Username:    Password:    Remember Me?         

Reverie World Studios Forums - View Single Post - Mounting
Thread: Mounting
View Single Post
  #15  
Old 08-21-2007, 12:09 PM
Darvin's Avatar
Darvin Darvin is offline
Reverie Super Moderator - RTSCommunity.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 666
Darvin is just really niceDarvin is just really niceDarvin is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by olauwers View Post
Well, if you're not going to give each race advantages and disadvantages, by giving them better types of cavalry and such, what is the point in making several races? And yes, you might come at a disadvantage if your team doesn't have orcs, but isn't that kinda the point of games? Overcome your disadvantages and destroy your foes, even if you're in a tight spot?
You can still have advantages and disadvantages without making one unit stronger than the other. A crude example was in warcraft I that the human archer had more range, but the orcish spearthrower had more damage. It's not about "mine is better than your's", it's about "mine is different from your's". This should apply to mounts. No one will have the best mount, everyone will have a different set of advantages. Unicorn might be the fastest mount, wolf might have the best attack power, and so on. However, they will all have their own shortcomings. In this sense, we do have advantages and disadvantages, but not a hierarchy of races are concretely better or worse when it comes to mounts.

Quote:
it would be risk types, for expample:
Pikemen strong against cavalry, but weak against swordsman
archers strong against swordsman but weak against archers etc
I've always found this system to be boring. Better to have the following: archers beat all at a range, archers get beaten by all in melee. The idea being, if you can keep your enemy from closing the distance, archers win. If you can't, archers lose. This makes countering less about having the right unit types as it is about using them well.

Quote:
Well, i don't believe it would be unbalanced. I mean sure, if you've got men and orcs and the swordsmen mount the wolfbeasts well, what if the other team is Elves and Dragons? So they've got the strongest archers in the game mounting a giant flying beast?You can't do that, it doesn't mean it's unbalanced. It's about maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses.
If everyone has a "best" combo, and several weaknesses, the game *will* deteriorate into a boring cookie-cutter battle. I reject that races must have "better archers" or "weaker infantry" in order to be interesting. In fact, I'd argue the opposite; all unit types MUST be viable and strong for the race to be interesting. Each faction should be differentiated not by "strong cavalry, weak archers", but rather by "fast cavalry, long ranged archers, low hit points". It's a trade-off; they have advantages that no other race has in these fields, but also their unique disadvantages. This has a greater degree of depth and encourages more strategic variation.

Quote:
Yeah I mean you could still counter that with human archers on wolfbeasts or something. It just seems a little odd to me.
Counterable doesn't mean balanced. Sure, warg rush was counterable in BFME2, but *everyone* who played Isengard did it. It's NOT balanced because Isengard's weaknesses have locked them into a single way of playing.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
www.RTSCommunity.com
----------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote