Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

Thanks for the input... my comments as follows:

Actually, while it would be the most accurate, I belive it would take quite a bit longer if you used 1 point increments. Perhaps if you were bidding real time it would be ok, but I'm sure some nations would get bid up fairly high - and having to wait for the next bidder to post in a forum to increase the size by 1 would be agonizingly slow (IMHO) espcially if you have 10+ players.

Good idea!

Not that I know of but in reality, though it doesn't seem like it at first glance, things will balance out. The weaker that nations are viewed the higher the other nations will go as players stuggle to avoid them.


Thanks!

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

yeah, again I have to agree with velusion, AI play will not be too informative as to the relative worth of the nations in mp play.

And he already addressed the differences between map size game types and settled on the mid sized map game.

Let's all read through and hopefully keep the need to repeat ourselves to a minimum.

I still find myself amused by the use of the phrase "openly contemptuous". And I would call upon us all to try to work it into all our posts in this thread from now on. Not attacking anyone, just for fun.

And so, in that spirit, I would say that I am openly contemptuous of the ability of the AI to predict relative worth of the nations in mp play.

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

I think this idea is a pretty promising, if you could really get semi accurate nation-design-point-costs that would be pretty interesting. But I do have my doubts that issues like the one KissBlade pointed out, and the average experience level of players, could achieve that.

And, of course, balance between nations is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other kinds of balance issues there are.

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

Well to address these doubts:

KissBlade's assumption I think is founded on the fact that there is an exact perfect number of points needed to supply a dual bless strategy (F9/W9 I assume). There is more than a simple bless stratgey that goes into a pretender. Other things you need to factor in:

Pretender Form
Dominion Strength
6 Different Scales
Extra Magic
Awake/Dorment/Imprisoned

Kissblade's assumption doesn't factor these in at all. It assumes that there is a nation out there that is worth dual bless with the very worst scales, the worst pretender, no extra magic with a 1 Domain. Are we saying that Helheim with ONLY a W9/F9 and the very worst in everything else can beat a Vanheim in a better position?

Personally I think it is statistically implausible if not impossible that two people would agree on the exact maximum bid on a pretender for any nation. Dominion is a huge swing... how low would most go? What about scales - can you take them ALL bad? When do you throw in the towel and decide another nation is a better deal?

At first it looks like all you need is a dual bless, but people often forget the minimum foundation needed for a successful pretender. Dual bless isn't enough - you need, at the very minimum, SOME dominion. This is where the disagreements will occur and the bidding will be interesting.

And some people are not exactly even bless-only fans - they won't even consider bidding that high!

As far as experience - the good thing about bidding is that provided you have a handful of experienced knowledgeable players they will keep each other in check - even if some are not as experienced. An experienced player will not let a perceived low bid go unmatched. Multiple experienced players will make sure that no one person takes advantage of the less experienced players through checks and balances.

Of that - I personally agree. I've looked at your Conceptual Balance mod and liked (for the most part) what you've tried to do. I suppose I'm a member of the camp that likes more options. Some might call the changes arbitrary - but its a mod, not the gospel. I hope to play it someday.

But at least a reasonable community evaluation of the relative worth of nations can be used now - by everyone - without a mod. I know that if such a community valuation existed it would helpful to newbies... not as a hard rule (it would forever be debated), but as additional informative data.

Thanks for the comments!

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

Deleted.

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

When did I assume this?

Regarding Frank's post.

You do not get higher than dom 5 for a dual bless. Dual bless requires scales that cannot pay for more than 4 hel/van/niefel's per recruit, effectively nulling your point about pretender chassis being diverse based on dominion

Using your case of Helheim.
There are only two valid dual blesses for Helheim. F9/w9 and E9/w9. The rest are all inferior to the former. Abysia stands as an /ok/ counter against Hel troops to troops wise but can't match the raiding ability. There is a minimal difference of 10 points between cyclops and father of winters, but suffice to say you will probably go with the e9/w9 chassis. The Order scale is DEFINITELY a no brainer. There is no way you should not take Order 3 in base unless you are LA Ermor. There has never been a worthy Luck vs Order test because Luck does NOT factor in that Order is reliably providing a constant stream of income, allowing for constant stream of units.

Honestly, this is simply a case of opportunity cost. You're really just adding extra costs to a chassis. And you can't tell me that there isn't an agreed upon point where a chassis becomes sub optimal. But hey, there are people who think that master lich is good base game so *shrugs*, who am I to argue.

Bottom line: This is not a good system for stopping imbalanced tactics or builds. It's a system for pretty much saying, "you can't play nations with the POSSIBILITY of imbalanced builds without taking those imbalanced builds itself".

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

I'm not sure I understand how these last two statements are compatible? I've read many impassioned arguments between experienced players who I have no doubt would disagree about when a chassis becomes sub optimal.

You left off how much Dominion is worth and all the other scales are worth. Surely you can't imagine that all the other players would agree with you on your total evaluations?

I'm certain you could come up with a personal maximum value in pretender points helheim is worth, I'm equally sure that it's highly unlikely another player will come up with the exact same number - especially since they also have to evaluate the worth of biding on other nations! So even if they just happen to come up with the same number as you for a particular nation there is a good chance they will see a better deal on another nation.

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

Point me to one place where an experienced player is arguing with another experienced player about chassis choices for pretenders? Case in point, cb mod, one of the changes was made if you noticed to the father of winters. The cost went from 75 -125. I can assure you, we allow all nations/blesses in our blitzes and I have not yet ONCE seen a cb blitz where someone picks the new chassis as ideal for a dual bless. There will definitely reach a market price for certain builds. All the more so IF the players are experienced since they're the ones who are actually knowledgeable about the matter. In fact, I can even point you to one very good instance of a chassis (and this is just a chassis! It would actually even be simpler if it was for a nation) where the experienced community have largely reached a consensus that the "new cost" was sub optimal. The Vampire Queen. The dom II VQ was regarded by most (if not all) experienced players as a broken chassis. Come dom III axe (and even with new cb costs), you never see the VQ picked. Why? Because players have all pretty much agreed that the new cost is not viable.

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

Deleted.

Re: Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
 

That's fair. I can agree to that. (the rest of the post, not the w9/n9 part, obviously.)