KNight's Introduction to Unit Design

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by KNight, April 12, 2014.

  1. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    Hey guys, Uncle Mike here again and I wanted to talk about Unit design, I figure that it's something that doesn't really get "exposed" all that much and in a game with a heavy "simulation" focus like PA, SupCom and TA you have a what amounts to a lot more control and options for doings things with much finer grain control, especially without heavy emphasis on Armor/Weapon types! I've kinda been wanting to talk about it(and kinda have in snippets across many, MANY threads) but I've been kinda putting it off. I've got a fair amount of experience with this kind of thing, I've figured out quite a few units in SupCom for BlackOps and done lots of theory stuff for PA as it's something I always consider when making models.

    I will say no-one should consider this the 'optimal' or 'best' way to go about things just that it's how I go about things to achieve my vision.

    So first we should probably break things down a bit. This will be some basic explanations with examples being provided later on

    Unit High Concept
    This describes What you want the unit to do with as little detail as possible.

    Unit Type
    This is a small, but fairly significant piece of info because it puts into context where the unit is, how it's accessed and what kind of "Gameplay-Meta" it will have to operate in. In PA terms this covers things like is it a Bot or Tank, Plane or Gunship and whether it's Basic or Advanced.

    Unit Mechanics
    This is the What. These are specific, Non-Weapon, attributes about the unit that directly defines how it fulfills your High Concept. NOTE: This is separate from stats, a good 'high concept' should never be dependent on a specific balance.


    Now here is a bit of a Curve ball, the Unit's Weapon(s) could technically be done as part of the unit's mechanics but I think weapons have enough depth and are in theory completely interchangeable enough to deal with them separately in more Depth. In fact, we can go through all the same steps as units!

    Weapon High Concept
    This describes What you want the unit to do with as little detail as possible. Usually this is the same as the Unit's 'High Concept'.

    Weapon Type
    This is a small, but fairly significant piece of info because it puts into context where the weapon is compared to other weapons.

    Weapon Mechanics
    This is the How. These are specific attributes about the weapon that directly defines how it fulfills your High Concept. NOTE: This is separate from stats, a good 'high concept' should never be dependent on a specific balance.


    At this point you probably have some questions about specifics or edge cases that could crop up, but to help head off some of those right away lets use some of my prior units as examples and break them down to show you guys how it works!

    The Inferno[Supcom:FA]

    Unit High Concept;
    This Land Unit is effective against clusters of Land units.

    Unit Type;
    Tier 2, UEF, Tank

    Unit Mechanics;
    Fast, Death blast

    Weapon High Concept;
    This Weapon is effective against clusters of Land units.

    Weapon Type;
    Direct Fire

    Weapon Mechanics;
    Short Range, Area of Effect, High Rate of Fire, Damage over Time

    The Cougar[PA]

    Unit High Concept;
    This Land Unit is effective against individual and small groups of air units.

    Unit Type;
    Basic, Tank

    Unit Mechanics;
    N/A

    Weapon High Concept;
    This Weapon is effective against individual and small groups of air units.

    Weapon Type;
    Direct Fire

    Weapon Mechanics;
    High Rate of Fire, High Projectile Speed, High Tracking Speed

    Now obviously this mostly just gives an example of the end result but we can note some interesting things already. for example, on the Inferno, the Death Blast seems awkward and out of place until you see that the weapon is short ranged. Or how on the Cougar it doesn't have any special Mechanics, which is totally fine! You should be using the Unit/Weapon Mechanics sections to list things that are not standard, whether they're good or bad for the unit.

    So now lets workshop a PA unit all the way through, start to finish together so we can get a feel for why I'm making some of the decisions that are being made and maybe what some alternatives could be.

    So first lets come up with a high concept to start off with. I like the idea of a hover that thats some kind of medium range artillery piece, but against, we want to be suitably vague of course;

    Unit High Concept;
    This Land Unit is effective against bases and Large formations of Land Units.

