The Protectors Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


A place to discuss about The Protectors mod for Warlords Battlecry 3. Visit http://the-protectors.webs.com for more info.
 
HomeSearchRegisterLog in

 

 About the new Army Limit

Go down 
2 posters
AuthorMessage
Schadenfroh81
Squire
Squire
Schadenfroh81

Posts : 8
Join date : 2020-01-26

About the new Army Limit Empty
PostSubject: About the new Army Limit   About the new Army Limit I_icon_minitimeSun Jan 26, 2020 1:14 pm

TL;DR: Remove it. Or keep it at least optional.

Reasons why:

Because...
-... its a huge change which breaks the game for a lot of people like me who liked WBC especially for its large battles. So you're cutting your playerbase by removing all the players who loved swarming.
Just imagine that it would be good for the balance to remove spellcasting. Even if that was the case, a lot of people who loved spells would loose interest in your mod as a result.

-...It would break Games against the ai which builds huge bases, because it has increased income. So this ais would become unbeatable or at least very annoying to play against.

-...It would even encourage players to build bases like the ai with lots of redundancy and hundreds of towers, because you need some defence while attacking. So games would be much longer, and much less fun.

-...We already have a unit limit. Its limited by the amount of buildings you have. From all the strategies, swarming is one possible way to play, why remove that?

-... you need huge amounts of xp to level, which won't happen at all if there are always only a handful of troops skirmishing each other.

-...WBC isn't an esports type of game like SC2 or WC3. it can never be as balanced & popular enough to be one, so why would you try to please young and competitive players when your fanbase consists of fans of the old kind of gaming?
(Explanation: In esports games, its all about APM, and optimally micromanaging your few troops as good as possible, while old games are more about epic and fun battles.)

-...practically every new game annoys its users with a unit limt, secretly just because the hardware couldn't handle hundreds or thousands of units so older games should be a save haven from those limits at least.

Isewein likes this post

Back to top Go down
Joe the Bartender
Keeper of Balance
Keeper of Balance
Joe the Bartender

Posts : 495
Join date : 2014-08-20
Location : The Candlekeep Inn

About the new Army Limit Empty
PostSubject: Re: About the new Army Limit   About the new Army Limit I_icon_minitimeTue Jan 28, 2020 9:00 am

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
TL;DR: Remove it. Or keep it at least optional.
It is intended but it's temporary. At some point it will become a slider (that means that scenario data will need to be updated again).

Schadenfroh81 wrote:

-... its a huge change which breaks the game for a lot of people like me who liked WBC especially for its large battles. So you're cutting your playerbase by removing all the players who loved swarming.
When a game is broken, it usually means there's a critical bug, glitch or crash or that there's an extreme oversight in the balance that makes the game unplayable. A lower army limit is none of those things. The game can be played as intended and it's subjective as to what a large battle is. For some people, 100 units could be a large battle. You can't presume to be or speak for numerous hypothetical people who feel that the game is unplayable due to a lower army limit. I'm not advocating a 100 army limit by any means and there are people who don't like it, but there aren't numerous people who refuse to play the game because of it.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:

Just imagine that it would be good for the balance to remove spellcasting. Even if that was the case, a lot of people who loved spells would loose interest in your mod as a result.
A lower army limit is completely different to the removal of one of the core features of the game.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:

-...It would break Games against the ai which builds huge bases, because it has increased income. So this ais would become unbeatable or at least very annoying to play against.
They are meant to be hard. In addition, there are flaws in other parts of the game which make long drawn-out battles frequent (such as battles being indecisive or abusive mechanics or flaws in the strategic systems of the game). The army limit isn't the culprit.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:

-...It would even encourage players to build bases like the ai with lots of redundancy and hundreds of towers, because you need some defence while attacking. So games would be much longer, and much less fun.
This is a problem, but it's not just the army limit in this particular case. It's more that buildings are cheap, tough and have abusive repair abilities and there can be too much income, even on pre-made maps (because the more players there are, the more starting mines there are and on maps with a lot of players, income can quickly become a non-factor). Even with a higher army limit, this case can still happen. Army limit merely changes the threshold at which income can exceed expenditure.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:

