Worst Summon ??

[HotNifeThruButr]

I'd say something, but then I'd be echoing Potatoman.

BTW, I've never actually used Celestial Servants. I mean, they might be good with an armor buff, but I'll be damned if anything but my Pretender can actually summon them without Emps.

[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 ]

[Zapmeister]

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.

Very well put, Kel, and also my view, although I've never found such excellent words to express it.

A background noise of small imbalances is not only not a problem, it's also inevitable and part of the colour of the game. Balance issues are the "spikes" that stand out against this backgound noise, and they are only a problem for people (like me) that care about the diversity of strategies that are available to people that play to win.

If there's a few balance spikes in the game, then it doesn't take long before they get heavily used, reducing diversity. As a game designer from way back, my goal has always been to remove the spikes, leaving a more-or-less homogenous, and therefore diverse, set of strategies available to the people that play to win.

[Gandalf Parker]

Of course there is a best and a worst. But that doesnt mean its an imbalance. In some games that would be true if the balance is done by making everything fairly matched. But if a game uses rock-paper-scissors balancing then a worst or best in each Category doesnt mean it needs changed.

(oh yeah and Ive been balancing game items in mmogs for over a decade.)

[ May 19, 2004, 02:48: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Zapmeister]

But if a game uses rock-paper-scissors balancing then a worst or best in each Category doesnt mean it needs changed.

Sure. But what we (or at least I) have been talking about is the game of rock-paper-scissors-atombomb in which rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, paper beats rock and the atombomb beats everything.

The atombomb is a balance spike that should be removed to make the game more interesting.

[Vynd]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

But if a game uses rock-paper-scissors balancing then a worst or best in each Category doesnt mean it needs changed.

Sure. But what we (or at least I) have been talking about is the game of rock-paper-scissors-atombomb in which rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, paper beats rock and the atombomb beats everything.

The atombomb is a balance spike that should be removed to make the game more interesting.

---

Considering their cost, atombombs are a terrible summon. Much better to summon thousands of scissors and fully equip them.

[Cheezeninja]

Hmmm... it seems to me that the 'worst' summon could be wish, because when the game turns into a wishfest of doomhorrors and clams it suddenly loses alot of its dimensions, and correspondingly its fun. The worst could just as easily be the best as well, if its overpowered. And im not saying it is, i have yet to even complete a MP game, i'm just throwing that out based on what i've read on the message board. Worst does not have to equal most useless.
And give thanks for games like this with so many nuances and factors that its actually a subject of debate as to what the worst units are, and in what situation. I've been playing this game pretty steadily for a few months and i havnt even used all the summons yet. Its wonderful.