    So suitably vague but it acts as a great foundation to build upon going forward, so lets move on the Unit Type.

    Unit Type;
    Advanced, Tank

    Not much here, but knowing that we want an Advanced unit does allow us a but more "headroom" for special attributes compared to a Basic unit(IMO) and knowing we want a tank lets us know what else it will be "directly" compared to(other Tanks) and "indirectly" compared to(Bot units).

    Unit Mechanics;
    Amphibious(Hover)

    Pretty self explanatory, note that I was specific with the type of Amphibious as well because different types(Surface, submerged and Hover) have different potential interactions that need to be considered.

    Weapon High Concept;
    This Weapon is effective against individual and small groups of air units.

    Weapon Type;
    High Arc

    Weapon Mechanics;
    Large Salvo, Long Range, Rocket, Inaccurate

    And here is the really core of this unit, the weapon. In this case, the weapon places a bigger role to the unit's Overall Identity than the rest of it and as a result, we could design a bunch of different Chassis and the end result would be very similar because the weapon places the biggest role in fulfilling the High Concept we initially set out with. Also note that there are other options for something that also fills the same high concept we set out with;

    Weapon High Concept;
    This Weapon is effective against individual and small groups of air units.

    Weapon Type;
    High Arc

    Weapon Mechanics;
    Single Shot, Long Range, Rocket, Area of Effect

    It's the kind of thing where it keeps the same basics of being High Arc and Long range, but the actual projectile itself functions differently to the same result.


    Of course, it's dangerous to design anything in a vacuum, and it's when you have to figure out how things work alongside other units is where a lot of the "doing things differently while sticking to the same High Concept" tends to kick in, for example the second Variant on the unit we just work shopped with the single rocket would have a lot of overlap with a powerful, single shot cannon artillery unit, but the initial Salvo Rocket variant, while they have some similar elements the mechanics are different enough to really let them stand out from each other.

    I kinda touched on this way back in the Unit Suggestions thread, I provided some basic adjustments that could be done with the focus on small adjustments within a looser "High Concept" than we used here because that had a slightly different purpose.

    So I think that's the core of it, I'm betting there are parts I could describe better and questions/edge cases left unanswered but thats the great thing about forums, the EDIT BUTTON! Something I want to talk about as well later on when I have a bit of time is units with multiple weapons, it's not too different but it does open things up for having Primary and Secondary High Concepts and such.

    But to summarize things a bit, The Unit's Role is What it does, it's Type is Where it does it and the Mechanics are How it does it. Figure it out step by step and never lose sight of the big picture and how it interacts with everything else on the battlefield!

    Mike
    Last edited: April 13, 2014
    corruptai, tatsujb, comham and 3 others like this.
  2. Nullimus

    Nullimus Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    260
    I look forward to you continuation. This was very interesting. To me anyway.
  3. GoogleFrog

    GoogleFrog Active Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    235
    I prefer to go into more detail when designing a unit but the method you have set out is a good start. I am aware that in the name of communication you have probably written a simplified version in order to get the idea across. Thinking along the lines of Concept -> Role -> Mechanics is definitely important.

    I think that the chassis has much more importance than you imply. Maybe the units in Zero-K are more complicated but I find that I have to think about weapon and chassis at the same time. For example a unit with particularly short range is going to be beaten by most things faster than it. Likewise a unit with long range has to be fairly slow or it will beat most units by never being hit. Health is another important factor in design, it can mean the difference between a massive assault tank or a glass cannon and the weapon needs to be adjusted accordingly.

    Additionally cost should be treated as an interacting attribute. Some unit concepts are better suited to being high cost (or advanced) while others are suited to being cheap (or basic). High cost units pack tighter, are resistant to AoE but vulnerable to alpha and can retreat to repair. If a cheap unit is to be 'scaled up' to a high cost one it will increase in power based on how easily it can retreat.

