[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Anglachel:
I thought about this for a while and it seems like this would tend to homogenize the game rather than diversify. Think about it, take all the elements, cut down what you percieve as powerful and lift up what you percieve as weak. What is the end result? Things are all the same. Does this seem like a situation that would be diverse?

It's rather ironic that homogeneity is the ultimate result of trying to forcibly promote diversity. I'm sure there's a moral in this somewhere. As the saying goes, "You are unique, just like everyone else."

I understand you stress diversity of "usage" but what exactly is it in your experience that has lead you to the conclusion that there is a lack of diversity of usage and have you compared notes with a variety of other players on this to find commonality? I just don't understand why you would want to have the above course followed in the pursuit of "diversity".

Some of the more shrill elements of the populace would have you believe that anything which catches on as popular, I.E., "Flavor-of-the Week", is automatically overpowered, and as such, they scream for a nerf. This is generally around the time our flavor of the week becomes "whine du jour". They neglect the fact that people are sheep, and will follow whoever currently appears to be the leader. The approach Zap here would advocate trades the flavor-of-the-week for "All Options Suck". Sure, this is certainly balanced, but "Everything is equally useless" is not a very entertaining form of play! What's the point in trying to think of anything new to combine, when everything either is, or will be, made equally useless?

However, he does nonetheless have a point that certain things are basically never used. Many of these things fall into non-use because of either their cost relative to other things that serve the same role, or simply because they don't fill any niche that isn't already filled better or more cheaply by something else. Others go undiscovered until they explode into the whine-du-jour: The Vampire Queen, believe it or not, was once unpopular and viewed as a weak chassis commonly ignored in favor of beefier ones. Obviously, this thinking has been greatly revised since then. So perhaps these "useless" options are simply diamonds in the rough, waiting to be discovered (and whined about). Then again, maybe they're just worthless rocks.

This is can be seen as either good or bad. On one hand, they're clearly "useless", so to speak, and nobody uses them. As such, they're a waste of space. On the other hand, the existence of useless options does give the game a bit of flavor: If everything was equally useful(or useless), then a blind baboon could play the game, which doesn't tend to lend it much depth. The fact that there are traps and pitfalls to be avoided makes things interesting. Besides, it's humorously sadistic in many ways: On one hand, a grossly inferior option serves as a sadistic trap for the unwary. On the other hand, the same option serves as an avenue to humiliate one's opponents by beating them with it. If everything was equally valid, where would the fun be?