"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

[spoon]

Originally posted by Zarix:
I don't see any problem with maintenance. It helps a lot in long games but in short ones it is totally useless. For example if you meet a race with high maintenance reduction it only means that you have to attack fast so the race doesn't have time to benefit from the low maintenance cost.

No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous. The only time it might not help is if you get rushed. But that is pretty rare, since rushing tends to hurt the rusher...
Everyone should take Maint Reduction to 110%. And you can't attack everyone you see on sight.

The balance problems aren't an issue to me. There has to be some bad tactics and some good ones. If the game were in perfect balance it would be much less interesting.

I disagree. Balance doesn't take away strategic options, it gives you more. What you want are tactics that are good in situation 'X', but not so good in 'Y'.

[ December 26, 2002, 20:59: Message edited by: spoon ]

[Phoenix-D]

"No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous."

You can only expand more quickly with maintance reduction if your maintance is causing you to run out of resources. Unless and until the non-reduction player's shipyards have to sit idle for lack of cash, the player with it has no advantage.

Phoenix-D

[spoon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

You can only expand more quickly with maintance reduction if your maintance is causing you to run out of resources. Unless and until the non-reduction player's shipyards have to sit idle for lack of cash, the player with it has no advantage.

If you aren't running out of cash, you aren't expanding quickly enough (or you have a very nice starting position chock full of mineral planets (which I hear are best...)

[Gryphin]

List of variables that will affect the outcome of a given Strategy
For both Yourself and Opponents
Experience
Starting Location
Intelligence and creativity
Allies, (this is influenced by starting location)
Any others?

I never try to “rationalize” a Feature / Limitation / Advantage that does not make logical sense. I use take advantage of it or not. I am open to a gentleman’s agreement not to take advantage of a feature in the game. Against the AI I do it all the time.
In my Opinion
Game Balance? Like Geo and others have mentioned:
Rock, Paper, Scissors

[Grandpa Kim]

Balance doesn't take away strategic options, it gives you more. What you want
are tactics that are good in situation 'X', but not so good in 'Y'.

And that is the secret. Choosing a high construction rate should cost me something of equal value whether it be research speed, happiness or to hit probability. Determining that "equality" is the rub. For instance:

but it is not as good as any of the Big Four (Adv. Storage,
HI, Propulsion, Ancient Race).

In my opinion, you can drop Ancient Race and give me Natural Merchants. Does this mean you are wrong, Spoon? No, it may mean we have wildly different styles! Or perhaps one is better than other. I don't know... but I will continue using Natural Merchants while not even considering Ancient Race.

If we had all of the several hundred regulars on this board set down on paper, their "perfect" balance, we would not get two the same. Simple differences in style and outlook would overrun the "perfection". ... But we would discover a dozen or more things that everyone thinks are too strong or too weak. Perfection is unattainable but improvement is very possible.

[SamuraiProgrammer]

I think part of the challenge is finding a way to make the most of what you have. A good player can win with one set of racial traits and then take the losing race and beat you again.

This is due to the ability of finding the best way to use what you have.

[PvK]

Well, I have great contempt for the game "rock/paper/scissors", for people who waste their time for it, and I am dumbfounded by people who see it as a principle of game design. The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics. I would never call that "rock/paper/scissors" though, because what "rock/paper/scissors" stands for to me, is thoroughly pointless game design, where the elements are superficially labelled as something interesting, but in fact are all exactly the same. I guess it's just a semantic pet peeve of mine, rather than a real disagreement with the actual concepts involved.

At least, most of the time. I have however noticed that often (not necessarily in connection with SE4) that people who do talk use the expression "rock/paper/scissors" as if it were a fundamentally good concept, also tend to come up with some game design ideas that I really don't enjoy. Especially, games designed with really obvious artificial balance techniques that don't make any sense but make it clear to unsophisticated players what the strengths and weaknesses of each element are.

Ah well,

PvK

[ December 27, 2002, 04:52: Message edited by: PvK ]