    Finally when thinking up a concept it is also important to think about how it fits into the game. Make sure your unit does not make a current one obsolete. Consider whether your unit has a wide range of uses or very few uses as both these situations can be bad (although you can design a unit to very a narrow or broad role with this in mind). To go further imagine which units your unit would synergize well with.
  4. mabdeno

    mabdeno Active Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    67
    Theres definitely alot of variables to consider when designing units and thats not including the role of the unit or aesthetic choice.

    Variables I can think of that need to be considered would be:
    Cost to make
    Health
    Damage - Rate of Fire - Range - Arc of fire - Direct or artillery type - AOE or Single target - Dumb fire or Guided
    Movement speed - Acceleration - Turret speed
    Vision radius - Radar range

    And as mentioned in above posts each unit will have to be tested to make sure it doesn't make other units obsolete. I'd imagine it would be quite a task to balance 30+ units and get them all to be useful in any game.
  5. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    That's more unit balance, then unit design.
  6. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    Think this is more a symptom of other game design factors, for example in SupCom there was no real difference between Bots and Tanks by default, and in Zero-K(from my understanding) the Flat tech tree with 10 or so 'different' factories which are based on(or primarily on) different chassis then it is more important.

    I never intended to imply that the chassis wasn't important and if you can point out particular passages that give that impression I'll do what I can to clear them up.

    Honestly I think cost mostly fall into balancing and/or becomes an obvious outcome/requirement of the High Concept, My Juggernaut MKIII is a good example of this. We wanted something a lot like a sledgehammer, hits hard and fast but much more robust than you average "glass cannon" type unit, and to balance that out we made it cost more. I don't like the idea of specifically setting out to make an "expensive unit", to me it feels a bit like building a bridge before the blueprints are done, yeah it can work out but you might as well wait for the plans right? Ending up with an "expensive" unit is fine because I feel like that's much more of a 'natural progresion'. Doing it the other way, setting out to create and expensive unit just feels awkward because you can fall into the trap where you arbitrarily boost it's stats simply to justify the extra cost you wanted to have(even if you didn't end up needing it) or you add things unrelated to the initial High Concept to try and justify that extra cost.

    Of course that being said it's still important to know where you want you unit to be in the overall Game-Meta, thats why I include stuff like the "Tier" into the Unit Type area because even if you don't know the exact cost you're aiming for it does set a type of "standard" that you you initially shoot for. This works well for TA, SupCom and PA because it does separate units(with various levels of specifications) into tiers with other similar units and a game that doesn't have that type of structure or layout might require some additional methods to make sure it's place is known.

    Yeah, but that really gets into a lot of heavy game theory that isn't really the focus here, my intent was to focus on the specific process of designing the unit. I did mention near the end to not consider/design in a complete vacuum and I'm hoping that anyone that plans to add any significant number of units would consider how it all fits in with either what's already there or what is planned to come. Designing a unit Roster is really a huge topic on it;s own with no "perfect" answer because depending on the overall goal different methods can be more or less "right" compared to others.

    As I mentioned, when doing this process I try to only list the specific things that aren't standard. If the speed of your unit isn't going to be significantly faster or slower than other units it's not worth mentioning that is was "normal speed" as you should be seeing that as a given. If I was design something this this High Concept;
    "A Fast and Agile Scouting unit with Radar"

    I would mention that it was fast and had a high turning speed and radar.

    Think of it as only listing a unit's "Unique" features, not making this huge list of things it does that other units also do. Remember, the point is to be as vague as possible to give you wiggle room so that when you get to balancing you can make small tweaks without needed to redefine the unit's High Concept.

    Mike

    As for things like Cost, I think that mostly comes down to balance as I talked about above.
    corruptai likes this.
  7. mabdeno

    mabdeno Active Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    67
    I agree when coming up with unit concepts its best to keep a simpler approach. Define the units role and parameters of its design before getting into the nitty-gritty numbers, but at the end of it all the numbers are what the game sees the unit as, and must be kept in the back of your mind during the design phase.

