Live data from Hacker News

In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

waywardstrategy.com

41–50 of 194 posts

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#41

I feel like there’s been little going on in RTS land. Did I miss any significant releases?

If you are not familiar with it, OAD[0] is a fully open source RTS with an active community of developers that keep making it more and more polished at every release.

[0]: https://play0ad.com/

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#42

I feel like there’s been little going on in RTS land. Did I miss any significant releases?

AOE2 gets balance and content patches about once a month.

It's remarkable on its own that a 20 year old game is still getting balance patches. I suspect this is a due to a mix of evolving strategies, a changing skill-level distribution, and feedback loops from subtle changes, catalyzed by added units and civs.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#43

I think its cool seeing what factors are considered in RTS balancing. I guess an equivalent for fighting games would be invincible vs non-invincible DPs or weird things like movement options. In RTS games balancing seems a bit more quantifiable. In fighting games there is a lot of guessing at what actually counters what unless its extremely obvious. Its hard to tell if a matchup or strat is good/bad due to the charac…

I know Apex Legends balancing is pretty aggregate stat based and with each release they monitor aggregate stats like what % of X character is on the winning team over all games or what % of X character killed Y character as well as different team compositions, along with similar stats for individual weapons, to try to balance the overall engagement statistics as much as possible.

Dota has an interesting approach. They collect tons of statistics, but ultimately the game design comes down to one person, and they complement the stats with a lot of interviews with top ranked players to get their subjective perspective.

The end result is the game has gotten better balanced continuously with time. There were a handful of patches that were a regression, but usually are on top of it pretty fast.

One of the more pernicious problems they've faced is the team that holds the base on the bottom half of the map has consistently had an advantage, as much as 5%. This appears to be related to the perspective being 3d in the shape of top down, vs a literal 2d top down view. They've tried a few different ways to balance this, but what's ended up working best is trading it off vs first pick in the lineup drafting phase of the game start.

Zynga was infamous for a stats driven approach, but there it was all about tricking people into maxing out the micro transactions :(

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#44

I feel like there’s been little going on in RTS land. Did I miss any significant releases?

Not a new release, but I've been enjoying Supreme Commander 2 on a modern gaming PC! The game is pretty cheap on Steam ($13)[1] but it scales very well with modern hardware, and the gameplay is far improved (IMHO) over SC1. (Another RTS series I'd like to replay on modern hardware is Homeworld[2]).

[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/40100/Supreme_Commander_2...

[2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/244160/Homeworld_Remaster...

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know Apex Legends balancing is pretty aggregate stat based and with each release they monitor aggregate stats like what % of X character is on the winning team over all games or what % of X character killed Y character as well as different team compositions, along with similar stats for individual weapons, to try to balance the overall engagement statistics as much as possible.

Dota has an interesting approach. They collect tons of statistics, but ultimately the game design comes down to one person, and they complement the stats with a lot of interviews with top ranked players to get their subjective perspective. The end result is the game has gotten better balanced continuously with time. There were a handful of patches that were a regression, but usually are on top of it pretty fast. One…

> One of the more pernicious problems they've faced is the team that holds the base on the bottom half of the map has consistently had an advantage, as much as 5%. This appears to be related to the perspective being 3d in the shape of top down, vs a literal 2d top down view. They've tried a few different ways to balance this, but what's ended up working best is trading it off vs first pick in the lineup drafting phase of the game start.

The opposite to "the enemy's gate is down"

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#46
There's a real world version of this, the DePuy Quantified Judgement Method.[1] It's fairly simple - weapons have a weight value (sword=1.0), you add that up for the forces committed, there's a quality of troops multiplier for each side, some adjustments for defensive preparations, and you get a measure of combat strength.

DePuy was a US. Army colonel, and the weights come from analysis of real-world battles. His observation is that the side with a 2x advantage almost always wins. If nobody has a 2x advantage, either side can win.

So, real-world war has a "hard counter".

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FaF is great and basically the most modern RTS I regularly play. (Using FAF Forever or something) but technically it’s a buggy and slow mess that performs bad.

I was in the top20 worldwide ranking of the original Supreme Commander when I was a teenager, never got over the changes they did to the economy and gameplay on FA. The performance of the original was even worse, you had to apply a patch to get multithreading. Found an SQL Injection too, reported it and got a license for Supreme Commander 2 as a bounty. That game was way worse than the original, too simplified but I…

I found the SupCom 1 controls uncomfortable in the first 20 minutes of the tutorial, and chose not to continue. Life is too short to finish bad books or punishing games; however for me SupCom 2 was a huge ergonomic improvement and if not for that game I wouldn't be playing the series at all.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#48
> The ground unit cannot hurt the air unit in any way, and the air unit can hurt the ground unit. This relationship is based on innate and immutable differences between the two unit types.

There are some ways in which ground unit can still win the game in this scenario. For example if you can flood the enemy with zerglings and kill his buildings just ignoring the air units slowly picking the zerglins apart.

So, in a way - there are no hard counters either :)

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#49
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dota has an interesting approach. They collect tons of statistics, but ultimately the game design comes down to one person, and they complement the stats with a lot of interviews with top ranked players to get their subjective perspective. The end result is the game has gotten better balanced continuously with time. There were a handful of patches that were a regression, but usually are on top of it pretty fast. One…

> One of the more pernicious problems they've faced is the team that holds the base on the bottom half of the map has consistently had an advantage, as much as 5%. This appears to be related to the perspective being 3d in the shape of top down, vs a literal 2d top down view. They've tried a few different ways to balance this, but what's ended up working best is trading it off vs first pick in the lineup drafting phas…

Exactly this - the ability to re-orient your view in a game (or in your mind in the case of the "enemy gate") can be a huge advantage. I personally play much better on bottom side in MOBA games and I have never understood why it can't be flipped. Even if the map is not 'symmetrical' the players could adapt to that change, rather than having to adapt to the change in side each game.
Post reply on HN