[Kel]

Originally posted by Vynd:
Hmm, well now that I look at it again I'm not sure what Kel was trying to say with "invincible != unbalanced." A sarcastic comment, perhaps.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I shouldn't have used programmer speak, that was my mistake. Doing it for a living, you forget where the line is sometimes I apologize for any confusion.

Originally posted by Vynd:

Gandalf may be right that no summon is useless, but some are definitely better than others.

That's exactly what I meant. I was also trying to tie it to other threads where people went to similar extremes in saying something was balanced because there were possible ways to defeat it.

I actually have the total opposite view of Gandalf in that I think something is pretty much always unbalanced, something is always strongest and something is always weakest. I think that's true of simple games and the more 'deep' the game, the more likely it is to be true. That doesn't mean it's totally broken or even that anything is worth the effort to change. It's just the nature of the beast.

Some things may be more useful in different situations and I don't think any spell is useless but if you were to assign a number to 4 facets of a spell, 1) How often it is useful, 2) How strong it is when it is useful and 3) How strong it is when it isn't really it's prime time and 4) the cost....I think it would be clear that some spells are stronger, *overall*, taking all factors into account, than others.

You could point out how you can develop whole strategies around some spell that everyone thinks is the worst...and you might be able to make that strategy workable...and that's always fun...but it can still be the worst spell. It's just that you have developed a workable strategy that is focused around the worst spell

- Kel

[ May 19, 2004, 02:09: Message edited by: Kel ]