    Would you say your high concept stage would be created with a specific role, to fit with other units in the game or is it a matter of designing a unit then trying to tweak it to fit a certain place in the battle field?
  8. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    this process is not about stats, stats are for balancing. Like I said, if you want the unit to be above average toughness you write it into the High Concept;

    High Concept
    This Land Unit can receive lots of damage.
    Unit Type
    Advanced, Tank
    Unit Mechanics
    High HP, Regen, Slow

    That's all you need for this process, once you start assigning stats and such you should have moved on from Unit Design to Unit Implementation and from there you can only really start Balancing once you've got a bunch of units to Compare it to. Part of the point of adding things to the Unit Mechanics heading is to give you a loose frame work for where you want balancing to be without the risk of trapping yourself by assigning numbers before you're ready to do so.

    Why wouldn't you design a unit and take into consideration things like other units and such? The only time that comes up is when you're designing the FIRST unit and you only make one unit at a time all the way to completion/implementation. In the end that isn't what this thread is about, it's about the process, I'd hope that people putting it to earnest use would be able to figure out that you should consider what other units do when creating a new one.

    And again, how you go about this depends on exactly what your doing, if you want to add things to PA's unit roster obviously you should be considering what already exists within the roster, if you're creating a Unit Roster from scratch for a Total Conversion or something then it's a little different to start but as the Roster naturally expands it's becomes more or less the same process as doing an Expansion to an Existing Roster.

    Mike
  9. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Hey look, the CNC mammoth tank!
  10. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    Yes that is one possible outcome, thought I did leave out the weapons stuff to make a point.

    Mike
    igncom1 likes this.
  11. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    I really agree with these ideas.

    This puts things into perspective, I hope I'm not out of place here if I suggest the devs should come here and take a look at this post for their unit conception.

    the idea of separating weapons and the unit even if just help the mind visualize how one could go about balancing, goes a long way to help.
  12. GoogleFrog

    GoogleFrog Active Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ah you said weapon was far more important but that was within an example. Still, the weapon may need adjustment between chassis. When I was thinking about chassis I was more thinking speed or health than legs vs wheels. Flying can change things dramatically too.

    Perhaps I am thinking of balance a little while considering the weapon and chassis. There are combinations of weapons and chassis which are really difficult to balance or quite unfun to play with or against. So I think I have the experience to flip between the steps and 'look ahead' a bit at the effects of choices at the higher level concept level. This is probably the core of my comment that it is useful to think of things together but this is not an easy way to start out.

    The OP is still solid, I basically agree.
  13. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    Again, can you point out particular passages? I think you might be referring to part where I talk about the 3rd example and say that the Unit Concept is mostly fulfilled by the weapon, which if you look at it;

    "And here is the really core of this unit, the weapon. In this case, the weapon places a bigger role to the unit's Overall Identity than the rest of it and as a result, we could design a bunch of different Chassis and the end result would be very similar because the weapon places the biggest role in fulfilling the High Concept we initially set out with."

    That is the case but it has more to do with the specific Unit Concepts than anything else.

    Perhaps I am thinking of balance a little while considering the weapon and chassis. There are combinations of weapons and chassis which are really difficult to balance or quite unfun to play with or against. So I think I have the experience to flip between the steps and 'look ahead' a bit at the effects of choices at the higher level concept level. This is probably the core of my comment that it is useful to think of things together but this is not an easy way to start out.[/quote]
    Of course there can be situations where the chassis and things like health and such are an important factor as I explained to mabdeno that's kinda what the Unit Mechanics section is for. But you still don't consider actual numbers at this stage.

    Mike
  14. GoogleFrog

    GoogleFrog Active Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    235
    Yes the state was within that example.

    Of course you don't consider the actual numbers. Just general ranges; high, low, extreme etc... By considering balance here I am not actually plugging in numbers to balance the unit.

Share This Page