[RECOMMENDATION] Item Purchasing Dynamism

1) i like

2) meh... they tried this with cs, and it sucked big time - probably due to it being too extreme in the price fluctuations. As long as it wasn't too much of a change one way or the other. Better would be to manually adjust the prices during balancing, rather than leaving it up to an algorithm

verspunken couldn't have said it better, on both counts.

randomized items would really throw a nice does of chaos into mix, staving off monotony is always a good thing!

I agree totally with number 1 would be great to make people change strategy every game

ugh im screwed if this happens i use the same items for all 3 characters so far and it makes them all equally deadly

A game with strategic depth is better then buy 3 items every time

I would prefer if they just make the items balanced and varied enough that adapting to your opponent's choices is more important than buying the "best" set every game.

The randomization would be interesting and add variety, but my understanding is that GPG and Stardock are trying to make this a big competitive game, and my experience with crazy overly competitive players is that they usually don't like random factors because they want a pure contest of skill.

I personally would have fun with it if they did it well though.  Maybe randomizing items, and then giving the same sets to both teams would make it fair?

Most likely they'll go with static items and prices, and just patch the game over time to improve the balance on those.

I don`t know if I was entirely as clear as I could have been with my suggestion for price fluctuations on items. What I meant was that from skirmish game to skirmish game prices fluctuate; they fluctuate based upon how popular the items were in previous games.

I would champion this since 'balance' is a tricky thing to deduce, and ultimately my system simply tracks usage/popularity of items and adjusts prices by that measure. I hate to use this analogy BUT: the market would then take care of itself.

Also, I would recommend such a system be controlled... that is a seperate price track be utilized for single-player games, for single-player campaign games, for LAN games, and for online games. Perhaps whenever one plays the game in any mode, one could choose to create a "New Item Array" which will apply to any game played utilizing that Array. Essentially this would be associating and tying any game to a campaign structure of minor sorts.

Again, then the developers don`t have to be so worried about obsessively/exactingly tweaking their items.

I would argue that being able to make judgements on such dynamic game elements is part of being a superior player - you gauge the effectiveness of an item versus its price. You can`t simply go online and read a competitive walkthrough somewhere, then suddenly play equally as well as any other player simply because you know what to buy and what not to buy, and in what order.

Another idea...

3. [OPTIONAL] Unique Items

Non-consumable Items are unique. If Rook player A buys Boots Of Armour (made-up... say +600 armour for argument), nobody else can buy that Item for the duration of that Skirmish contest - somebody already grabbed it.

Of course this is reset at Skirmish end.

This would work great in conjunction with #1 and #2 previous.

The Unique Item suggestion would be a toggle in game setup; I can envisage times where I personally would prefer either Unique or Non-Unique treatments, and so an option would be ideal.

3a. Limited Unique Items

As a possible variation on #3, and to cut down on configurations of servers, the following:

Make a limited number of better Items unique; not all Items would be unique, just a portion of the better ones. An Item that for example bestows a 50% reduction in recharge times might be so tagged.

Everybody could buy basic Boots Of Speed for example, but only one could save up a gazillion dollars for that Orb Of Sorcerous Skill (...).

This incarnation of #3 would be hard-coded into the game.

just edit ur original post

I believe you even invented a new word......Dynamism.......

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dynamism

Just a very little used word then.

I don't necessarily disagree with that statement, but tournament level players usually complain about random factors like this.  See: random tripping in Super Smash Bros. Brawl and critical hits in Team Fortress 2.

I said this in another thread before I think but generating random items (perhaps, inside randomly shaped maps) might be a good option to choose when making games, to keep alot of people happy because they see less of "cookie cutter builds." Then when it goes E-sport and we have tourneys, we can force to keep everything regulated and equal per round. Then again we can have Random tourneys as well, and you can choose whether or not you want to enter them.

Oh just my opinion here but Critical Hits in TF2 is definately not equal to Critical Hits in Demigod, considering how a player incorporates critical hit chance into their stats. TF2 is actually starting to do that too (backburner).

Random elements in a competitive or tournament setting are BAD.  What happens if you're playing 1v1 and the chosen items give a much larger advantage to the enemy Demigod than your Demigod?  Sure, it won't happen all the time, but it will happen.  Using the current balance, imagine trying to use the Torchbearer, but the -25% Cooldown helm wasn't there?  You would be screwed.  At professional levels, it could possibly decide the game.  Random elements making a significant influence on competitive gameplay has never done anyone any favors.  It has only served to frustrate people, both the person with the disadvantage for getting gimped and the person with the advantage for being cheated of a fair match.

