Retaining experience upon death

[Zarel]

An off-topic conversation was split to Why so many versions?

[JDW]

I do not think that all units should retain their experience after death -- that is what recycling is for.

Good point.

However, I do think that commanders should retain their experience after death. This would make them significantly more useful (all units assigned to a commander with a lower experience than it take on the experience of the commander). Hence if you have 10 units assigned to a Hero commander all of those 10 units will behave as Hero's.

Good idea.

...(all units assigned to a commander with a lower experience than it take on the experience of the commander). Hence if you have 10 units assigned to a Hero commander all of those 10 units will behave as Hero's.

The link that connects a command turret to the units assigned to it would help explain how it is possible for the experience to get transferred down to the linked units when it dies.

But would that lead to players scapegoating their command turrets? And if it does, would that be a positive, or a negative, or a neutral affect on the entire concept of the command turret?

[Zarel]

My position is still retaining 75% experience for all units. Commanders need a sense of loss, too, and recycling still has (and should be the only thing that has) the advantage of retaining full experience.

[JDW]

My position is still retaining 75% experience for all units. Commanders need a sense of loss, too, and recycling still has the advantage of retaining full experience.

Agreed. The fear of losing something does make the game more challenging and exciting.

[Tucalipe]

> OK... My opinions? Fine. Experience does nothing on MP. But is Warzone 2100 MP-only?
> And you said removing the experience thing will not incite suicide tactics as only the cheaper units will be lost. So basically you are saying "if you are strong, you live. if you are weak, you become a cannon fodder"... Uhmm... Not the best strategy imo...

> All units should lose their experience when they die. Or else, you wouldn't need repair bays (a simple repair turret would do, if not for the repair speed), starcraft tactics of rushing your enemy with whatever you have would become the main tactic, and the game's genre RTS would go from Real-Time Strategy to Real-Time Slaughter.

> I understand experience IS useless on multiplayer games, as as soon as the match is over, nothing matters. But when playing the SP campaigns, having your best warriors keep their experience and bonuses is something players look after (otherwise, why would the debriefing screen show how many ranked units you end the mission with).

> My suggestion is: Make it a mod. Allow people to choose whether to have experienced units on SP and/or MP or not, if possible. If not possible, remove experience from MP and keep it on SP.

> @ EvilGuru and j0shdrunk0nwar: Having the assigned units behave the same rank as the commanding unit wouldn't be quite... fair, (for the lack of better word). What could be interesting is that for every rank bonus the commander turret has, relay 5% to 15% of those speed/rof/damage, etc bonuses to its attached units (as well as their inherent rank bonuses). This idea does work well, up to the point you have a unit the same rank as your commander, for it'd have an overall bonus bigger than the commander's... To compensate that, ranks' bonuses could be a little more powerful for commanders, so that even a commanded unit with the same rank as the commander would still have lesser bonuses as the commander. Or... have the bonuses relayed obey a gradual rank-subtractive rule:
> The lower the assigned unit's rank is in comparison with the commander's rank, the bigger the relaying percentage is, whereas if the assigned unit has a higher rank than its commander, the bonus will be negative (thus encouraging the player to physically promote the unit to either a better commander, have it take a different role (fire support, VTOL, etc), or recycle it onto a new commander.

[Zarel]

> And you said removing the experience thing will not incite suicide tactics as only the cheaper units will be lost. So basically you are saying "if you are strong, you live. if you are weak, you become a cannon fodder"... Uhmm... Not the best strategy imo...

That's not what I said. I have addressed this concern in the fourth post of this thread. Please read the thread before replying.

> All units should lose their experience when they die. Or else, you wouldn't need repair bays (a simple repair turret would do, if not for the repair speed), starcraft tactics of rushing your enemy with whatever you have would become the main tactic, and the game's genre RTS would go from Real-Time Strategy to Real-Time Slaughter.

I have addressed this concern in the fourth post of this thread. Please read the thread before replying.

> I understand experience IS useless on multiplayer games, as as soon as the match is over, nothing matters. But when playing the SP campaigns, having your best warriors keep their experience and bonuses is something players look after (otherwise, why would the debriefing screen show how many ranked units you end the mission with).

I have addressed this concern in the fourth post of this thread. Please read the thread before replying.

> My suggestion is: Make it a mod. Allow people to choose whether to have experienced units on SP and/or MP or not, if possible. If not possible, remove experience from MP and keep it on SP.

This kind of change doesn't work well as a mod... it's a bit too minor to bother people to download. Plus, adding mod support for it would be lots more work than just changing it up wholesale.