-...We already have a unit limit. Its limited by the amount of buildings you have. From all the strategies, swarming is one possible way to play, why remove that?
Hypothetically, buildings are unlimited. They are only limited by the amount of available space on the map. Swarming hasn't exactly been removed, rather it's been changed somewhat. Only certain races can swarm, such as the Swarm themselves. In their case, they can swarm via their RSB and through upgraded Hives which spawn units faster.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:

-... you need huge amounts of xp to level, which won't happen at all if there are always only a handful of troops skirmishing each other.
The problem is the high amount of XP required to level up. This has been brought up multiple times in internal development by different developers. It doesn't have much to do with the army limit. Instead, it's because hero XP requirements were massively increased in the latest version.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:

-...WBC isn't an esports type of game like SC2 or WC3.
Warlords Battlecry might not be, but that doesn't mean that the Protectors isn't.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
it can never be as balanced & popular enough to be one
That's not an argument. Warlords Battlecry is flawed but that doesn't mean the Protectors has to be flawed as well.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
so why would you try to please young and competitive players
Youth and competitiveness are not mutually inclusive. There are old, competitive players as well.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
when your fanbase consists of fans of the old kind of gaming?
That's incorrect. There are some young players and in fact, there are multiple players who don't want to play because they don't like parts of the game and are waiting for the game to become better than it currently is. Plenty of people, even those who like the game, don't like some of its base mechanics or systems.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
(Explanation: In esports games, its all about APM, and optimally micromanaging your few troops as good as possible
The Protectors doesn't need to be about micro to be popular.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
while old games are more about epic and fun battles.)
That's not true at all. That's the case for Warlords Battlecry, but not for games like Battle Realms or even Total Annihilation, where balance was a factor of the game. Heck, Warcraft 3 is older than Warlords Battlecry 3.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
-...practically every new game annoys its users with a unit limt
That's an incredibly broad and incorrect statement. There are games which are widely praised regardless of the unit limit.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
secretly just because the hardware couldn't handle hundreds or thousands of units
Some of them perhaps, but not others. Some games opted for less units so armies could be easier to manage.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
so older games should be a save haven from those limits at least.
They aren't and in the case of Warlords Battlecry, that's not how its engine works. Large numbers of units can cause slowdown, issues with the pathfinding and in extreme cases, can even crash the game. We are trying to fix this so the game can handle larger numbers of units.

For more information or for more detailed answers, take a look at this article:  https://www.moddb.com/games/the-protectors/features/the-current-state-of-the-protectors
Back to top Go down
http://etheria.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Joe_the_Bartender
Schadenfroh81
Squire
Squire
Schadenfroh81

Posts : 8
Join date : 2020-01-26

About the new Army Limit Empty
PostSubject: Re: About the new Army Limit   About the new Army Limit I_icon_minitimeThu Jan 30, 2020 3:02 pm

I can't prove it exactly since your answer is polite, but i at least have a feeling that you took my suggestion about this game a bit personal, didn't you? (if not, then thats a good thing!)

Of course i could now also split your whole argument into single sentences, trying to prove them all wrong all by themselves like you did here, but what's the point?
If there is a topic space about suggestions, then i think its okay to post something i would suggest. Of course i like WBC and this mod very much, else i wouldn't take the time to write here.
Its okay on the other hand if you don't agree.

Let me just quickly reply to the most important points here:

"When a game is broken, it usually means there's a critical bug, glitch or crash or that there's an extreme oversight in the balance that makes the game unplayable. A lower army limit is none of those things." ->

You took that statement too literal. Of course, it is playable. If admin, for whatever reasons, decided to completely remove the ability to upgrade the keep, the game would also be playable, but people who liked high tech warfare would not enjoy it any longer. And for sure there would also be some individuals who liked it.

