C&C's I really knew which faction I was playing after establishing the tech building allowing me to build special units.

2. A few similar units is fine to me, but since this game is going to have each commander using a somewhat limited number of units it seems like each one should be pretty unique for tactical purposes.

3. The only problem I can think of at the moment is balancing, or if there are too many units and it feels like their abilities overlap.

4. I like the infantry-mech units, the Orion and the Stalker. They look cool and stuff.

[Rythe]

1. Do you like unique units? Why?

Yes.

Unique units, in terms of gameplay mechanics, give a player more options and more variety to the feel and tactics of the game. This not only helps prevent a game from becoming stale sooner than later, it also increases the chance that players find some aspect(s) of the game they enjoy enough to keep them around. If everything is lumbering, for instance, you turn off players who want a to play a nimble force. That said, such variety and breadth of experiences are measured relative to a player's experience rather than relative to the unit roster within the game world.

Modifying stats is a very shallow way to make units unique. Different attack patterns and forms, different methods/limitations of mobility, and different misc capabilities/triggered abilities are what really set units apart. It's fine, if somewhat boring, that pooling stats into one aspect of a unit can define its role. It's better if some unique-ish capability defines and enhances its role.

Also lends itself to more diversity in the visual style, stronger aesthetics, and forces creativity, which are big initial draws for people.

2. Would you prefer a few unique units or have every unit be unique?

It's best to have every unit unique, unless there's a specific, game world reason not to. And then I usually hope those reasons are temporary. Like starting armies and units being rather similar but branch radically as a player progresses.

3. Do you see any other problems that unique units could pose?

As mentioned often: balance. Sometimes confusion on what is doing what if the visuals aren't clear and distinct.

That said, I will also echo the suggestion that buffing is often superior to nerfing. Nerfing inherently mutes game mechanics while buffing expands and underscores them. This translates into Buffing often making for more enjoyable gameplay while nerfing is easier and (initially) satisfies the competitive crowd more readily.

4. Of you the units you've seen for End of Nations - what one(s) really stand out to you? Why?

Hard to say as I've not seen a lot of in game footage for them. There's some neat designs, but without being able to get a good feel for their game mechanics presence, it's hard for me form an opinion beyond 'Nebulous pretty tank' and 'nebulous eh artillery' and 'Meh looking infantry' etc.

Titan, Ragnarock, maybe Fury, I guess. Visual style being the main reason. And while the Ravager also looks nifty, it reads pretty generic.

PS: The exoskeleton style of the infantry makes them seem visually gimmicky and cluttered to me.

[Myll Erik]

Agree with most of this

Quick follow up for you -

Would you rather have UU's that you earn or that you just start with?

[Einharjar]

I might be late to this discussion, so I hope I'm not being rude in anyway for my reply being so delayed. With that said, I'll answer both your posts, Erik.


1. Yes, I love unique units. Unique units shows personal identification per the faction they are meant to represent. This is a huge thing for the play base. Each player has a unique style of play. Some are good at the macro, some are good at the micro. Some prefer feeling all powerful, whiles others enjoy the scale of numbers. Unique units adds a sense of Identification that is an absolutely important focus on an MMO setting. You'll want players to ID with their factions. This builds pride and loyalty, and the very making of competitive sportsmen ship with the friendly trash talk I remember the days of WoW when Shaman was only Horde and Paladin was only Alliance. They were a source of identification even to newer players who did not understand the lore yet.
I also think that unique faction units are practically the standard now. So even if you're offering only a few unique units, it's still better than none at all. Unique armies have been around since 95 or earlier (TSRs WarWind being the first that I know of) so I'd think it'd hamper the game's image if everything was the same. O.o;

2. I would prefer most units to be unique, but I'd say have a few VERY unique units, while others only slightly tweaked. For instance, LF standard tanks could be more defense centered, having heavier armor while the SR could have longer range on average. It's not needed, but I would prefer it. I enjoy looking at factions show casing a certain style of play. Starcraft has always been a good example of this. Zerg are very macro styled. If you enjoy building lots, you'll like Zerg. They are so much into this style of play that on average, a Zerg player must always be one base above their enemy in order to win. Things like this are amazing; a faction that "thinks" and "plays" differently than the others; not just pretends. I can see the LF and SR already approaching this, as the SR really seem to show case stealthy, hit and run styled units; and this is awesome.

3. Balance is a big thing, and not just stat balance. Building associative identification per faction through their unique play styles can also divide player bases unevenly. Thus it's also important to not only have the combat balanced, but also their learning curves and viable roles that can match the opposing faction's performance. Zerg maybe very throw-away feeling with how many units you build, but even the Zerg have tanking units for example, ala Roach and Ultralisk. So it is important to still install similar roles across all faction army lists, no matter what personality the faction is known for.

4. Not much. Right now the units look (in terms of function) fairly generic. On terms of visuals, I prefer the Tanks of the LF. The SR barely looks functional; almost too alien in design to associate being "human". However both factions contrast visually as a result so, that is a good thing.

And lastly, you're follow up post.

I'd say the more Unique the unit, the more you need to earn it. MMOs need to be open to a large variety of players and it may be as well we get new RTS players within our midst. Starting off with mainly "generic" base units would be better as you throw the Modding system into the mix, and things can get pretty confusing quickly. With the Mod system, new players will learn the basic combat roles and then turn their generic units into unique ones as they progress. Eventually, they'll unlock already powerful unique units that perk their interest because they found their play style using the Modded generic units from earlier.
With this in mind, I'd have to say that there should be plenty of options for later level (if you wanna' call it leveled) UUs. This will help further the level of depth and that sense of personification with your company when you not only have a unique set of modded units, but a unique set of ... well, unique units as well.