Multiplayer: Competitive Ruleset

[yani]

Now that multiplayer is coming along nicely, I have some suggestions to make PvP games far more balanced.

Some changes would definitely change the game, but for a competitive RTS game (which I think the MP of DK falls under), balancing will become important to keep it fair and enjoyable in the long run. The current idea is to have a seperate ruleset that can be enabled/disabled in multiplayer games.

In this issue, I am suggesting gameplay changes that would be part of this competitive ruleset.

---

An important goal of balancing competitive gameplay is to widen the playfield and increase the skill ceiling.

In theory, there should not be one tactic that guarantees victory. Victory should be the result of succesfully executing multiple smaller tactics, being faster than the enemy, and having more knowledge of the game.

Luck based- and non visual gameplay should be reduced. Currently a player can focus on getting the best creatures from the creature pool. But there is no ingame visual about how the creature pool looks like. This means that players would need outside game knowledge about this functionality. This knowledge can decide who would win. So what we currently have is a method to win the game without even fighting the enemy keeper. This kind of destroys the actual gameplay.

---

Here's a list of changes I think would benefit multiplayer games:

• Creature pool

  • The current creature pool is a very game-breaking mechanic in competitive play
  • there should be no victory assuring rolls
  • I'm thinking that removing actual creature limits and changing them to percentages would be an improvement
    • the map that is played will define what creatures are part of that game
    • current creature limits can be converted to percentages without breaking any maps
  • very much open for discussion

• Fog of war

  • Instead of visible/non-visible there should be 3 types of visibility: visible, explored, non-explored
  • An area would need to be visible to see enemy minions
  • visible state would require either visible by own minions or it must be in your claimed dungeon (tiles or rooms)
  • An allied keeper would share visibility (their minions/tiles/rooms)
    • This could be an option when creating a game
  • Don't play area sounds (rooms, fights, slaps, etc..) on non-visible areas
  • Lightning should only be possible on claimed tiles/rooms
  • Portals should have their visiblity set to explored instead of visible (protects against imp drops on visible dirt)

• Delays and speed changes

  • a delay between dropping and picking up creatures
  • slower training
  • maybe a small speed delay on specific creature spells
  • maybe a delay on some Keeper spells

The suggested Fog of war implementation is based on Age of Empires. Which has a very competitive scene.

[Loobinex]

1) Fog of War I would understand, it would have huge impact and would be a huge feature I would do separately if done at all.

2) Why do you think having training be slower be good on multiplayer? Single player sessions can last longer than multiplayer sessions, if only due to the possibility to save and come back later, so why would you want it to be practically impossible to ever reach level 10 creatures?

3) Lightning on claimed rooms sounds logical in that it would disable just shooting down the sleeping units or mining imps of your enemies, but it would also make the defenders advantage even bigger. You already have traps on your own land and several other spells that only work on your own land and the ability to drop units smartly on your own land. I think if lightning should be balanced some other way, preferably in a way to give better counterplay.

4) What is your reasoning in 'percentages' for creatures, I do not understand why you want this or what you want exactly or which problem you would try to address. Unit limits, pools and availability are already map specific.

5) My idea to handle first for multiplayer balance, is to enable 'multiplayer packs', that work like the campaigns and single player map packs. These packs could then contain specific types of levels, gameplay modes and rule sets. Several of the things you ask can already be configured in rulesets.

[PieterVdc]

for lightning own or neutral would also be an option, get's rid of the kill units in their lair thing, but still alows you to kill imps claiming more ground

[yani]

2. Why do you think having training be slower be good on multiplayer? Single player sessions can last longer than multiplayer sessions, if only due to the possibility to save and come back later, so why would you want it to be practically impossible to ever reach level 10 creatures?

I currently have the feeling the differences in power between levels are very big. Right now the power from level 1 to 10 goes up in a curve. For a more fair multiplayer experience, I think it should go more in a straight line. This does not include skill unlocks as those are part of the gameplay.

Slower training was just an idea. In general MP should just get a big balancing change.

3. Lightning on claimed rooms sounds logical in that it would disable just shooting down the sleeping units or mining imps of your enemies, but it would also make the defenders advantage even bigger. You already have traps on your own land and several other spells that only work on your own land and the ability to drop units smartly on your own land. I think if lightning should be balanced some other way, preferably in a way to give better counterplay.

Oh, I didn't write the post fully linear. The lightning "nerf" would actually already be part of the Fog of War. If it's only possible on visible areas that would be fair. Should I edit the main post?

4. What is your reasoning in 'percentages' for creatures, I do not understand why you want this or what you want exactly or which problem you would try to address. Unit limits, pools and availability are already map specific.