Same is for swarming, you can't argue with that.
If a person does like to swarm his opponents, and you remove this ability, then he will most propably no longer like the game because you removed one of the features he did enjoy the most.

"[Swarming Ability of certain races]"
You can build a lot of buildings with every race, some have a dedicated 'farm' building to do it better, but others just can build twice the amount of normal buildings, thats what i usually do. Pointing out the special ability of the race 'the swarm' which allows you to swarm for a few minutes once a game is in no way a good compensation to beeing able to swarm during your whole game.

"[Esports]"
If the protectors become a part of the esports scene, then simply including the mentioned slider would be more than enough for making tournaments possible.
I also played total annihilation, as well as spring, and i can say that especially this game is a wonderful example, because you were able to rush your opponent if you wanted, but you were also able to turtle, and overrun them later with thousands of units after your construction lineup was finished.

"[older and newer games]"
Of course newer games are widely praised, and from the perspective of a younger gamer who likes this kind of games, this is for sure a good thing.
For older people like ME on the other hand, who grow up with games like total annihilation, this is a bad thing.
Yes, of course there are also older people, who think like the younger people i mentioned here. And vice versa, there are also younger people propably, who prefer the old style of rts games.
-> Speaking about a group wouldn't be possible at all if you had to consider every single individual in it, so for the sake of readability, i simplify things here. And yes, i did not study that. That's simply what i learned when i spoke to gamers of other games.
Seemingly, a lot of people simply like what they grew up with.

Hope i could explain my point of view a little better now. Although i can speak english, its really hard for me to do arguments in other languages because i'm missing so many words.
Reading my statements again, i can agree with you that i did a bit speculations about what other gamers might think, simply because i don't think i'm such a special unicorn. So if i hate army limits, then there must be others who also don't like it, else any game would have them.

If we get this slider in a future version, and the highest point in this slider is 1k or limitless, then all is good for me Smile

Isewein likes this post

Back to top Go down
Joe the Bartender
Keeper of Balance
Keeper of Balance
Joe the Bartender

Posts : 495
Join date : 2014-08-20
Location : The Candlekeep Inn

About the new Army Limit Empty
PostSubject: Re: About the new Army Limit   About the new Army Limit I_icon_minitimeFri Jan 31, 2020 5:53 am

To an extent, I did take it personally and I apologise. The reason why is because there are times when people will use anything as evidence and try to obfuscate the truth, thereby resulting in negative development. That's why I felt obligated to answer even though the topic doesn't really matter.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
Of course i could now also split your whole argument into single sentences, trying to prove them all wrong all by themselves like you did here, but what's the point?
I tend to use quotes to help explain myself and give my arguments better direction. 'Trying' is not true within the context of specific reasons which are explicitly incorrect (the last two paragraphs). Some of the other points tend to lack understanding in certain areas as well.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
You took that statement too literal.
In the English language, statements are literal unless the writer informs otherwise.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
If admin, for whatever reasons, decided to completely remove the ability to upgrade the keep, the game would also be playable, but people who liked high tech warfare would not enjoy it any longer. And for sure there would also be some individuals who liked it.
My point was that higher army limits are not an intrinsic feature of the Protectors unlike basic unit abilities and technology trees.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
Same is for swarming, you can't argue with that.
If a person does like to swarm his opponents, and you remove this ability, then he will most propably no longer like the game because you removed one of the features he did enjoy the most.
True, I agree. Someone who likes having more than 100 units won't like TPC as much because of the cap. My arguments weren't made against the concept of a higher unit cap, they were made against your prior arguments and the way you wrote them.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
Pointing out the special ability of the race 'the swarm' which allows you to swarm for a few minutes once a game is in no way a good compensation to beeing able to swarm during your whole game.
This is a much better argument than the ones you made previously. Races which are designed to be swarm races should have a consistent way to have a higher unit cap than other races or even breach the unit cap if there are preset unit caps (via the slider, in future).