However, a random element in a casual setting can make for a lot of fun.  I think the first idea would be great as an option in custom games.  As long as random stuff stays out of ranked, it sounds fine.

I'm against the second idea.  I think that the items should be balanced in the beta.  Once that happens, we should have a very effective system in place.  Official updates should make sure things are balanced, not some algorithm.

I'm also against the third idea.  What happens if you have a mirror match?  "Crap, the other Regulus just grabbed the AoE gloves.  GG, lets play again.  First to 2400 gold wins."  Limiting it to "unique per side" might work.  It would discourage people from using the same Demigod on a team, as they would mostly be fighting for the same items.  I'm still not really thrilled about the concept, although I suppose it wouldn't break the game.

If Innociv's Blacksmith Idea gets in, then this will NOT work due to the lack of items.  In a 5v5 I can only begin to imagine the problems it would cause.  The only way this idea would work is if GPG decides to go the route of having a million different items.

I'm against never having random in all tournament matches. Random is not for everyone but it sure as heck IS for some. See: Poker tourneys, D+D dice rolls, even causal backgammon. Its not whether or not you were lucky, its what you do with the luck you're given. You can't go and tell a champion poker player that he was just lucky for the past 4 tourneys he won. 

With your torchbearer example, thats understandable, but it actually means that the torchbearer is too weak/ item is too powerful in the first place. There should be alternatives for that specific item, anyways.

When I say "Random tourneys" it could be a combination of

• random map shapes
• random Demigods
• random items
• random creeps

It could be all or some, depending on what people like. I think it would be a great idea to have for people who aren't as hardcore into the game.

ur pushing it a lil lets stick with the items

Random_Guy I like your nick and your thoughts on the effect of randomness on gameplay. No sarcasm nor offence intended.

Sorry, I don't mean to derail the items thread. I'm just pointing out that it could be part of something.

1 would be quite nice.  It could force people to adapt their strategy depending on what items are stocked.  Like have there be 48 items, but just 24 of them picked from there.

2 I don't like as that would just make whoever buys something first get it cheaper.

You can grab such an item too. Perhaps the ability cooldown item is a bad example, since EVERY character benefits enormously from it. Otherwise I can see a point, though I do not believe that in itself can torpedo the enjoyment of a game, tournament or not. If what you speak of happens (such that your benefit is not equal to that derived by your opponent), then I guess the random whims of fate have stolen a fair game from you, and you lose. Happens in card games and actual sports all the time... they still thrive.

Who cares if balance is achieved one way or another? If dynamically adjusting item costs according to tracked usefulness works, then it works.

This is not an issue - if Player A gets Item X, then Player B gets to spend his gold on something else. Further, and assuming there are lesser and greater items of a unique nature to be had in any game... tough. If my enemy exerts the effort to prioritize the pursuit of a good item that can gain him/her an advantage, then good for them. This would be akin to me taking the central flag - good for me.

Yes, they do thrive.  Bluffing a is a huge part of many card games, which is a direct result of the randomness.  In fact, you could say that card games are good because they are random.  On the other hand, go play SSBB and tell me its a good thing when you trip right before killing someone, and then they turn around and kill you.  How about a competetive Pokemon match where the other guy gets a critical hit KO on that sweeper you baton passed a bunch of stat-ups to.  It isn't fun.  It is this kind of thing that discourages me from trying to play Pokemon competetively, or get serious about a card game.  Some communities seem to enjoy randomness in their competitions.  RTS communities do not.

In Beta 1 (can't use 1-A due to the lack of items), the -25% cooldown item is useless to Regulus, as his best build doesn't even use abilities.  Similarly, the Rook and TB have very limited uses for the AoE gloves.  I hate the random whims of fate and they hate me.  If they get involved in something, I walk the other way.  I cannot imagine how you could hope to make something a serious game in the RTS genera by adding random elements.  There was an RTS game that tried the random element, I think it was the first Empire Earth game (could be mistaken), by adding natural disasters.  In the sequal, one of the main changes was the removal of said disasters.  RTS people do not like randomness.  It gets in the way of skill, strategy, and metagame.

I seriously doubt that it will work.  As said earlier in this post, Counter Strike tried that and it failed miserably.  Besides, the best balance will always be achieved through good, old fashioned patches.  Your idea strikes me simply as an easy way out for GPG to not have to balance it properly.  It would feel a lot like a hacky workaround.  Would it work?  Yes.  Is it the best way to do it?  No.

