Realism or Balance?

[Avaris]

Yes, one time I was chatting with George Lucas about how unbalanced starwars was....and he made a move towards me but fell forward onto his belly.

 

(Actually, i didn't meet him but he was flirting with my girlfriend once at a party in SF. Very true story)

[Delphi-PG]

Ahh my favorite debate! Having been an RTS developer for 10 years, I vote for balance.

 

Realism bites, that's what military sims are for.

[Avaris]

PG, I think everybody wants "balance". But what is in debate is "what does balance mean?". What does it mean to you?

[Guest]

it means: let's give the rebels a fighting chance by overpowereing them

[Delphi-PG]

it means: let's give the rebels a fighting chance by overpowereing them

 

Heh! Whens the last time you played the Rebels? Videos only capture sides in their finest hour.

[Guest]

it means: let's give the rebels a fighting chance by overpowereing them

 

Heh! Whens the last time you played the Rebels? [/i]

 

on what?

[Delphi-PG]

You implied they are overpowered, I just assumed you got this info from playing the game already.

[Guest]

just by looking at the vids, trailers, and screens one could infer that the rebels seem to be a bit.... overpowered

[vasuba_pff]

You implied they are overpowered, I just assumed you got this info from playing the game already.

 

haha good job.

 

As far as realism or balanced im one for realism. Even in rebellion the Imperials Ships were vastly superior in most cases but The rebellion had a fighting chance. It just requires more skill to play as the underdogs.

 

Something that always upset me with SWG. Players who were rebel had no clue as to what it meant to be a rebel and demanded all equality and it ruined any form of a civil war.

[Guest JediIgor]

Balance is great, but so far I'm seeing a demand for realism .

[Avaris]

Well Igor, we may be the people who will be buying the game, but our majority oppinions will not mean anything in the end. I want this game to do well as much as anybody, and I question the "market survey" results if thye suggested that making the game unrealistically balanced was best for the games success. However, we have no experience in this field and will likey be proven wrong.

 

But my unproffesional, avid gamer, opinion is: Balance bites. Its what teeter totters in kindergardens are for

 

Starwars is an underdog story and not technologically balanced. It is the mighty empire vs the impassioned patriotic rabble fighting against the odds for what is right. And untimetely one of the elements that makes the story so appealing and emotional, and why we all came to love it. Granted, this is a game and gamplay is important. But it is a starwars game not a game that happens to be starwars. And there is no reason I can think of that it can't be both "true to starwars" and "fun to play from both sides" without "unrealistic balancing".

[Cobra848]

My thoughts

I am all about balance. I have had games become annoying to play and not fun to play any more. Balance should almost always be considered before realism. I love realism, but for games there needs to be balance.

 

Unbalance

First off, what makes something unbalance. Obvously something that can be considered unstoppable or unable to counter it. Before I call something unbalance, I try to figure a way out to counter or not let the enemy use that tactic or move. If there is no way to stop besides telling the person not to use it, then it could be considered unbalance. Like the tank rush in Red Alert 2 or M203s in shooter games.

 

Other Genres

So many shooters put the M203 or Grenade launchers in their games and make the game less fun. For example Socom 2 & 3, also BattleField 2. They didn't need it for multiplayer, but they still put it in there. I know one could just say deal with it or you can do it too, but that is not what shooters are all about. shooters should not be about M203 fest. It is also how people use the M203, too. They use it as a primary weapon instead of a backup, window clearing, or anti light vehicle. I know this they are not RTS games but it is still about realism and balance.

 

Mirror Balance

Now I disagree with mirror balance, where each sides units are the same but look different and shoot different colors. There should always be some difference in the sides in how they fight, plan attacks, and what they use to do it with. But still being balance.

 

Realism

In an RTS like C&C and EaW need to be fun. Realism helps, but may not make the game fun. Realism is good for support of balance.

 

 

 

In the end we all want some kind of balance. No one wants a game where one side will almost always win unless thats side has a newbie and the other side has an expert.

