Possibility of a Contingency campaign?

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

@Shadow Wolf
While Iluvalar's post comes off as harsh, brutish and rather rude he does make one small point. While contingency does look like a really good mod (downloaded but not played yet) I know from experience that in a nutshell he is partially right. He just didn't include his own mod though which he should have.

When I worked on the 1.11 update for the retail release I thought I had something great. Put a lot of work into it and thought it was great, but looking back on it I would have thrown out at least 30% of the changes I made and reworked a lot of other balance issues that sprang up. I think any game/mod designer would do the same after looking back at early work that they created. Its part of the process. I'm sure there is probably a small portion of Contigency that could be changed or thrown out but as none of these mods or even this version of warzone is a commercial release the only person who should really care about it is the author.

No matter what you do someone is going to call is garbage, weather you let it get to you is another matter. I wouldn't worry about unless it unless over half the people in that thread start hating it

Thanks Apoc.

When I released the 1st beta, I didn't expect it to be perfect. Rather, I expected there to be issues, balance-related or otherwise, that I probably overlooked when I was developing the mod. I also had some concerns of my own, which was why I listed a few balance-related questions of my own on one of my posts. Thanks to feedback from the betatesters, I've since patched some of these issues up, though some remain unanswered.

[Iluvalar]

If you want to keep on criticizing something that I've worked hard on for over 3.5 months now without offering constructive criticism, then I'll just ignore you like I would ignore a troll.

I told you before you even started 4 months ago :

By removing the bound between the research lines and the weapon modifier, you removed the safety margin that existed and supported other strategies. You, in effect, end up with ONE strictly dominating strategy. Just like explained here : http://gametheory101.com/Strict_Dominace.html , You will never reach the mixed strategies Nash equilibrium that, believe me, we are all striving for.

This is a very sound criticism based on scientific studies in academic field. (yes ! Game theory also applies sometime to games...).

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

Let me make one point clear: I, 1st and foremost, care more about the fun factor of the game, and I personally feel that adding more variety would add to the fun, even though it would also make it more difficult to balance. Personally, if I wanted a more balanced game, I'd actually do the exact opposite of what I've been doing and take away all that variety, but then that would just make the game really dull in comparison.

In short, even though I'm taking measures as a balancer, I care more about the fun factor than some stupid game theory about balancing. Understood?

[aubergine]

Did I mention yet that I love firebases?

[Iluvalar]

Let me make one point clear: I, 1st and foremost, care more about the fun factor of the game, and I personally feel that adding more variety would add to the fun, even though it would also make it more difficult to balance. Personally, if I wanted a more balanced game, I'd actually do the exact opposite of what I've been doing and take away all that variety, but then that would just make the game really dull in comparison.

In short, even though I'm taking measures as a balancer, I care more about the fun factor than some stupid game theory about balancing. Understood?

You are killing any kind of variety in the research tree. Let me state it this way if you prefer : I don't know each line it gonna be (my guess fall now on assault gunners and therefore MG). But this is a certainty in contingency, that one line of research will dominate every other lines. ONE SINGLE research sequence that gives the best outcome.

You must understand that as long as he explore the different trees and he discover the different outcome, one might find this mod entertaining. This is not clear for now, but the players will slowly deduct the optimal sequence and there will be no more obvious counter to it. In absence of counter, they will mimic the only optimal path, everything outside (most weapons, body size, propulsions) will be ignored.

We will assist in a phenomenon where players that refuse to play assault gun vs assault gun will lose. Every time, consistently. And that's the exact opposite of "variety" and "fun". That you are seeking.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Variety and fun were also WZ Creators goals and priorities when they created the game. The implementation of "strategy by design" added an other layer of complexity to the already complex matrix of component stats and tech tree research advance, etc. All these layers of complexity was a strategy in itself as far as ever having to achieve optimal balance and players figuring out what to focus on and what to ignore. This all breaks down in the process of achieving pro-level competency. Not many get to that level and when they do, any major change is not exactly welcome. So the fun and variety of changes to the game will work for a majority of players who are not pro and have no interest in that side of the game.

