|
Post by dragonstitch on Feb 6, 2019 5:08:58 GMT
How to murder a game, change it so its wildly different from the previous successful version. See 4th ed d+d and probably pathfinder 2nd ed I find it funny that you slam 4e D&D but ignore that they changed a lot of stuff every edition. As well ignoring that 4th is by far the most balanced of any edition with most of the flops in class balance being thanks to the guy who now runs 5th. Also the fact that 4e while hated by older players but was loved by newer ones.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 6, 2019 7:23:22 GMT
Balance isn't fun.
Balance has never been fun, they are not equivalent.
If balance equated to fun and popularity, pathfinder wouldn't have taken the top selling Tabltop RPG from D+D while 4th ed was the current edition.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Feb 6, 2019 9:02:18 GMT
Balance isn't fun. Balance has never been fun, they are not equivalent. As much as you state your opinion as if it was a universal truth, my preferences are exactly opposite to yours (and I am not even that strict in following them as my euro-style-game-loving regular gaming group, I play Warmachine after all)
If there was a euro-style miniature wargame with little or no randomness (like what Gloomhaven did to the -supposedly unavoidable - merry dice rolling associated with the dungeon crawler genre) and all models balanced around the middle on the power scale I'd play the crap out of it without a second thought.
Randomness and imbalance take away from the satisfaction of a win, because with those factors it doesn't depend 100% on your and your opponent's cunning/actions as it should in a good game. My friends even say that if those aspects (asymmetry and randomness) become too prominent, it just stops being a game altogether and becomes just a social activity of sorts
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Feb 6, 2019 12:06:10 GMT
Feats are good.
Some feats may or may not need to be adjusted but that's not the point. The feat mechanic is and its great.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Feb 6, 2019 13:44:09 GMT
The Grymkin style of multiple minifeats instead of 1 big feat is certainly better. Profoundly disagree with this. A lot of mechaniqs just die when blanket answers are to be found.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 6, 2019 15:21:57 GMT
Balance isn't fun. Balance has never been fun, they are not equivalent. As much as you state your opinion as if it was a universal truth, my preferences are exactly opposite to yours (and I am not even that strict in following them as my euro-style-game-loving regular gaming group, I play Warmachine after all)
If there was a euro-style miniature wargame with little or no randomness (like what Gloomhaven did to the -supposedly unavoidable - merry dice rolling associated with the dungeon crawler genre) and all models balanced around the middle on the power scale I'd play the crap out of it without a second thought.
Randomness and imbalance take away from the satisfaction of a win, because with those factors it doesn't depend 100% on your and your opponent's cunning/actions as it should in a good game. My friends even say that if those aspects (asymmetry and randomness) become too prominent, it just stops being a game altogether and becomes just a social activity of sorts The reverse is equally true, except your preference has been the murderous downfall of at least 3 game systems just off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Feb 6, 2019 15:26:51 GMT
Which is more exciting, a roller coaster or an air liner?
One is unbalanced, but secured against catastrophe. The other is balanced to tedium.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Feb 6, 2019 15:46:44 GMT
And yet, football teams keep playing with 11 players per side, and equally sized halves and goalposts (and last time I checked plenty of people get pretty excited about it) and chess players do not vote for assymetrical distribution of figures between players to increase the "fun" factor. If you check the top of world's tabletop games (https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame) you will find that the majority provides either symmetrical starting conditions or only a small variety in those, keeping most things equal for everyone.
So, contrary to what McDermot says, balance and equal chances ARE a hallmark of a popular and successful game (and we're talking real sharks, not niche titles like Warmachine)
Anyway, I just commented to provide counterbalance to McDermott's statement, so that nobody mistakes his opinion for an universal truth. We all have different things that we want from our games, that's why the market is so varied nowadays. But saying that balance or assymetry is objectively bad/good is just not true.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 6, 2019 16:35:32 GMT
YEah i like comparing cooperative games to competitive ones too (3/5 of the top 5 games are cooperative or semi cooperative) Comparing board games to tabletop mini games is also cute and irrelevant, they're not the same animal.
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Feb 6, 2019 17:28:39 GMT
For me personally, I love feats. It gives that dynamic feel of something big is about to happen. I am on the side of a game doesn't need to be balanced to be fun. Some balanced games are fun, but if warmachine was completely balanced (all factions had same stats, just different colors) I would rather be playing chess. I play warmachine to play warmachine and chess to play chess. Both have their places, and I prefer to have one of each.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Feb 7, 2019 0:23:46 GMT
And yet, football teams keep playing with 11 players per side, and equally sized halves and goalposts (and last time I checked plenty of people get pretty excited about it) and chess players do not vote for assymetrical distribution of figures between players to increase the "fun" factor. If you check the top of world's tabletop games (https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame) you will find that the majority provides either symmetrical starting conditions or only a small variety in those, keeping most things equal for everyone. But football players aren't limited to having their Ends run at x ft per second, and their Guards limited to being 300 pounds, either. Even worse, no two NFL or NCAA teams operate on the exact same budget for hiring. Defensively, you don't always have to set up 5 men to rush the quarterback, but instead replace one for a fast running safety.
