Dud units / monsters / summons

[Ironhawk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[quantum_mechani]

Dedas said:
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.

That is certainly true... what I had an objection to was just the implication that A. randomness and balance where somehow opposed to each other and B. that trying to even the cost vs usefulness of options can be compared with making it 'chesslike'.

That scale somehow magically balances also seems a bit of a fallacy. 250 infantry beat 100 light cavalry just the same as 25 infantry beat 10 light cavalry. The only major impact of really large maps balance wise is that eventually your options plateau as you run out of research to do. This situation makes balance even more necessary as you have one fewer way to 'niche' options.

What I really have hard time understanding is the outlook that balance somehow restricts options. If someone does not particularly care if one option is much weaker or stronger than another one, or the specifics of stats/costs, then changing them should have no impact whatsoever on how they can play the game.

[MaxWilson]

quantum_mechani said:
That scale somehow magically balances also seems a bit of a fallacy. 250 infantry beat 100 light cavalry just the same as 25 infantry beat 10 light cavalry. The only major impact of really large maps balance wise is that eventually your options plateau as you run out of research to do. This situation makes balance even more necessary as you have one fewer way to 'niche' options.

Map scale has at least two other effects. 1.) Capital-only units become a smaller proportion of your forces. 2.) Map movement (including M/F/S/W Survival) becomes more of a factor in successful force concentration. Air/Astral magic probably becomes more important, too, for paratrooping.

I only play SP, and I haven't ever actually played a game all the way to completion on a 250-province map, but scaleability is always at the back of my mind. I simply don't have any fun with a nation whose best mages are all capitol-only. The pending nerf to Svartalfs has completely turned me off Helheim, for instance. On the Silent Seas map, though, it wouldn't matter.

-Max

[Gandalf Parker]

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]

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.

[Gandalf Parker]

424 divided by 21 players is 20 provinces. The game has 3 ratings of small, medium, and large. It rates that as a "large" map. Not "really huge" for multiplayer.

Usually 1000 is the game where exploration and finding a path to another nation makes it a different style game. It still amounts to about 10 provinces to the next nation but its 10 in a straight line.