[Avaris]

Well I definetly don't think any issue will have 100% support. And when designing a game, it should be about what "most people want" which translates into "what will be most successful" for the publisher as well. Obviously, based on the number of failed games, there is sometimes a disconnect between gamers and publishers.

 

This balance debate comes up again and again, and I really think its just an arguement about definition.

 

Everbody wants a game that has an equal change of victory for both sides. In that sense, we all want balance. What I think this debate is suppose to be about is: Should the empire have stronger ships and the rebels have more "quality" heros and better intelligence?

 

Unit wise, they are not "cookie cutter" balanced. But odds of winning is equal and balanced.

[Naja]

I don't see why people don't understand that in the Star Wars universe, balance and realism are not mutually exclusive.

 

The Empire is all brawn. With numerical and resource advantages, they can crush whomever they intend to...so long as they can locate and pin it down.

 

The Alliance is all guile and deception. While not nearly as strong as the Empire, the structure of their economy and armed forces allows them to gradually sabotage and erode at the Empire's war-economy, paralyzing it...so long as they can survive long enough.

 

Like I said earlier - classic Sun Tzu. It was said best in a very early interview, actually. EaW will be a Cat and Mouse type of strategy, except the cat is blind, and the mouse has sharp teeth.

[Gen.Vader]

i favor realism

 

thats how i can actually feel the nervousness and anticipation and edge of my seat action when i send my last xwing against the death star, hoping it would crush our most hated foe.

 

realism puts me in the commanders seat and makes me relate to my men, my ships, and my ideals more than balance ever has

[Junker]

Balance

All RTS made for a good balance and not for realism.

I want to have fun in my games online and want to be able to take off large capital ships with some small ones. Especially I have only the small ones left.

[Grey Jedi]

I prefer a mixture of the two although i will favor realism with much higher priority.

[Cain]

Ahh my favorite debate! Having been an RTS developer for 10 years, I vote for balance.

 

Realism bites, that's what military sims are for.

 

 

Look at the Poll - Vox populi - Vox Dei !

 

Anyway at least the illusion of realism should be maintained and felt strongly. There are many of ways to balance the factions without removing the realism from the units. EAW should be different from other RTSs since you have tones of management options to help a faction.

 

Btw inserting so many new unit designs in EAW will backfire. I know that the LEC was bored with the old ships but they tend to forget that the rest of the people are not. The new additions should be a few and very well integrated.

 

You have no clue how much bad feedback the SW Rebellion new ships got from the community when that game was released. They all have faded in history. I afraid that this fate will haunt many of the new EAW ship designs.

 

Balancing a game based on reality is much harder but can be done if a game is not a simple "1 vs. 1 lets kill each other".

[Teradyn_pff]

You implied they are overpowered, I just assumed you got this info from playing the game already.

 

Well, in Beowulf's defense, he is working off of the only information that we have so far. The videos like the one where the Rebel Plex soldiers and the AT-STs are shooting back and forth are the types of things that make the game seem slanted toward the Rebels in alot of peoples' eyes. For me, I worry about the feel of the game in general. If the AT-STs shots were missing the troops completely that is one thing, but if you have someone standing there with an explosive device in their hands getting hit directly, multiple times, by a blast that would split a tree trunk in half (remember the ground battle on the forest moon of Endor?) and not dying to the first shot, let alone multiple, it doesn't look good, it looks downright bargain bin cruddy.

 

I think maybe we now know why it is like that... having units die realistically (and in keeping with the movies, the primary source of canon) would use up the piddly pop cap we have. Of course this explanation doesn't account for the apparent ease with which the Rebels can take down an Imperial Star Destroyer. Since the cap is 20 for space (and we still don't know if an ISD uses up 1 or more of that cap) you would think that the ships would last longer, but hey... that could an incorrect perception as well because all we have to go on are clips that are supposed to be pretty short which makes watching an ISD go from fresh in the battle to destroyed impossible. This is at least what I hope is causing the perception and that the perception isnt accurate.

 

It seems to me that the main problem is not the "true realism" vs "all about balance" debate. I think what we want here, and what the people who don't know about this game will be expecting, is that it feels like Star Wars when you play EAW, not AOEIII in space with Star Wars units. The standing there getting pummelled by an AT-ST and surviving a rediculous amount of hits, feels like older RTSs, not one that is supposed to be ground-breaking and new.