No.  Its not just about him working harder.  Haven't you watched games and seen epic comebacks?  Aren't those usually some of the best replays, regardless of what game it is?  If this idea is implimented, then the slippery slope gets a whole lot steeper.  The slope is one of the largest (and unavoidable) flaws with strategy games today, and it is one of the things all developers must be wary of.  Things like the War Idol improve gameplay.  Map control is something that should be rewarded.  Plus, you can always make a push and get the Idol back.  This was the reason people were against flag locking; it made the slope far to steep, as the first team to get the flag would eventually win the game.  Similarly to OP flag locking, if someone gets a good item first, then there is nothing you can do about it.  They will have an advantage for the rest of the match, therefore greatly increasing the effects of the slope.  Unlike the War Idol, unique items is not a logical reward for upholding strategic principles.  It is a unnecessary gameplay mechanic that makes it even harder to make a comeback.  It is giving people an advantage for being in the lead.

I believe Random_Guy has summed up most if not all I'd like to say.  This game is supposed to be competitive.  Competitive online rts/strategy games have Metagames.

That said a Demigod player's skill will basically come down to two things:

Theory - Understanding the game mechanics( every skill/item) and calculating new ways to make them work for you.

Execution - Actually playing your demigod.  Leading your boulder throws and having a good general sense of where your enemies are at all times.

Theory:

Knowing meta games(theory) makes you a better player.  Knowing meta games does not make you equal to someone who has been playing the game extensively. The more experienced player will know more about the meta game.  A newbie might know that X is the current "best" build(read most accepted by the community) .  This same newbie might be like "I bet build Y would work".  What he doesn't know is that Y is the previous "Best" build and is now rendered inferior due to some recent revelation/advancement in the community or a patch.  The experienced player knows this and doesn't spend his time retesting build Y.  Instead he finds the undiscovered Z!

Execution:

Guild Wars is a proper example in this case I believe.  In Guild Wars, alot of players knew the current meta game(best build).  They could get by simply using the current meta game if they were proficient in execution.  They could play the game with their lightning reflexes and that gave them a large edge.  Often times, these were the very same players who were unable to use even basic theorycraft to improve the metagame.  They just ran the same one until a new one emerged.  In demigod this translates directly to you controling your demigod and working well with your team.

Now lets tie this back into why random items are not pleasant or even necessary.

Random items do nothing to improve the meta game.  The meta game becomes fairly non-existant.  There is no "best" build.  You cannot plan anything.  You are simply reacting to the game's randomness and hoping it tilts in your favor.  This is bad!  It is also hard to balance.  Item balance is INTRINSICALY related to player balance.  Imagine Regulus is the weakest hero after a recent patch(I know its a stretch!).  Now this could be for two reasons.  One you added a new item to the game that doubles your next spells effectivness(damage/stunlen/etc).  This item is GREAT for TB and for certain builds of Rook.  However, this item is fairly useless to Regulus.  Now regulus is weaker.  Now the reasonable thing to do is to also add an item that increases physical attacks by a factor 2 at the same time.  Now its balanced!  But wait!  Its not really!  Imagine the items have a 50% each spawn rate in the item shop.  Now lets do some analysis.  25% of the time both items will spawn and it will be balanced.  25% neither will spawn and it will be balanced.  50% of the time one or the other will spawn giving the other hero a significant advantage.  That means that in half the games with a regulus vs a TB the game will be inherently favoring one hero!

Now you might say the previous example was a gross oversimplication and it was(despite its complexity lol).  Simply imagine that there is one "best" item for each demigod.  Now pit two demigods against each other.  You will see that 50% of the time only one of the two players gets their best item tipping the balance unfairly.  This is why I believe the game cannot have this random element and still be considered competitive.

Don't worry about forcing the meta game to evolve.  If people love the game enough(and can actually theorycraft) they will constantly evolve the game.  Even if a current "best" build exists there will still be better deviations and of course countering your opponents will still be huge.  The "best" build changes often.  I've played DotA/GuildWars long enough to see this.  Metagame changes usually happen after a patch.  However, the contents of the patch don't always even directly affect the previous or new "best" build.

However don't get discouraged.  Its a good thought and might be interesting a for a fun mode but definitely not in any sort of ranked mode.

Brentmeisterr,

I do see what you`re saying (well-spoken), but I believe dynamic pricing would balance things out.

Consider that over the course of a number of games my Torch-Bearer consistently purchases the -25% cooldown Helm. Come the 6th or 7th game, if that item is featured in that game, it will be therefore quite expensive... my previous favouritism of it raises its price.

I do not counsel that my dynamic pricing system be a surrogate for good balance, simply a supplement to it. No matter what the developers do, there will *always* be some combination of things that one person/Demigod or the other derives an uneven advantage from. This is a price of game design wherein factions & characters are actually different.