Dud units / monsters / summons - Page 7

Gandalf Parker · #61 April 24th, 2007, 11:35 AM

Some people will only be happy with a strategy game that involves perfectly matched pieces that are a different color. Like playing Chess. Nothing wrong with such games. They are the true test of strategy-vs-strategy. They also tend to want chess-board maps with nothing random which might cause a game to be won by luck. This is an extreme group and can be supported by maps and mods. (hmmm mods that create a dozen duplicates of Ulm so the Ulmers can play against other Ulmers. One mod for each nation...)

Of course there is also the other extreme. Those who prefer random and chaos. The game is to best handle the things thrown at you. Also supportable by maps and mods (one day I will update Leif's Dom2 mod that changes one randomly chosen stat on every unit in the game so that you have to rethink your strategy each time you play with it. And recreate my chaotic randomized maps). Yes Im in the chaotic group.

OF course, MOST players are someplace in between and seem to be having a great time with the game. I will continue to suggest chaos and random in the beta-test group. And we have our representatives in this thread who will continue to post there in the name of balance and equalizing.
And the poor devs will continue to watch us go back and forth.

Gandalf Parker

Sombre · #62 April 24th, 2007, 12:07 PM

What's chaotic about units so bad they'll always punish you for using them?

I'm not into uber-balance. I don't even play MP. I like variety and if certain units are just bad that cuts down the variety, even in SP. It also weakens the AI, since it can't tell a good buy from a bad one.

Dedas · #63 April 24th, 2007, 12:50 PM

That is a very good post, Gandalf. I'm entirely with you.

Jazzepi · #64 April 24th, 2007, 12:58 PM

Even some people who play chess think every side having the same exact start is dull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960

Jazzepi

quantum_mechani · #65 April 24th, 2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
Some people will only be happy with a strategy game that involves perfectly matched pieces that are a different color. Like playing Chess. Nothing wrong with such games. They are the true test of strategy-vs-strategy. They also tend to want chess-board maps with nothing random which might cause a game to be won by luck. This is an extreme group and can be supported by maps and mods. (hmmm mods that create a dozen duplicates of Ulm so the Ulmers can play against other Ulmers. One mod for each nation...)

Of course there is also the other extreme. Those who prefer random and chaos. The game is to best handle the things thrown at you. Also supportable by maps and mods (one day I will update Leif's Dom2 mod that changes one randomly chosen stat on every unit in the game so that you have to rethink your strategy each time you play with it. And recreate my chaotic randomized maps). Yes Im in the chaotic group.

OF course, MOST players are someplace in between and seem to be having a great time with the game. I will continue to suggest chaos and random in the beta-test group. And we have our representatives in this thread who will continue to post there in the name of balance and equalizing.
And the poor devs will continue to watch us go back and forth.

I think that's a pretty false dichotomy. As Sombre points out, the goal of balancing (at least as far as I'm concerned) is more variety, thus in a sense more chaos. As far as the random element, personally I can't stand chess very because of the lack of any randomness. I'm the last one that will complain about too much randomness in a game, as long as your actions still have some impact, it's all in good fun.

What I'm getting at here is there two kind of balance, what's out of your hands and what is under your control. I don't mind things being 'unbalanced' by being screwed by a random event early or playing on a crazy map, what I can't bring myself to do is to buy obviously inferior troops. In a way, balancing is bridging the gap between the hardcore players and those that players that are just along for the ride. It helps the players that want to try all the options not be so disadvantaged, and opens up all kinds of new strategies for hardcore players to work with.

Gandalf Parker · #66 April 24th, 2007, 01:46 PM

Most of the obviously inferior troops that get fixed by peoples mods are units that I enjoy playing with quite abit. Some are very RPG and having them non-inferior would be non-thematic. They are meant to be crappy swarmers. I also dont tend to play with a spreadhseet in my head comparing single points of hp or armor or defense with the unit next to it. To me, knowing exactly which unit is the best choice making the others "duds" is akin to a cheat sheet.

If you want to twiddle-diddle every point of every unit then feel free to (There is a mod for that?). But it seems to me as if it would be a never-ending project which is like a pendulum swinging back and forth until it finally ends up coming to a complete stop in the middle. Chess pieces.

quantum_mechani · #67 April 24th, 2007, 01:58 PM

Well, if you are arguing some units should not be worth buying for thematic reasons, there's not much I can say to that. Because I can't think of any units that would fall into that category, militia are supposed to suck but they can also be thematically made much cheaper than other troops, light cavalry may suck but thematically/historically they have their uses even if it's hard to model in dominions.

In any case, I hardly meticulously compare every units stats while playing a game, it's 90% just a sort of intuition based on past games. The only place that really comes into play at all is when I have a number of very similar national troops, and really the only difference at all is one or two points of defense.

And you can balance dominions for the next century but I doubt you will come up with anything resembling chess by tweaking units stats.

Ironhawk · #68 April 24th, 2007, 02:05 PM

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 · #69 April 24th, 2007, 02:36 PM

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.

PvK · #70 April 24th, 2007, 03:48 PM

Sombre, I could spend all day debunking the avalanche of ill-considered exaggerated opinions in these threads about various units and nations being "duds", but I'd rather not waste that much of my time, particularly when people (I don't mean you specifically) don't even get what's spelled out. My tone may have distracted you from what I was saying, but I did include reasons you seem to have either missed or didn't appreciate about how Flagellants (even cripples), Marignon Scouts, and Pale Ones all have very good uses and reasons for being the way they are (except Pale Ones being misplaced in militia, which I agreed with at least once in its own thread).

PvK

Quote:

Sombre said:
I don't see people saying 'dud' units should be removed - rather that they should be improved so they aren't useless. The claim that people just haven't found what the units are good for strikes me as pretty daft. There are several units and spells in dom3 that are simply bad.

True I said I thought the flaggies were awful, but admitted I hadn't given them much testing. It's possible that when I used them they were particularly unlucky with their afflictions (crippled, lost an arm or diseased if I remember correctly). I know they were garbage when I used them, which is why I brought them up in the thread. People have disagreed with me and I have changed my position - if many people find them useful I clearly need to give them another go. Which would be the point of this whole thread.

As for the scout / spy for marignon, it's not like I'm dead set against marignon having a scout. I just see it as somewhat weird that they'd need one when they have spies. Obviously it's going to weaken the nation by a whopping 0.0000005% not being able to build those scouts, but I think I could live with that. And /much more/ expensive?

As for Pale Ones I belive the main objection was that they turn up in Agartha PD where they are useless and are unthematically slaughtered in droves. They also make poor fighters underwater or not.

I think you need to cut down on your hyperbole a little. If you disagree you can do it in a constructive non snarky non eyerolling way.