The only thing that is set the same is the field and the number of players, that's it. You can be running an offensive line that literally weighs in at half of the defensive line because that is all the players you could bring. In smaller high schools it gets worse. My alma mater could barely field 16 players for varsity, which meant that 6 of them were iron manning the whole game and didn't get any rest when compared to the teams which could at least field completely separate offensive and defensive rosters. I considered 3 wins in a 12 game season "winning", because we had 6 total wins for my entire 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Feb 7, 2019 7:24:09 GMT
Balance isn't fun. Balance has never been fun, they are not equivalent. If balance equated to fun and popularity, pathfinder wouldn't have taken the top selling Tabltop RPG from D+D while 4th ed was the current edition. Apples to oranges.
RPGs aren't focused around mathematical fairness. They're focused around cooperatively telling a cool story. Its ok if certain classes or races are "weaker" in combat because they will have other things that make them attractive.
Wargames on the other hand are specifically focused around two players having an even contest of skill. Thus every effort should be taken to make the different choices as balanced as possible.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 7, 2019 7:49:02 GMT
Which is why everyone just plays chess or checkers instead, being the most balanced of all possible wargames.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Feb 7, 2019 9:29:21 GMT
And yet, football teams keep playing with 11 players per side, and equally sized halves and goalposts (and last time I checked plenty of people get pretty excited about it) and chess players do not vote for assymetrical distribution of figures between players to increase the "fun" factor. If you check the top of world's tabletop games (https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame) you will find that the majority provides either symmetrical starting conditions or only a small variety in those, keeping most things equal for everyone. But football players aren't limited to having their Ends run at x ft per second, and their Guards limited to being 300 pounds, either. Even worse, no two NFL or NCAA teams operate on the exact same budget for hiring. Defensively, you don't always have to set up 5 men to rush the quarterback, but instead replace one for a fast running safety. At first I was like "what the hell he's talking about, and how does it answer my post OO " but then I realised you must be talking about some obscure things from American Handegg I assume it must be similar to football where balance is concerned. When it comes to speed,strength etc , those are player qualities, just like intelligence in a wargame so those not being equal for both sides is kind of a point Those things are to be judged after all (who's better) and I wouldn't compare them to outside factors like unequal number of players or size of a goalpost.
As for the money/team I agree it may be a problem (though many sports put a limit to those, to ensure it's the player's qualities that matter, not his equipment. And fighting sports even have weight class to ensure that skill is more important than "unfair" gene pool advantage ) That's why I am definitely for balance in wargames and for allowing alternate models and conversions at tournaments, so that having less money doesn't mean a player can't compete on equal footing with others based on how fat his/her wallet is and not how skilled he/she is at the game. Converting or scratch-building a model is much more a wargaming-connected skill than just having plenty of $$$
I assume the audience of this forum is smart enough to discern which games from the list are relevant to the discussion. And yes, they are relevant, they compete for players' time and money in a very similar fashion, and the decision wheteher to invest in one or another is definitely a thing. For example many of my gaming friends would possibly be interested in wargaming, but randomness and imbalance puts them off, as it dillutes the intellectual competition aspect for them (which they can get from board games).
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Feb 7, 2019 14:10:21 GMT
But football players aren't limited to having their Ends run at x ft per second, and their Guards limited to being 300 pounds, either. Even worse, no two NFL or NCAA teams operate on the exact same budget for hiring. Defensively, you don't always have to set up 5 men to rush the quarterback, but instead replace one for a fast running safety. At first I was like "what the hell he's talking about, and how does it answer my post OO " but then I realised you must be talking about some obscure things from American Handegg I assume it must be similar to football where balance is concerned. When it comes to speed,strength etc , those are player qualities, just like intelligence in a wargame so those not being equal for both sides is kind of a point Those things are to be judged after all (who's better) and I wouldn't compare them to outside factors like unequal number of players or size of a goalpost. As for the money/team I agree it may be a problem (though many sports put a limit to those, to ensure it's the player's qualities that matter, not his equipment. And fighting sports even have weight class to ensure that skill is more important than "unfair" gene pool advantage ) That's why I am definitely for balance in wargames and for allowing alternate models and conversions at tournaments, so that having less money doesn't mean a player can't compete on equal footing with others based on how fat his/her wallet is and not how skilled he/she is at the game. Converting or scratch-building a model is much more a wargaming-connected skill than just having plenty of $$$ Then you missed my points. Money would be the point system that football is based on, not the force organization. And you can have a team whose total stat points are 2/3 of the other team, and yet still cost the same amount of points. Or in some cases, someone brings 75 points to face your 50 points, but you still have access to the same number of models. This makes any version of referencing balance from a sports team as ridiculous, as they rarely are.
|
|