Faction Diversity

[Blodir]

I think the approach to faction diversity that the current balance team took in patch 3655 Beta is counterproductive. Below I will try to explain why in a short manner. I also put up some links to related game design articles if you are interested. I apologize for not going to much more detail about the concepts, but I'm sure you will get the gist of what I'm talking about. I trust the balance team to reconsider the direction they are taking with faction diversity based on community feedback that is coming in abundance.

If a unit costs the same amount of resources and fills the same purpose its stats should also be the same.

What is faction diversity
The aim of faction diversity is to create interest in the form of gameplay variance. We want each faction to feel and play different and offer a different array of choices for each matchup to keep the game fresh and interesting.

How faction diversity was implemented in 3655 Beta
Factory HQs, T3 Mexes and Walls were given significantly different hitpoints. Cybran getting the least, Aeon and Seraphim about the same and UEF the most.

However
3655 approach creates very little interest, since the difference in gameplay opportunities is negligible. Essentially the role and purpose of each subject has remained the same. They are used in the same way, in the same situations, to a varying degree of success.

Besides the lack of faction diversity provided by the changes, they also introduce a number of problems;

Intuitiveness
They look the same, they feel the same, they smell the same, but they are not the same. It's difficult for a player to differentiate between things that are so similar in every way. The unintuitiveness adds in a big way to unfairness and burden of knowledge that are described below

http://www.gatheryourparty.com/2014/11/25/getting-to-grips-with-intuitive-design/

Fairness
Having an unit/structure fill the exact purpose of another while being objectively better feels unfair, even if the factions are balanced as a whole.

http://www.whatgamesare.com/2013/01/choose-fairness-over-balance-game-design.html

Burden of Knowledge
Learning how many strats you need to kill mexes for each faction individually etc. forces a lot of unnecessary memorization of trivial knowledge

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417

So what should be done instead?
When diversifying the rather homogeneous unit base of SupCom it's a good rule of thumb to make each unit a tradeoff: a unit that is better than it's counterpart in one respect, should be weaker in another.

[nine2]

Which was 3655b? Is that the current work in progress beta?
Or some old thing?

[Blodir]

Which was 3655b? Is that the current work in progress beta?
Or some old thing?

The current beta patch

[AdmiralZeech]

Actually, I was against most of the arguments raised (mostly in the beta patch thread) complaining about the building HP changes. (Looks the same and has same function = must have same properties, unfairness, etc.) All of those arguments are based on pretty subjective assumptions that aren't meaningful compared to actual gameplay analysis, etc.

However, the "harder to learn" argument *does* convince me. It's certainly true that the HP changes will require people to study the game more, to learn that UEF buildings require more TMLs to kill, etc. Ordinarily, this might be a good thing, but I think the worst thing for FAF right now is to be even more complicated to learn. FAF has sufficient complexity already, I strongly feel. It might need more depth, though (they are different things.)

If we want UEF structures to be more hardy, and Cybran to be less, it might be better to do it in an obvious and clear way, like giving UEF a faction-unique property where all of their higher tech structures come with a personal shield. And for Cybran, all of their structures are slightly volatile

[GrilledChicken]

Really great point. I don't think that equally expensive and same purpose units have to be completly equal in stats if they work the same way but i think the differences should be small. Up to 10% or 25% depending on amount of stats that are different certainly make sense. But i don't see a point on having UEF Pgens have 50% more HP than cybran Pgens. Having a few things to remember (cybran strat not killing t3 mexes and so on) is ok, adding a few more in my mind too but i think the attitude was that we would need alot of this to improve the game and i disagree with that. But trying to make the game easier for newcomers and making it a big game of remember stats doesn't work well together.

I am sort of torn on the Navy factory hitpoints, on one side i agree that they easily get alot of HP and that repairing a t1 factory can work as a damage sponge, on the other hand i also think that it might lead to weaker players getting pushed out of the waters quicker than before. Reducing the hitpoints of economic structures also makes it harder for newer players though i can understand why people would want that. The hitpoint reduction of course.

[Lieutenant Lich]

Blodir, you are my man. Well said. I agree.

[angus000]

If a unit costs the same amount of resources and fills the same purpose its stats should also be the same.

I don't agree with this. Take mmls for example, cybran's and aeon's cost the same and serve the same purpose, yet cybran's one is way better for the sake of faction diversity. It's that something bad? No as long as the factions are balanced overall (which may or may not be the case, but that's beside the point), so making cybran buildings weaker than other factions' shouldn't be a problem by itself. This is in no way "unfair".

You may have a point with the burden of knowledge point, but that's how the game works already for most of the units.

However, I do agree with GrilledChicken that differences in stats shoudln't be that great. I understand why UEF's t3 pg have 50% more hp than cybran's, for example, so UEF can have this new strat bomber can kill pg's in two passes advantage, but since the difference is so big, it may also need to be compensated somewhere else in this case; like, maybe, making cybran one's not volatile or something, idk.

I like the direction this patch took regarding buildings, but it needs some tweaks so that huge imbalances don't come about.

People will always complain, anyway.

[Hawkei]

Not only this, but, the burden of knowledge becomes cumulative. As players like myself who have been playing since Vanilla have had to go through this relearning process every time a balance change is made. For instance I can still remember the days when TML's were able to shoot down gunships. I can remember one awesome game when I used a Rambo UEF ACU, with TML upgrade and shot down a Soul Ripper. That was awesome.

The point is that most players develop an intrinsic understanding of how units behave and what is needed to kill what. Changing not just the damage of the attacking unit, but also the HP of the array of receiving units, makes this task more complex... And memorising this numbers is important because the incorrect number results in an unsuccessful snipe.

As far as combat units are concerned. These points also did come up in the Titan debate. Because it was argued that UEF having poor stats on the Titan was justified because they have an excellent Percival. Yet this is a rubbish argument. Because it essentially means UEF would only ever build Percivals - and this has a negative impact on tactical diversity. It is also a trap for newer players. As they seem to think they are getting a good unit when they make Titans - when infact they are not. So I agree that if a unit costs an equivalent amount and has a similar function, it should also have similar statistics.

I would modify this argument in say that the units shouldn't be exactly the same. As it would be perfectly fine to have different DPS,HP , speed, and range statistics. But when it comes to basic performance (or what I would call combat effectiveness) the those two units should be about the same. There should be some circumstances when unit A wins, and others where unit B wins. It is not acceptable for unit A to hands down beat unit B in every respect when unit A and B cost the same amount.

[AdmiralZeech]

When it comes to units, I don't think they need to be equivalently strong, as long as these conditions are fulfilled:
- Units are all used. (eg. it's ok to have a terrible unit, if it fulfills a vital purpose and can't be avoided.)
- Factions are generally balanced
- Between equally skilled players, every matchup (faction vs. faction, on any map) is reasonably winnable.

Within those broad guidelines, having strengths and weaknesses make the game more interesting. If everything was equally useful at all times then things would lose a lot of flavour.

[zeroAPM]

Titans rape T2 but are raped by any assault/siege bots/tanks at T3. What use is a unit that cannot win vs. its own tech? It is of no use except for a very very very early rush where there is no T3 coming out at all and opposing armies are 1/2 T1 and 1/2 T2.

A bunch of MML, Deceivers, and/or mobile shields does not count as "the typical T2 force" that Titans can easily destroy.