> @ EvilGuru and j0shdrunk0nwar: Having the assigned units behave the same rank as the commanding unit wouldn't be quite... fair, (for the lack of better word). What could be interesting is that for every rank bonus the commander turret has, relay 5% to 15% of those speed/rof/damage, etc bonuses to its attached units (as well as their inherent rank bonuses). This idea does work well, up to the point you have a unit the same rank as your commander, for it'd have an overall bonus bigger than the commander's... To compensate that, ranks' bonuses could be a little more powerful for commanders, so that even a commanded unit with the same rank as the commander would still have lesser bonuses as the commander. Or... have the bonuses relayed obey a gradual rank-subtractive rule:
> The lower the assigned unit's rank is in comparison with the commander's rank, the bigger the relaying percentage is, whereas if the assigned unit has a higher rank than its commander, the bonus will be negative (thus encouraging the player to physically promote the unit to either a better commander, have it take a different role (fire support, VTOL, etc), or recycle it onto a new commander.

Erm, do you even know how commanders work? It's important to know how they currently work before you start proposing changes.

You might wish to read http://guide.wz2100.net/experience

[Crymson]

My position is still retaining 75% experience for all units. Commanders need a sense of loss, too, and recycling still has (and should be the only thing that has) the advantage of retaining full experience.

75% ?
That would suck, 45% max, if at all. There needs to be a good reward for people who keep units alive.

[Zarel]

75% ?
That would suck, 45% max, if at all. There needs to be a good reward for people who keep units alive.

Why? Full price of the unit and 25% experience is plenty of reward. Remember that a reward for keeping units alive is a reward for micromanagement, and there's no reason why that shouldn't be toned down.

Being completely unforgiving of death is something that very few games do (only one I can think of is NetHack, which, although somewhat cult, is not exactly the paragon of popularity - it's also a lot easier to die in Warzone than in NetHack). Imagine if, each time you died in Pokemon, you went down to level 1. Or each time you died in World of WarCraft. Keep in mind that there are many games in which it's a lot easier to avoid dying in than Warzone, but even they are far more forgiving of death.

[Boris]

Than you can try to develop heavy guns, that can hit you slowly!
Research it, in your base!

Kik-ap-hiih., do you know what i m talking about?
Research is something different.

[TVR]

Well, it would be nice to have some salvage operation be completed before the experience is returned.

I'm thinking of having units drop their AI core in the form of an artifact on destruction, but one that is only recoverable by your units, of course.

[Tucalipe]

> Zarel, FYI I DID read "the fourth post of this thread". Those were my replies to "the fourth post of this thread". And I DO know how experience work... I had this game back from when Pumpkin was still alive and kicking. Hence, that was MY suggestion relating to EvilGuru and j0shdrunk0nwar's posts.

> OK. Don't make a mod then. Make it selectable on the menu. It can be something quite easy (I suppose) like, if experience is on, kill count is tracked. If experience is off, kill count is not tracked, hence no experience is earned. Changing a game balance is something, but now you are changing something the game creators wanted it to have. You said yourself that many other games have different experience systems (or no experience system at all). But Warzone is NOT like many other games. It is different. It doesn't need to match other games, since it's a different kind of game.

> But my best argument still stands: How would experience be useless if after each SP mission you get a count on each ranked unit you have? I agree that experience is useless on MP games. But it has its place on the SP campaign.

> PS.: I'm defending keeping experience on the SP campaigns and SP skirmishes, not games that "skilled MP players" play, not MP-only games. "Please read the thread before replying.".

[newp_samT150]

What if you were to have the units be demoted one rank if they died such as if they were a veteran they would only get the experience of a professional that was saved.

[Zarel]

> Zarel, FYI I DID read "the fourth post of this thread". Those were my replies to "the fourth post of this thread". And I DO know how experience work... I had this game back from when Pumpkin was still alive and kicking. Hence, that was MY suggestion relating to EvilGuru and j0shdrunk0nwar's posts.

If you did, you ignored it, so that's moot. Next time, I'll quote specifically the parts of the fourth post in which I address your concerns.

> OK. Don't make a mod then. Make it selectable on the menu. It can be something quite easy (I suppose) like, if experience is on, kill count is tracked. If experience is off, kill count is not tracked, hence no experience is earned.

It could be, but that's not a very good interface for this sort of thing. And plus, then we'd start arguing about defaults and it'd come around full circle.

Changing a game balance is something, but now you are changing something the game creators wanted it to have.

Funny thing: I'm [one of] the "game creators" now.

Games evolve. Games improve. And who says every one of Pumpkin's decisions are the best? I'm neither the first, nor the second, nor even the fifth to try to rebalance Warzone, and though 2.3 isn't perfect, nearly everyone agrees it's better than 1.10. Go look at my commit log. About half of those commits are things Pumpkin "decided not to do", and yet pretty much everyone agrees they're improvements.