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
"[Esports]"...
My reply regarding Battle Realms, Total Annihilation or Warcraft 3 wasn't about the unit limit, it was about balance and age not being mutually exclusive. Balance isn't a factor in Warlords Battlecry, but it is a factor in other old games.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
"[older and newer games]"
Of course newer games are widely praised, and from the perspective of a younger gamer who likes this kind of games, this is for sure a good thing.
For older people like ME on the other hand, who grow up with games like total annihilation, this is a bad thing.
Yes, of course there are also older people, who think like the younger people i mentioned here. And vice versa, there are also younger people propably, who prefer the old style of rts games.
Exactly. People of any age can enjoy lower unit limits or higher unit limits and both new and old games have varying limits. The age of people or video games isn't relevant.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
-> Speaking about a group wouldn't be possible at all if you had to consider every single individual in it, so for the sake of readability, i simplify things here. And yes, i did not study that. That's simply what i learned when i spoke to gamers of other games.
Of course you can speak about a group. You can't however make presumptuous statements with no factual basis. It's not simplification, it's changing the context and intent of the words so that they're literal instead of opinionated.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
If we get this slider in a future version, and the highest point in this slider is 1k or limitless, then all is good for me Smile
I suspect it will be higher than vanilla (like 300), but it probably won't be anywhere near 1k.
Back to top Go down
http://etheria.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Joe_the_Bartender
Schadenfroh81
Squire
Squire
Schadenfroh81

Posts : 8
Join date : 2020-01-26

About the new Army Limit Empty
PostSubject: Re: About the new Army Limit   About the new Army Limit I_icon_minitimeFri Jan 31, 2020 3:23 pm

Joe the Bartender wrote:
To an extent, I did take it personally and I apologise. The reason why is because there are times when people will use anything as evidence and try to obfuscate the truth, thereby resulting in negative development. That's why I felt obligated to answer even though the topic doesn't really matter.

Thats a very interesting point, and one i never even considered. Like, on the gamers perspective, you throw in whatever comes into your mind. You even do it with best intentions. You say what you think is best, but if it isn't? Sure, right now a lot of examples where that went wrong come into my mind. Thanks for the enlightment here Smile

And you are right again. To be honest, if i make a request, then i want something first, and after wanting it, i realize that i need arguments, so i do my best to find those which are relevant for the biggest group of people, knowing the hurting thruth that the whishes of a single player don't matter at all.

Joe the Bartender wrote:
In the English language, statements are literal unless the writer informs otherwise.
Could you give some details here? I'm really curious, because in my language - german - this is really not the case, despite the fact that we are known for beeing very direct.
Thats totally off topic, but could be really helpful for future conversations with English persons.

Joe the Bartender wrote:
I suspect it will be higher than vanilla (like 300), but it probably won't be anywhere near 1k.

I really don't see a good reason for that. I mean in a highly customizable game, why would you limit it? It wouldn't hurt at all to keep it between 1 and 9999. This would allow anybody to play the game the way he likes. (I like exaggerated examples. ofc "1" would make little sense)

About groups of players: (i try to make my arguments better here:)
1.) We can assume that the vast majority of Protectorsplayers have played WBC and liked it a lot, because why would you actively search for mods for an old game which you did not like at all?
2.) In this group, we can further divide the people into persons who liked one special thing about WBC, like for example the rts-rpg hybrid. Maybe the amount of different factions. The artwork? And of course, some will have liked the ability to swarm.
3.) If you remove any feature from the original game, you also remove some of your playerbase, maybe just one or two persons, maybe a lot more - you can't know before you try it.
If you, on the other hand, leave bad concepts the way they are in order to avoid that, you might loose people because the game doesn't gets better. So the only real way to solve this and loose nobody is by making the game more customizable - and leave good default values for the kind of people who doesn't care and just wanna play the game the intended way.

Best example here is "don't starve". It has so many different features, but if you want, you can turn of every single of them there. You don't like a particular boss? Okay, just uncheck him. You like challenges? Increase his spawn chances instead.