 

Once we get the Demo we should be able to make more informed statments, views and opinions about the game, but until then, we only have the videos and screenshots to go off of.

[Sigma]

the combination of Realism and Balence is now actually starting to sound good to me since I remember the old AOE games where 1 infantry can take down 2 or maybe 3 calvery units.

[Avaris]

"where 1 infantry can take down 2 or maybe 3 calvery units." that is not balanced or real.

 

Also, as far as AT-ST goes, we have no idea how such things are have been finalized (or even where they are at this stage). So, it doesn't seem prudent to make arguements about that.

[Stellar_Magic]

Hell balancing and using total realism is possible, just look at really realistic games like the Close Combat Series (Specifically Close Combat III). Sure you could get a Tiger or King Tiger, but you could also buy three or four Pz IV's for the same price.

 

Or... Look at warlords. That mod is surprisingly well balanced, and do you know why, Eville Jedi made the price directly proportional to the abilities of the ships (Hell, he even had a formula for doing it).

 

RTS's in general have failed to grasp the impact of realism on game play. It makes the games much more appealing in most cases, after all the age group that plays RTS's is growing broder, and sooner or later RTS's will have to start dealing with their older customers whom enjoy the additional complexity and difficulty of a realistic game.

[Teradyn_pff]

"where 1 infantry can take down 2 or maybe 3 calvery units." that is not balanced or real.

 

Also, as far as AT-ST goes, we have no idea how such things are have been finalized (or even where they are at this stage). So, it doesn't seem prudent to make arguements about that.

 

Going by that argument no one should post until we get the demo or the game. We can only discuss based on the information we have, and we will do so.

[Cobra848]

From some people'a responses, it sounds like they forget there can be both.

But you can't have all or nothing kind of thing going.

 

For multiplayer, balance is one of the most important gameplay element for making the multiplayer great. Since there are only two sides in EaW, balance becomes more important. Both ssides should have somewhat of an equal chance to win. NOW I am NOT saying both side should mirror each other, or be "cookie cutters," or what ever you want to call it. I am saying each side should be able to use their own tactics, attack plans, or what ever their side has to win.

 

For multiplayer.

It should be the one who had better tactics, use and management of their army/resorces, stratgies, and countering their enemies should become the winner. It should NOT be the one who is on the unbalance team should win.

 

You may have notice the two above could both fall under realism in EaW. The balance one being like C&C: Dawn, and the unbalance one being like the Empire's power.

 

Go back to my previous post on what balance can be.

Also most gamers don't know the difference between what they want and what they need.

[Ishmael-PG]

...Or do you want a nice balancing feature that completely ruins the fun...

Hmm... some wordsmithing going on there...

 

You seem to be implying that balance is a 1 for 1 relationship (i.e. a tie fighter is as powerful as an X-wing), which isn't the case.

 

All balance will do is ensure that given a good mix of ships on both sides, the fight is "fair" in that both players have a chance of winning. The strategies employed and the ships involved to achieve a win could be radically different on either side, but the "balance" is that you can win if you play well, given a good mix of forces to work with.

 

Can the Rebels or Empire always have a chance at winning any encounter? No. If you bring knives to a gunfight, you will typically lose. Same in EaW. If you have nothing but X-wings, and I have nothing but Tartan cruisers (which excel at destroying X-wings) unless I suffer a severe heart-attack while playing, you should retreat and get together a better force, because you will easily lose that battle. EaW is different in that you can run if you're not in a good position -- you don't have to throw forces away if you attacked with too little.

 

As for taking about "realism = SW lore", then we're not far from realism at all. The Rebellion ships & vehicles, aside from the X-wing, which is really the most advanced fighter for the time, are scrappy. They can't win in a toe-to-toe fight with the Empire, and have to be "creative" in how they win battles. Balance provides them the avenues to be creative and win.

 

As Delphi said, the videos show the sides at their best. You can be assured that you can't just throw ships of the same size at each other in EaW and expect a tie.