And how are you sure Pumpkin wouldn't have wanted it? Maybe they just didn't think of it? Maybe they didn't have time to implement it by the time they did think of it? That's how most of my other decisions go.

You said yourself that many other games have different experience systems (or no experience system at all). But Warzone is NOT like many other games. It is different. It doesn't need to match other games, since it's a different kind of game.

Warzone is an RTS that reviewers described as "evolutionary, not revolutionary".

Sure, it had some gimmicks to call its own, but nothing major. Incidentally, whenever you design a game, and it differs from other games, you have to ask yourself two questions.

The first question is, "Why don't other games do it this way?" I speak this next part as a game developer: the answer is practically never "because their developers didn't think of it." That's why the second question is, "Why doesn't their reason apply to me?"

For permaloss of unit experience that took days or even weeks of gameplay to accumulate, the first answer is "Because it's an extremely frustrating experience" and the second question doesn't have a known answer.

Things that are somewhat associated with Warzone:

- Good graphics. Well, good graphics for 1999. Now, they're kind of crappy. We expect them to improve, but beating out games like SC2 and C&C4? Not gonna happen.

I don't see how it excuses making the game more frustrating by associating unit destruction with losing what could be weeks of work, either.

- Unit design system. Extremely difficult to balance, leads to most designs being completely worthless, and slows down the time it takes to produce something after it's been researched. It's not something we ever plan on removing since it's such a core part of Warzone, but it's really not as interesting in practice as it sounds on paper - it's mostly a gimmick.

I don't see how it excuses making the game more frustrating by associating unit destruction with losing what could be weeks of work, either.

- Large tech tree. Honestly one of my favorite parts of Warzone, but makes the game very intimidating to newcomers. The tech tree is also large because many of the techs are, in some sense, worthless, which really isn't good for balance.

I don't see how it excuses making the game more frustrating by associating unit destruction with losing what could be weeks of work, either.

- Projectile physics as part of the game (added by Warzone Project). Most other RTSes have projectile physics, but they're generally only there to prevent graphics glitches; you're not supposed to use it to do stuff like dodge or take cover. In Warzone, those matter, though it kind of makes microing horrible on the netcode. Per and I have discussed toning it down to be more like other games, but since many users seem to like it, we haven't done anything to it yet.

I don't see how it excuses making the game more frustrating by associating unit destruction with losing what could be weeks of work, either.

- Unlimited, single resource. Most modern RTSes take the StarCraft route of having a "power/gas" resource and a "money/minerals" resource, and many of them limit the latter. Warzone does not, which, along with other things like the vast tech tree, lends itself to a slower-paced game. This is also one of the things I like about Warzone.

I don't see how it excuses making the game more frustrating by associating unit destruction with losing what could be weeks of work, either.

- Two-phase accrue-build system. This system allows Warzone to queue buildings/research/manufacture beyond what you have money for. "It can get confusing" is why most modern games don't do the same, but Warzone players can usually handle it.

I don't see how it excuses making the game more frustrating by associating unit destruction with losing what could be weeks of work, either.

> But my best argument still stands: How would experience be useless if after each SP mission you get a count on each ranked unit you have? I agree that experience is useless on MP games. But it has its place on the SP campaign.

> PS.: I'm defending keeping experience on the SP campaigns and SP skirmishes, not games that "skilled MP players" play, not MP-only games. "Please read the thread before replying.".

No, it doesn't, because I already answered it in the fourth post. Or, to be more precise, I didn't, because I never said that experience would be useless in SP. I said it would be useless in MP.

Hence what I said earlier: You may have read that post, but you ignored it.

Here, let me reproduce it for you:

• You do realize experience is meaningless in multiplayer, right?

I underlined "in multiplayer" for you.

Oh, and, if your next question is "then why should experience be kept in singleplayer?", well, that's what the entire rest of the fourth post of this thread is about.

So now that I've given you solid proof that you have not in fact read and understood the fourth post of this thread, I repeat my earlier recommendation:

Please read the thread before replying.

[Zarel]

> And you said removing the experience thing will not incite suicide tactics as only the cheaper units will be lost. So basically you are saying "if you are strong, you live. if you are weak, you become a cannon fodder"... Uhmm... Not the best strategy imo...

That's not what I said. I have addressed this concern in the fourth post of this thread. Please read the thread before replying.

Okay, since you don't believe me, please point to exactly where in my post I say "removing the experience thing will not incite suicide tactics as only the cheaper units will be lost." i dare you.

> All units should lose their experience when they die. Or else, you wouldn't need repair bays (a simple repair turret would do, if not for the repair speed), starcraft tactics of rushing your enemy with whatever you have would become the main tactic, and the game's genre RTS would go from Real-Time Strategy to Real-Time Slaughter.

I have addressed this concern in the fourth post of this thread. Please read the thread before replying.