WZ complexity is a White Box that may as well be a Black Box when it comes to the usual methods of approaching balance adjustments. Those balance methods themselves have become a mental box that has excluded a whole other realm of fun and variety that would also attack balance issues from a more profitable angle that works with all those layers of complexity in such a way as to render RPS balance far less critical - for the casual or pro player or any level of skill in between.

.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

@Iluvalar: I guess that the answer's no then? In which case, I give up. We both seem so adamantly entrenched within our own respective philosophies that our efforts to persuade eachother otherwise seem to be in vain. I'm ready to accept that and move on with my path, and I wish that you will likewise do so with your own path.

I will, however, conduct a survey on what works and what doesn't later on, though I won't expect results soon since this mod is still so new. Even then, the balancing process isn't expected to be accomplished overnight. StarCraft 2, for example, despite having been out for close to 2 years now, is still undergoing balance changes.

[Rman Virgil]

.

I see your 2 different positions more a matter of emphasis / focus than conflict. In the context of fun, both are valid and both will serve their respective audiences well (very different audiences for the same game, are a reality mostly ignored & that's a grave mistake right up-front). Both represent pieces of the puzzle to advance GP effectively on all fronts, seperately and in tandem. There's just more to that puzzle than these 2 positions. Ironically, you both have common ground in that other over-looked area of the missing puzzle piece. Unfortunately, that area of dev has been stymied by insufficient play-testing support.

.

[Iluvalar]

Shadow wolf : the answer was actually "yes". I fully understand what you say. I just observe that you are in denial and refuse to accept the fact that we are both talking about the plausibility for mixed strategies to be viable in your mod. You are talking about "variety". It's the very same thing.

@Rman : I understand your point about the distinction between pro and casual players. But A) The learning curve in a dominating strategy game is absurdly fast. Distinguishing both in such scenario is a pit trap. B) I refute the fact that casual players, at least a majority, don't enjoy the capacity to improve themselves and gain skill while playing and become better.

Therefore, I fully understand the exploration-type of fun of discovering the new universe and new possibilities, but unless Shadow Wolf provide a constant supply of new changes periodically that fun will stop soon after the last release.

Is that what you aim for Shadow Wolf ?

[Rman Virgil]

Shadow wolf : the answer was actually "yes". I fully understand what you say. I just observe that you are in denial and refuse to accept the fact that we are both talking about the plausibility for mixed strategies to be viable in your mod. You are talking about "variety". It's the very same thing.

@Rman : I understand your point about the distinction between pro and casual players. But A) The learning curve in a dominating strategy game is absurdly fast. Distinguishing both in such scenario is a pit trap. B) I refute the fact that casual players, at least a majority, don't enjoy the capacity to improve themselves and gain skill while playing and become better.

Therefore, I fully understand the exploration-type of fun of discovering the new universe and new possibilities, but unless Shadow Wolf provide a constant supply of new changes periodically that fun will stop soon after the last release.

Is that what you aim for Shadow Wolf ?

That was exactly what Pumpkin was doing through the 10 patches to the retail game. It was their on-going, specifically stated strategy, till cut short by Eidos closing them down....

That said.... the question becomes, would Pumpkin have followed that same strategy of dev for WZ 2120?

I think not. I think they would have went back to deving a component of WZ 2100 that they had to scale back on, and almost abort, to meet the release deadline set by Eidos. That component would have made a shift in GPMs to place a much higher value on the effective use of complex, multiple combat group maneuver tactics and combined arms.

.

[Rman Virgil]

.

@Rman : I understand your point about the distinction between pro and casual players. But A) The learning curve in a dominating strategy game is absurdly fast. Distinguishing both in such scenario is a pit trap. B) I refute the fact that casual players, at least a majority, don't enjoy the capacity to improve themselves and gain skill while playing and become better.

I agree... but with a caveat.

