SubJeff on 19/2/2011 at 00:36
I've never really been a fan of RTSs, though I really liked Dune 2 on the Amiga (SP). Even then though I thought that the factions weren't even. I played alot of Age of Empires MP much later on and think I dabbled with Command and Conquer but at some point, years ago, I though "Forget this, I can't be bothered learning what does damage to what and when."
I guess that's why I've almost completely ignored StarCraft. I know it exists and I know that there are 3 factions and it's sci-fi. That's about it. I never wanted to get into it because I cannot. be. bothered. learning that a Plasmafunk laser does x3 damage to Gabobagroove Love armour, or whatever. You know what I mean.
So when I read the reviews of Company of Heroes, and some of my friends were playing it and telling me how good it was, I thought "Yes, and RTS that is grounded in real life that I can make sense of. What's that you say - no amount of rifle fire will destroy a tank? I'm in."
Fast forward 5 years and I'm still playing it. But I think I'm done now. It's not that I keep losing, I don't. It's that the type of unbalancing, by faction and by map according to faction, is now something I know about. This is a problem because I have to exploit the balance issues because I know whoever will be playing me will do the same.
Now when I'm playing as Brits and I can tell that the Wehrmacht player is going for a pio flamer spam start I just send a message saying "I don't play against pio spam" and quit. I lose rank because of this but I don't care, I want a good game not a "I must use a counter-exploit" game. Similarly if I meet a US player who fields more than 5 rifle units straight off (Rifle spam) I'll quit.
The frustrating thing is I can't help using similar exploits like sending my Panzergrenadiers right up to the enemy base because I know his initial units will be totally outgunned, and then sticking them in a building outside the base because I know that the bonuses they get against any early units when garrisoned are insane.
In short - I've become an exploiter by necessity. It's so easy to shut someone down/get shut down in the first 3 minutes of a 1v1 match if this kind of thing is done.
Enough rambling.
CoH is pretty sensible in it's rules because it's based on reality. The cover system makes sense, the weapons upgrades and bonuses and rock/paper/scissors systems work well. For a long time I thought the balance was really good, but that was until I became more experienced.
I don't think this type of RTS can ever be balanced because faction differences become over-amplified in the hands of an experienced player. And then it's just who is the better exploiter.
Thoughts?
catbarf on 19/2/2011 at 01:24
Many RTSes do have balance issues, but simply quitting is the wrong way to handle it. You're playing the game to win, not to recreate the Battle of the Bulge with exact historical realism, and if building five units of Riflemen in the first few minutes is the best way to win then by god that's what you do. Is it unbalanced that such is a relatively easy way to win? Sure. But saying 'I refuse to play if you use the best strategies available' is just cheap.
T-Smith on 19/2/2011 at 06:28
I'm not an RTS player.
StarCraft aside, I've never been big into the genre. My allegiance was always with Turn-based-Strategy (Heroes of Might and Magic!").
That said, it really doesn't seem like you provide a good example of "balance issues" in RTS games. Instead, you more adequately describe RTS games in general. It isn't about being realistic and building up a good force to battle your enemy with. RTS games are about hotkeying the crap out the commands and rushing your enemies consistently.
I don't like it much either, but it's always been that way to me. It's not about how the battle feels or the strategy. It's about how fast you can press your hotkeys and spam the enemy to death.
Honestly, I'm using StarCraft (the game you don't play) as the big example here, but in my experience it changes little from title to title. Once you've memorized unit abilities and set up your hot keys, long term strategy flies out the window.
That's why in Starcraft once you reach the Silver/Gold leagues there is no end game; the match is long over by then.
Mr.Duck on 19/2/2011 at 08:04
You can always try playing with friends or people you play regularly and establish (between the two, or more) a set of base rules to balance things out. Might be a bit of a drag, but when you get it down I'm sure it'll work well enough for you to feel like playing again.
Just my 2 humble cents.
:)
Koki on 19/2/2011 at 08:34
Sure it can. Identical units on both sides, mirrored maps.
Eldron on 19/2/2011 at 09:38
Quote Posted by T-Smith
I'm not an RTS player.
StarCraft aside, I've never been big into the genre. My allegiance was always with Turn-based-Strategy (Heroes of Might and Magic!").
That said, it really doesn't seem like you provide a good example of "balance issues" in RTS games. Instead, you more adequately describe RTS games in general. It isn't about being realistic and building up a good force to battle your enemy with. RTS games are about hotkeying the crap out the commands and rushing your enemies consistently.
I don't like it much either, but it's always been that way to me. It's not about how the battle feels or the strategy. It's about how fast you can press your hotkeys and spam the enemy to death.
Honestly, I'm using StarCraft (the game you don't play) as the big example here, but in my experience it changes little from title to title. Once you've memorized unit abilities and set up your hot keys, long term strategy flies out the window.
That's why in Starcraft once you reach the Silver/Gold leagues there is no end game; the match is long over by then.
It's because due to the fragile balance, any mistake or outmaneuver will be abused to the point where your opponent will just realize his unability to get back from it and just GG.
long high-tier unit endgames exist in professional play, but they require some very close players and are often very exciting due to the fact that they are rare.
Game-length shouldn't be forced by game-design in the total destruction type of game.
Games are often long in the beginner circle of starcraft due to the fact that people don't know when they had the upper-hand they could use, and when people don't know they have lost.
SubJeff on 19/2/2011 at 10:29
Quote Posted by catbarf
Many RTSes do have balance issues, but simply quitting is the wrong way to handle it. You're playing the game to win, not to recreate the Battle of the Bulge with exact historical realism, and if building five units of Riflemen in the first few minutes is the best way to win then by god that's what you do. Is it unbalanced that such is a relatively easy way to win? Sure. But saying 'I refuse to play if you use the best strategies available' is just cheap.
Well I did say MORE than 5 units and I refuse to play because when someone spams a particular unit I have to counter-spam the defeating unit. It stops being fun because I'm almost on autopilot doing the anti-whatever stat.
Quote:
Once you've memorized unit abilities and set up your hot keys, long term strategy flies out the window.
That's why in Starcraft once you reach the Silver/Gold leagues there is no end game; the match is long over by then.
There is hardly any end game in CoH now. I often know I've won or lost in the first 5 minutes but sometimes someone does something clever (or I do) that claws the game back. This is very different to the type of unit/map exploiting I was talking about.
Nameless Voice on 19/2/2011 at 11:31
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I never wanted to get into it because I cannot. be. bothered. learning that a Plasmafunk laser does x3 damage to Gabobagroove Love armour, or whatever. You know what I mean.
Starcraft's weapon balancing isn't anything like that. It simply had normal, explosive and concussive damage. Normal does full damage to everything, concussive does 100% damage to small, 50% to medium, 25% to large units, and explosive does 100% to large, 75% to medium and 50% to small units. It's hardly rocket science.
Starcraft 2 simplifies it even more by having armoured and light units, with some units doing bonus damage to the one or the other (and the occasional rare unit like the archon which does bonus damage to all biological units, but almost no one uses those anyway).
SubJeff on 19/2/2011 at 13:54
You illustrate my point exactly by alluding to units doing special damage on to of that system. I can't be bothered.
Nameless Voice on 19/2/2011 at 14:07
In Starcraft 2, yes, but you weren't talking about Starcraft 2. In any case, you're talking about infantry not being able to hurt tanks, which is the exact same thing - damage and unit/armour types which interact to make certain units ineffective against certain other units.