Okay, since you're too lazy to read my post, it's this part:

• People don't throw wave after wave of flamer cyborgs since they can't afford to (I hope you realize that saved experience doesn't mean the next unit is free). Except on high oil maps, in which they spam units regardless of whether or not experience is retained. How stupid can your logic be?
  
  And tactics involving sacrificing units are quite valid. All's fair in love and war, they say, and this is war, and surprise surprise, stuff gets destroyed in wars. Even your stuff. Ask a skilled MP player if he/she makes sure that none of his/her units die; I'm sure you'll find that the answer is "no". Heck, ask a skilled MP player if he/she even pays attention to experience, and expect the same answer.
  
  And it's not like people will stop suicidal tactics in campaign just because they don't want to lose experienced units. They'll just micromanage so that it's the inexperienced units that die. Nothing but micro, and I wouldn't mind doing away with that kind of micro.
  
  Though some kinds of micromanagement can be fun (hit-and-run lancers, for instance), others fall under the category of "pure frustration" (StarCraft I's selection limit, for instance), and we, as game designers, try to minimize those of the second category, which I argue is what keeping your inexperienced units as bait for enemy weapons is (not to mention that Warzone's pathing does not make individual-movement-based micro very fun at all).
  
  And what if people just use fewer sacrifice tactics because the micro is so difficult with the pathing bugs and high APM required to make sure it's not an experienced unit that dies? Do you really want Warzone to be less strategic and more frustrating just because you don't want units to get killed in a war game?
  
  Most games take away the frustration of losing experienced units one of these ways:
  
  1. Making it easy to get the experienced unit back (e.g. Pokemon; Warcraft III)
  2. Making it easy to get to max level (e.g. Red Alert 3, Wesnoth)
  3. Making it hard to die (e.g. Final Fantasy, nearly every RPG in existence)
  4. Not having an experience system at all (e.g. StarCraft)
  
  I challenge you to name a single game other than Warzone that doesn't fall into one of these four categories. You can't? So why should Warzone be more frustrating than any other game in this aspect?

> I understand experience IS useless on multiplayer games, as as soon as the match is over, nothing matters. But when playing the SP campaigns, having your best warriors keep their experience and bonuses is something players look after (otherwise, why would the debriefing screen show how many ranked units you end the mission with).

I have addressed this concern in the fourth post of this thread. Please read the thread before replying.

Okay, since you're too lazy to read my post, it's this part:

• People don't throw wave after wave of flamer cyborgs since they can't afford to (I hope you realize that saved experience doesn't mean the next unit is free). Except on high oil maps, in which they spam units regardless of whether or not experience is retained. How stupid can your logic be?
  
  And tactics involving sacrificing units are quite valid. All's fair in love and war, they say, and this is war, and surprise surprise, stuff gets destroyed in wars. Even your stuff. Ask a skilled MP player if he/she makes sure that none of his/her units die; I'm sure you'll find that the answer is "no". Heck, ask a skilled MP player if he/she even pays attention to experience, and expect the same answer.
  
  And it's not like people will stop suicidal tactics in campaign just because they don't want to lose experienced units. They'll just micromanage so that it's the inexperienced units that die. Nothing but micro, and I wouldn't mind doing away with that kind of micro.
  
  Though some kinds of micromanagement can be fun (hit-and-run lancers, for instance), others fall under the category of "pure frustration" (StarCraft I's selection limit, for instance), and we, as game designers, try to minimize those of the second category, which I argue is what keeping your inexperienced units as bait for enemy weapons is (not to mention that Warzone's pathing does not make individual-movement-based micro very fun at all).
  
  And what if people just use fewer sacrifice tactics because the micro is so difficult with the pathing bugs and high APM required to make sure it's not an experienced unit that dies? Do you really want Warzone to be less strategic and more frustrating just because you don't want units to get killed in a war game?
  
  Most games take away the frustration of losing experienced units one of these ways:
  
  1. Making it easy to get the experienced unit back (e.g. Pokemon; Warcraft III)
  2. Making it easy to get to max level (e.g. Red Alert 3, Wesnoth)
  3. Making it hard to die (e.g. Final Fantasy, nearly every RPG in existence)
  4. Not having an experience system at all (e.g. StarCraft)
  
  I challenge you to name a single game other than Warzone that doesn't fall into one of these four categories. You can't? So why should Warzone be more frustrating than any other game in this aspect?

[cybersphinx]

3. Making it hard to die (e.g. Final Fantasy, nearly every RPG in existence)

That is actually a thing in Final Fantasy style games that frustrates me (though maybe influenced by being able to save anytime thanks to emulators). Sure, you can go on, but when you can basically finish any normal battle by clicking "auto" (or hitting "attack" again and again) without having to do any thinking, battles become just useless intermissions that eat your time.