Dud units / monsters / summons

quantum_mechani · #1 April 24th, 2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
Some people will only be happy with a strategy game that involves perfectly matched pieces that are a different color. Like playing Chess. Nothing wrong with such games. They are the true test of strategy-vs-strategy. They also tend to want chess-board maps with nothing random which might cause a game to be won by luck. This is an extreme group and can be supported by maps and mods. (hmmm mods that create a dozen duplicates of Ulm so the Ulmers can play against other Ulmers. One mod for each nation...)

Of course there is also the other extreme. Those who prefer random and chaos. The game is to best handle the things thrown at you. Also supportable by maps and mods (one day I will update Leif's Dom2 mod that changes one randomly chosen stat on every unit in the game so that you have to rethink your strategy each time you play with it. And recreate my chaotic randomized maps). Yes Im in the chaotic group.

OF course, MOST players are someplace in between and seem to be having a great time with the game. I will continue to suggest chaos and random in the beta-test group. And we have our representatives in this thread who will continue to post there in the name of balance and equalizing.
And the poor devs will continue to watch us go back and forth.

I think that's a pretty false dichotomy. As Sombre points out, the goal of balancing (at least as far as I'm concerned) is more variety, thus in a sense more chaos. As far as the random element, personally I can't stand chess very because of the lack of any randomness. I'm the last one that will complain about too much randomness in a game, as long as your actions still have some impact, it's all in good fun.

What I'm getting at here is there two kind of balance, what's out of your hands and what is under your control. I don't mind things being 'unbalanced' by being screwed by a random event early or playing on a crazy map, what I can't bring myself to do is to buy obviously inferior troops. In a way, balancing is bridging the gap between the hardcore players and those that players that are just along for the ride. It helps the players that want to try all the options not be so disadvantaged, and opens up all kinds of new strategies for hardcore players to work with.

Gandalf Parker · #2 April 24th, 2007, 01:46 PM

Most of the obviously inferior troops that get fixed by peoples mods are units that I enjoy playing with quite abit. Some are very RPG and having them non-inferior would be non-thematic. They are meant to be crappy swarmers. I also dont tend to play with a spreadhseet in my head comparing single points of hp or armor or defense with the unit next to it. To me, knowing exactly which unit is the best choice making the others "duds" is akin to a cheat sheet.

If you want to twiddle-diddle every point of every unit then feel free to (There is a mod for that?). But it seems to me as if it would be a never-ending project which is like a pendulum swinging back and forth until it finally ends up coming to a complete stop in the middle. Chess pieces.

quantum_mechani · #3 April 24th, 2007, 01:58 PM

Well, if you are arguing some units should not be worth buying for thematic reasons, there's not much I can say to that. Because I can't think of any units that would fall into that category, militia are supposed to suck but they can also be thematically made much cheaper than other troops, light cavalry may suck but thematically/historically they have their uses even if it's hard to model in dominions.

In any case, I hardly meticulously compare every units stats while playing a game, it's 90% just a sort of intuition based on past games. The only place that really comes into play at all is when I have a number of very similar national troops, and really the only difference at all is one or two points of defense.

And you can balance dominions for the next century but I doubt you will come up with anything resembling chess by tweaking units stats.

Ironhawk · #4 April 24th, 2007, 02:05 PM

Your use of the Chess metaphor is totally misled.

Balancing is used to provide a cost-effective use for every unit, not make every unit the same. This does not mean that every unit has the same value compared to each other or that all units will have common (rather than niche) roles.

Gandalf Parker · #5 April 24th, 2007, 02:36 PM

Im well aware of its pros and cons. Ive been admining online multiplayer games for decades and have continually fought the battles of balance by additon vs balance by subtraction and other admin headaches. But balancing CAN be carried to an extreme (therefore nearing chess). I only jump in if there is the appearance of "our way is the way" or use of opinions as facts such as "duds" without defining the game style that makes them duds.

If you are talking about balancing the units for MP play (not just blitz small map mp play) and it doesnt detract from the other aspects of the game, then Im all for it. I will concede that you guys are the best to debate it.

SelfishGene · #6 April 24th, 2007, 03:52 PM

There's that blitz map thing again!

If playing with the maps that the game comes with is to be catagorized in some kind of arbitrary (and slightly demeaning) manner i have to wonder who is playing the game that they want to play, and who is playing the game that everyone else is playing.

I really don't have a problem with you Gandalf, or your giant bizarro world maps. But please don't project these preferences unto the entire community as if they were anything more than an individual choice reflecting a very small part of the community.

Foodstamp · #7 April 24th, 2007, 03:57 PM

The Siren is a dud unit because the land form has little specks of black near the edges of the unit graphic. This needs to be addressed and fixed asap!

Dedas · #8 April 24th, 2007, 04:14 PM

I think Foodstamp summarizes my feelings for this "discussion" quite well.

So please, everyone - just chill. If anyone wants more game balance you are free to mod the game as you wish and you know it.

Gandalf Parker · #9 April 24th, 2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

SelfishGene said:
There's that blitz map thing again!

If playing with the maps that the game comes with is to be catagorized in some kind of arbitrary (and slightly demeaning) manner i have to wonder who is playing the game that they want to play, and who is playing the game that everyone else is playing.

I really don't have a problem with you Gandalf, or your giant bizarro world maps. But please don't project these preferences unto the entire community as if they were anything more than an individual choice reflecting a very small part of the community.

Oh I know that Im one extreme. But by blitz map Im talking about games with something like 10 provinces per player and 3-5 people in the game. Obviously thats meant to be a fast game and highly effects everything from what does or doesnt work as strategy, to what does or doesnt make efficent use of gold/resources in buying units, etc etc. If thats what people mostly play then they should mention that when they talking "balance". In a game where the range of map size is 100-1500 then I dont think 100 needs to define the game. (of course neither should 1500)

Teraswaerto · #10 April 24th, 2007, 04:44 PM

I think you should look at how many provinces Orania or Glory of the Gods (multiplayer) has and use that as maximum baseline. 1500 is not something that is used at all as far as I know. Faerun large has 424 and it is really huge for multiplayer, and even there Helheim is killer and Marverni get's killed.