So everyone is pleased because he can play the game he likes just the way he likes.
Back to top Go down
Joe the Bartender
Keeper of Balance
Keeper of Balance
Joe the Bartender

Posts : 495
Join date : 2014-08-20
Location : The Candlekeep Inn

About the new Army Limit Empty
PostSubject: Re: About the new Army Limit   About the new Army Limit I_icon_minitimeSat Feb 01, 2020 4:00 am

Schadenfroh81 wrote:

Could you give some details here? I'm really curious, because in my language - german - this is really not the case, despite the fact that we are known for beeing very direct.
Thats totally off topic, but could be really helpful for future conversations with English persons.
I can give some examples:

  • This game is good.
  • I think this game is good.
  • In my opinion, this game is good.

All three of these examples are statements. The first is a factual statement, as in the game is literally good and cannot be considered otherwise. The other two are subjective, opinionated statements where the writer personally considers the game to be good but others may not. Factual statements are inarguable, whereas opinions are arguable.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
I really don't see a good reason for that. I mean in a highly customizable game, why would you limit it? It wouldn't hurt at all to keep it between 1 and 9999. This would allow anybody to play the game the way he likes. (I like exaggerated examples. ofc "1" would make little sense)
300 is more than the original game. I'm not sure how this cap will be reached without spreading a base across an entire map. How are you planning to reach 1000? 300 unit limit requires 135 buildings excluding a level 5 keep and 1000 unit limit requires 485 buildings excluding a level 5 keep. Are you saying that the slider should adjust the unit limit bonuses given from buildings?

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
1.) We can assume that the vast majority of Protectorsplayers have played WBC and liked it a lot, because why would you actively search for mods for an old game which you did not like at all?
This would make an interesting poll. It's definitely true for the unit limit. Outside the context of the unit limit though, this is a difficult one. It is likely that most players have played Warlords Battlecry and most of them liked at least something about it. On the other hand, there are people who didn't like Warlords Battlecry or didn't like parts of it and wanted something more or something better as well. The article addresses this in more detail.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
2.) In this group, we can further divide the people into persons who liked one special thing about WBC, like for example the rts-rpg hybrid. Maybe the amount of different factions. The artwork? And of course, some will have liked the ability to swarm.
There are definitely players who liked having a higher unit limit than 100. We can accommodate them fine via the slider, which is good. With other parts of the game, it's not so easy.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
3.) If you remove any feature from the original game, you also remove some of your playerbase, maybe just one or two persons, maybe a lot more - you can't know before you try it.
True, I agree. It depends on what is considered a feature as well. However, ultimately, I think the divide in players is inevitable. That's not necessarily a bad thing though, because new players and old players who were disappointed with the Warlords Battlecry series could expand the player base. Some players want the Protectors to be exactly like Warlords Battlecry in every respect, but there are some players who want it to be less flawed/more modern/better designed as well. Customization can only go so far, hence the inevitable divide.

Schadenfroh81 wrote:
If you, on the other hand, leave bad concepts the way they are in order to avoid that, you might loose people because the game doesn't gets better. So the only real way to solve this and loose nobody is by making the game more customizable - and leave good default values for the kind of people who doesn't care and just wanna play the game the intended way.
I agree that it's good to cater to all players by making the game more customizable. This is definitely a good philosophy, but sadly it can't apply to specific parts of the game. For example: for the unit balance, resource functionality, cost scheme, heroes and spells, it's borderline-impossible to cater to all players. The workload required would be so immense that it would simply be better to make a new mod. All I can say is that we'll try to keep the things which made Warlords Battlecry good. Like the article says: 'Core elements of the WBC series which are entertaining and well-designed will be kept and preserved in a way which doesn’t undermine the functionality, balance or gameplay of TPC.'
Back to top Go down
http://etheria.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Joe_the_Bartender
Sponsored content




About the new Army Limit Empty
PostSubject: Re: About the new Army Limit   About the new Army Limit I_icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
About the new Army Limit
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Photobucket Problems
» Limited strength of chess engines ...
» The Conglomerate of Hithe
» army ts macau

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Protectors Forum :: Suggestions-
Jump to: