Unit experience in MP

[Assault Gunner]

000 - 003 - 006 - 013 - 026 - 051 - 102 - 205 - 410 Olrox (80%)

All numbers x4 for commanders

I agree with the concept on this one: that hero tanks are amazingly strong, and completely worth the effort.

[Olrox]

I agree with the concept on this one: that hero tanks are amazingly strong, and completely worth the effort.

Well, it's true, but I've changed idea after I've realized that limiting to 410 would limit hero units only to the largest 8 player matches.
Right now I strongly support the usage of the Fibonacci progression x 1.4, due to the increasing rate of the curve and the differences it allows between the highest ranks. It would allow us to see more Special and Hero units than reducing the original limits to 50%, and also reduce the great difference between getting from Veteran>Elite, Elite>Special and Special>Hero, but still mantaining a reasonable number of kills/unit (190).

[Zarel]

Y'know, I changed my mind. Let's not have different unit experience in multiplayer.

In singleplayer, balance is less of an issue. In multiplayer, balance matters, so experience should have less of an effect. Keeping experience progressions where they are reinforces this, and simplifies the game.

I will not be implementing this change unless someone convinces me otherwise.

[Olrox]

Y'know, I changed my mind. Let's not have different unit experience in multiplayer.

In singleplayer, balance is less of an issue. In multiplayer, balance matters, so experience should have less of an effect. Keeping experience progressions where they are reinforces this, and simplifies the game.

I will not be implementing this change unless someone convinces me otherwise.

Hmm, you know I trust your taste of balance and don't question it (I don't think I can do any better).
If you really think we shouldn't have different systems, I'll agree with you, but that's really the only thing that ever bothered me about the current balance in MP.

Hmm, is this moddable by ordinary folks or do we need epic skills to do so? :rolleyes:

Maybe then it's worthy for me to adventure into some small-scale modding for a first-time... Right now I am concentrating 60% of my efforts into RL stuff and 30% into making maps due to a streak of creativity (I have about 4 stopped map projects right now ), and 10% to enjoy my last weeks of vacation (that doesn't count as RL for me, anyway ¬¬).

I thank you from this very moment for any of the usually insightful answers (which I call real help) you may provide me with!

~Olrox

[Zarel]

If you really think we shouldn't have different systems, I'll agree with you, but that's really the only thing that ever bothered me about the current balance in MP.

Well, then, convince me otherwise.

Hmm, is this moddable by ordinary folks or do we need epic skills to do so? :rolleyes:

Sorry, it's hardcoded. It's indeed the kind of thing I want to make moddable, but as of right now, it isn't.

[Saberuneko]

An idea popped up on my mind, what about some exp multipliers, able to being modified on multiplayer as can be done with power levels? That would make able to keep the old exp levels or being able to choose some easier ones.

[Olrox]

An idea popped up on my mind, what about some exp multipliers, able to being modified on multiplayer as can be done with power levels? That would make able to keep the old exp levels or being able to choose some easier ones.

Yeah, that would be interesting and a friend of mine suggested something similar.
Could be made 100% original - 50% original - 25% original if so.

Well, then, convince me otherwise.

I'll have a try when I'm more inspired, no hurry right?
Hmm, should I keep this on the topic or send it via PM for me to feel more comfortable about writing elaborate things?

[Michal]

Well, I think that lower exp for MP might change the way people play. Now its mostly: build as big army as you can and make one attack to crush everything. Rest of the game is holding strategic positions and space.

Spamming units its still quite effective, even on low power maps you can make enough to destroy 'better' but outnumbered enemies. I still can't quite believe how heavy upgraded HMGs can destroy Cobra Tracks Medium Cannons if they concentrate fire a bit. I played against a 'medium experienced player' (not quite noob, Ive seen he had some good ideas, but not that good to give me trouble).

Also, I see a commander on the battlefield once in a blue moon... Now, unit experience doesn't matter in MP, so the only reason to keep them alive is power. Enemies are just mere 'blokers', not something you can get benefit from, but rather you need to crush them asap.

Well, straight to the point - I wish there was some reason to make more, smaller battles, and use less, but experienced tanks - that way your tactical play can counter player with more oil. It is a reason not to waste your tanks. Also, when you are defending and get experience out of it, you can last longer = more fun (for me)

Campaign was designed that way to prevent spamming hero units nothing else.

[Olrox]

Also, I see a commander on the battlefield once in a blue moon... Now, unit experience doesn't matter in MP, so the only reason to keep them alive is power. Enemies are just mere 'blokers', not something you can get benefit from, but rather you need to crush them asap.

I agree that commanders are not interesting enough if you don't have a real good reason to limit your forces and use the commander bonuses to significantly increase battlefield performance: We usually just see green~professional units in most games, where people don't actually care too much about setting to "retreat at heavy damage", because it isn't worthy the time of having the units back to the base for repairs or recycling them, producing upgraded ones and sending those new again...

Most players prefer to send quick, cheap, high-attack units to swarm their opponents, and forget about them after they're sent to attack - that's true for the overwhelming majority of all MP matches, be FFA, 1x1 or 4x4. That's somewhat mimicking the AI in some cases (AI won't *retreat* after sending a force to attack).

Adding more value to the unit experience should reduce this boring reality. Reducing the thresholds and gaps between the ranks would encourage the players to take care of their units and use bonuses (commander ones) to protect their best units.

I relly think this would greatly reduce the rushes and swarms, which are the most boring things in a MP game. Not that swarming or rushing could be less effective: it would onlly bring more serious drawbacks if you didn't strike hard enough (which makes a lot of sense, since rushes and swarms are meant to be like that), and offer new good possibilities of winning strategies than what we currently have.

Or at least I think so :rolleyes:
Anyway, that's just a thought, I'm sure there are other good reasons.

~Olrox

[Rman Virgil]

Also, I see a commander on the battlefield once in a blue moon... Now, unit experience doesn't matter in MP, so the only reason to keep them alive is power. Enemies are just mere 'blokers', not something you can get benefit from, but rather you need to crush them asap.

I agree that commanders are not interesting enough if you don't have a real good reason to limit your forces and use the commander bonuses to significantly increase battlefield performance: We usually just see green~professional units in most games, where people don't actually care too much about setting to "retreat at heavy damage", because it isn't worthy the time of having the units back to the base for repairs or recycling them, producing upgraded ones and sending those new again...

Most players prefer to send quick, cheap, high-attack units to swarm their opponents, and forget about them after they're sent to attack - that's true for the overwhelming majority of all MP matches, be FFA, 1x1 or 4x4. That's somewhat mimicking the AI in some cases (AI won't *retreat* after sending a force to attack).

Adding more value to the unit experience should reduce this boring reality. Reducing the thresholds and gaps between the ranks would encourage the players to take care of their units and use bonuses (commander ones) to protect their best units.

I relly think this would greatly reduce the rushes and swarms, which are the most boring things in a MP game. Not that swarming or rushing could be less effective: it would onlly bring more serious drawbacks if you didn't strike hard enough (which makes a lot of sense, since rushes and swarms are meant to be like that), and offer new good possibilities of winning strategies than what we currently have.

Or at least I think so :rolleyes:

Anyway, that's just a thought, I'm sure there are other good reasons.

~Olrox

There was a thread in RTS.net about this topic that had over a hundred detailed postings and some 10,000+ page views (gone now, but still intact on Coyote's drive, on mine as well & on the 1st WZ2100 wiki from 2004 - still up, btw... 5 pages preserved of well thought out experience and rank mechanisms starting with this first page HERE - they still make for stimulating reading. There were many postings than on these 5 pages - I just never completed the migration from RTS.net)

I know project developer EvilGuru went through those postings and was inspired to make some changes a few years ago.

Your 2 posts do an excellent job of capturing the core of all the reasoning that went into those 100 + posts...... independent of ever reading them, no doubt. Good reasoning has a way of sprouting independently in different minds, and in cycles; refusing to settle in the dust bin of oblivion. Or so it seems. :suprised:

- RV
.

[Michal]

Lol

So, is that a good reason to try something new in mp experience?