That fast learning of the pattern, what to focus on and what to ignore to win, takes place if you choose to play a lot of MP with the goal to learn the patterns. In ain't gonna happen in SP vs BOTs and it ain't gonna happen without that dedicated effort in MP vs good players.

I think the majority of the game's audience is not gonna make that dedicated effort in MP and will contentedly remain decidedly non-pro. So "Contingency" is safe with that audience.

And if Shadow Wolf follows Pumpkin's strategy, keeps changing the matrix with new additions and rebalances, then "Contingency" is safe with more pro-level players.

That leaves the entirely unexplored "Third Way" approach mentioned above in the context of WZ 2120.

.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

I fully understand the exploration-type of fun of discovering the new universe and new possibilities, but unless Shadow Wolf provide a constant supply of new changes periodically that fun will stop soon after the last release.

Is that what you aim for Shadow Wolf ?

Partially, yes, though given that this was the 1st time that I made a mod as grand in scope as Contingency, I'm still in the learning process, so to speak. And yes, I have been planning on gradually introducing new features to it, though sadly, I have limits as to just how much I could add. Right now, there only seems to be a handful of things to consider adding, like heavier versions of some existing turrets for heavier bodies to mount, or some more ultra-heavy bodies for the earlier tiers, that would require factory upgrades to unlock (since they'd be so expensive to produce). From there, I'd have to wait for support for new features to be added in the Warzone 2100 engine itself before I could add more new features. (I'm personally waiting for the opportunity to build structures on water, power generators that require no derricks, or the addition of some new propulsions to name a few.)

Hopefully, this mod could serve as a practice session and inspiration for future endeavors, perhaps even for when its time to develop a new rts game, though in the near-future, I may want to see if I could apply as a developer for the Warzone 2100 engine itself. I may be interested in trying to implement some of the gameplay features in their to-do list, and also to add some additional mod-support. From what I see, it seems that the developers are understaffed, only updating in their free time, and could use a helping hand or 2.

That leaves the entirely unexplored "Third Way" approach mentioned above in the context of WZ 2120.

And what could that "3rd way" be?

[Rman Virgil]

.

That leaves the entirely unexplored "Third Way" approach mentioned above in the context of WZ 2120.

And what could that "3rd way" be?

..........

That was exactly what Pumpkin was doing through the 10 patches to the retail game. It was their on-going, specifically stated strategy, till cut short by Eidos closing them down....

That said.... the question becomes, would Pumpkin have followed that same strategy of dev for WZ 2120?

I think not. I think they would have went back to deving a component of WZ 2100 that they had to scale back on, and almost abort, to meet the release deadline set by Eidos. That component would have made a shift in GPMs to place a much higher value on the effective use of complex, multiple combat group maneuver tactics and combined arms.

.

IOWs......

Because of the extremely rudimentary state of Command and Control of multiple combat groups, maneuver is restricted to bumbling babysitting via monolithic, symmetric vectors. This makes in theater conflict possibilities super simplistic thus the over-focus on the predictable, pattern identification, of pre-conflict, non-combat GPMs.

.

[Iluvalar]

I think the majority of the game's audience is not gonna make that dedicated effort in MP and will contentedly remain decidedly non-pro. So "Contingency" is safe with that audience.

So in definitive, this is a single player mod ? That have absolutely no ambition to be, one day, competitive in multiplayer games ?

@Shadow :
No, I don't mean simple addition, or pathetic tries to do the impossible balance, but more changing in the stats just for the fun of changing the stats each week or so. The "fun" would in metagaming where players try to find out what is overpowerful this week. That would keep your mod playable for some audience.

.

[Rman Virgil]

.

@ Iluvalar: When I had access to statistics for several years that was the trend. Perhaps it would be worth polling now.


As for your suggestion to Shadow - thats one way.

I still think he can follow the Pumpkin pattern and introduce new stuff in a more staggered, spaced apart, timeline (along with associated balance changes). That release schedule model seemed to work out well for the tens of thousands of fans of the original retail, MPlayer, WZ community. It was like experiencing X-mas every few weeks.

.