5. My idea to handle first for multiplayer balance, is to enable 'multiplayer packs', that work like the campaigns and single player map packs. These packs could then contain specific types of levels, gameplay modes and rule sets. Several of the things you ask can already be configured in rulesets.

A competitive multiplayer pack might be the best way to go. So we can keep all the original map but also get a good PvP pack.

[Loobinex]

Skill grows linear, but training costs go up, so training is most efficient on the lowest levels.

[yani]

I think this issue could be better converted to something like this:

• Fog of Ware feature request -> with a map script command toggle, or a toggle in the lobby in multiplayer games, or both
• Multiplayer packs, with a PvP pack that tries to add more balance to the game
• Configurable "delay" options (creature pick up times, etc..) that can then be edited by such packs

That way minimal changes to the main game have to be made and PvP balancing can be handled separately from the codebase. I also think it would start to look more like "modding" than it being "packs".

[IntelOrca]

• An optional random map generator, keeps mutliplayer fresh imo and all players have equal knowledge of the map layout.
  • If heroes are placed, they should probably patrol, and not hunt dungeon hearts - otherwise the first player to accidentally dig to them is at a disadvantage.
• Fog of war, could be left as a toggle - but map scripts should be able to execute a command that sets the fog state of an area (visible, explored).
  • Should portals be hidden too by default (or controlled by map script)? Now that I think about it, a map can just set the ownership to the player so that locations of dungeon hearts are hidden.
• I don't know much about the creature pool yet, but what would make sense is for every player to have an equal and personal creature pool, but any creature that leaves the dungeon, or is sacked should return to a shared creature pool. Each creature pool should also have its own RNG seed which is identical to each player. Two players would only get the same creatures in the same order if they built the same rooms, of equal size in the same order.
• Creature drop is something that feels like it would need a lot of discussion and trial, right now it is too easy to save your creatures from death. Not a problem if the opponent is gradually breaking closer to your dungeon heart, but if not - it could make games last a very long time due to a prolongued stalemate.

[Loobinex]

I think the shared pool is a major thing in DK, and having a private pool would take away loads of value. Having to compete for limited creatures by building your dungeon a certain way is a good thing.

Say, do you mine out close gold first so mining goes faster, or do you quickly build rooms so you get the first pick of creatures. This is not an rts, this is a building game, and the game being decided in part by building a good dungeon is a good thing.

[yani]

@IntelOrca

An optional random map generator

The current multiplayer maps are definitely fair in terms of providing each player with the same resources. There are some fun "puzzle" ones too.

Creature drop is something that feels like it would need a lot of discussion and trial

Yes. The current mechanics allow some very weird gameplay. I think if a creature gets into a fight there should be a delay before you can pick it up.

@Loobinex

Having to compete for limited creatures by building your dungeon a certain way is a good thing.

Even though it might be fun in some scenarios, it makes it very unbalanced. You now need knowledge of said mechanics. Players who know about it will always have an advantage over players who don't. If the creature pool were visible in-game it would be fair to be kept as is. It's also way too luck based, and your luck negatively impacts the other players. If a creature pool was limited but personal, it would at least not impact others. I think the PvP experience will not be fun if competing over the creature pool becomes the core gameplay.

[IntelOrca]

The current multiplayer maps are definitely fair in terms of providing each player with the same resources. There are some fun "puzzle" ones too.

I didn't say they were't fair, or that they don't have a place. I think a random map generator would just also be good.

[Loobinex]

If you don't understand the mechanics that gives you a disadvantage compared to another player yes, that's no problem at all. Both players have the same chance for the pool, so nothing unbalanced there. We should not strive to be a poor mans RTS, but a competitive dungeon sim in multiplayer. If the enemy has all the mistresses and you want one too, you'd better capture it or snipe it off so you can attract it from the portal.

For multiplayer balance I would think it makes sense to reduce the base entrance force of units, so that players get more control over which units they are likely to get through building dungeons. So, the player with a huge torture room should get most the mistresses.

[IntelOrca]

If the enemy has all the mistresses and you want one too, you'd better capture it or snipe it off so you can attract it from the portal.

I think it the problem might be that there is an element of luck, the rng within the pool.

[z411]

I agree regarding visibility of allied's claimed tiles; being able to see how your ally is doing is key to an alliance. Also the computer assistance should not be available in competitive matches.

[yani]

I agree regarding visibility of allied's claimed tiles; being able to see how your ally is doing is key to an alliance.

I think a mutual alliance should also be more visible. Currently an alliance needs to be enabled by both players. Player 1 can not see if Player 2 has also set the alliance. Even if Player 1 has enabled an alliance, if Player did not enable it, the creatures of Player 2 will attack while the creatures of Player 1 will not.

I also think with a Fog of War implementation, removing the alliance should change the visibility from Visible to Explored. (And not try to change it to Not Visible)