Re: How would you patch this game?
 

Blitz,

Norfleet's comments are not propaganda; he simply has a very forceful way of expressing his opinions.

The fact is, there IS a lot of whining on this forum. Norfleet may have a broader view than most as to what quantifies it, but even to the rather strict interpretation, it happens here. I don't think Norfleet's ways of dealing with it are particularly useful, but he generally can stay within reasonable bounds.

Norfleet is also more correct than he sounds when he talks about game balance. Reading his post, he sounded a lot like Mark Rosewater in one of his columns about designing Magic: the Gathering; specifically, the one entitled, "Why do we make bad cards?" One of the main arguments that Mr. Rosewater puts forward is that recognizing what is good and what is not-so-good in a game is part of learning the game, and without less-than-optimal game parts, there's nothing to separate good players from bad players. There's also the fact that if you don't have bad cards, you can't have good cards. The article isn't totally applicable to Dominions, but in the main holds true.

To take a Dominions example, why is the Prince of Death better than the Lord of the Gates, in general? If you can give a good answer for that, you're a better player than someone who can't give a good answer.

Now, I also believe that there could be better balance between the Pretenders. A good illustration of this is in my PoD vs. VQ thread. I, a not-so-good player, tried to compare the VQ post-patch vs. the PoD, and felt that the PoD was clearly superior. Better players than I (specifically, PvK and Zen) pointed out that I was comparing apples and oranges, and that the Pretenders served different functions. This is another place where you can see the difference in play skill.

What I feel Norfleet is missing is the rich variety of strategies available in Dominions, and so a clear hierarchy is not necessary. Now, if Norfleet believes there is one best strategy to win Dominions, then his comments make perfect sense. Changing all of the Pretenders to be more balanced devalues the choice of Pretender. However, with all of the different options available to Dominions players, a single 'best' strategy would be hard to quantify.

Anyway, just my take on the situation.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Gak, I hope I'm not the one being accused of being "insulting" ! In all my Posts to this thread, I've used the term "great game" to refer to Dominions every time, and spoke only of improving it, not fixing something that's broken.

And in the original post, my suggestion was to gather data on over-used and under-used game elements, i.e. determine the balance issues by surveying the playing community.

In other words, my "own idea of balance" as you put it, would not enter into the procedure.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm fairly sure you're safe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A nice thought, but just like history, it's impossible to be objective here. What data are you gathering? Just the selection of the criteria you'll follow would be made according to your own ideas of what balance is and how to achieve it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I'm not trying to josh you so much as to show how impossible that is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

In the interest of promoting such endeavors, what would you suggest would be a proper method of gathering such data?

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What I had in mind was a survey, in which each spell, troop, item and pretender was listed, and beside each one there are 6 responses to the question "How often do you make one of these", being

1) Never
2) Rarely
3) Sometimes
4) Often
5) Very often
6) N/A

The "N/A" would apply to things like Abyssian troops types if you never play Abysia.

I think that if enough people took the time to complete such a survey (and it would be time-consuming, unfortunately) then a fairly objective answer could be obtained.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

As has been said before, though, popularity is not a particularly good measure of efficiency. It would be an interesting survey, but I'd trust explanatory arguments why something is good or bad, rather than what people say they use.

Even so, not everything should be balanced, both for thematic and sense-making reasons, and also because especially since the steps needed to achieve each thing are frequently complex and different for each nation, each pretender, each situation, and each play style.

PvK

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure, but we've all seen how discussions like that proceed. Agreement is hard to reach, and the discussion tends to descend into a subjective and abusive flamefest. Witness the Vampire Queen debate.

I think my approach would at least lead to a result that could be accepted by the playing community as a whole.

Also, I think any action taken as a result of the survey should usually be in the form of a cost adjustment, rather than any change to functionality, and should be at the complete discretion of the devs. In other words, the survey would simply be a tool to help the devs assess the balance issues.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think if you're only tweaking costs, there's not much danger of destroying thematic elements. Furthermore, if the tweaks mean that elements get used where previously they were not, then the themes that those elements were supposed to promote will actually see the light of day. In other words, I think that balance promotes themes rather than the opposite.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A) An added cost of 1 or 2 blood slaves is easily worth worth being able to use one mage instead of seven or eight.

B) The number of demons you get from a level 9 blood summonings has a "+" after number of effects. Get a mage with one more skill in blood than required (shouldn't be an arduous task that late in the game) and *BAM* you're more economical than the low level spell.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The problem with that logic is that many elements would be "rarely" used, not because that there's anything WRONG with them, but because they're highly situational, and the situation that they'd be best suited for rarely comes up. Other items are rarely made because they're limited in number, or even singular: I rarely make a Sword of Injustice, for instance, not because I think it's a bad weapon, but because it's unique, and situational. It's not of much use to me if I lack unholy priests and undead, and even if I had them, I can make only one of these items. I also would "rarely" cast Burden of Time or Utterdark, not because these are bad spells, but because, once again, they are very situational AND expensive: You have to be both a dead nation(Ermor/CW) and sitting on a pile of a few hundred death gems to make casting these not a suicide move. And I have "never" cast Astral Corruption, not because it sucks, but because it's tailored for a situation I have yet to find myself in. The popularity of something is no measure of its value.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's quite true, and a factor that would have to be taken into account by whoever (read: devs) that was trying to interpret the survey results.

This survey would not be a surgical instrument by any means, but it may be a guide that highlights areas of overuse or disuse.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

Well, I'm fairly sure you're safe, Zapmeister, Zen's wrath was probably directed at me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Well Yossar, I suppose you'd be right. It's only bad if you casted with the bare minimum of skill. But how much skill do you need for it to match the economy of the level 3 spell?

I'm using these numbers, which are from memory:

1 frost fiend/6 slaves for the basic spell.

base of 6 frost fiends/50 slaves for force spell.

Every level above min gives 1 extra fiend
_________________________________________________
Each fiend costs (slaves/fiends) 8.33 slaves using force at 5 blood skill.

Each fiend costs 7.14 slaves using force at 6 skill.

Each fiend costs 6.25 slaves using force at 7 skill

Each fiend costs 5.55 slaves using force at 8

You start getting more economical at 8 skill, make of it what you will...