How would you patch this game?

[Anglachel]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
The first thing I would do is gather a heap of data about which pretenders, spells, items and troops are used by players all the time, and which ones are never used.

Then I'd enhance or nerf as necessary to create greater diversity in the usage of these game elements.

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?

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".

Honestly curious.

[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?

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Anglachel:
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".

Honestly curious.

The original question was how would *I* patch the game, if the choice was up to me. To answer this personal question, I drew on my personal experience of only employing a small subset of the available game elements myself, with very little reference to what other people do.

That said, in my only post-2.12 game, I find myself almost surrounded by Vampire Queens, an event which I think speaks for itself.

If you nerf/enhance to address balance issues, you don't make everything the same. They are still different in the way they act - some items produce gems, some enhance attack factor, some give supply etc. There's plenty of diversity there that is lost if the items are not used. If items are so weak that they are rarely or never used, then they may as well not be in the game, and to my mind that's a problem worth fixing.

I know Norfleet goes on about how this line of argument is "whining" and whatnot, but really it's about expanding the tactical options available to players, not simply about labelling things as overpowered or underpowered.

It's about making a great game better, and the principle (seeking balance) was not invented by me, but has been around for a lot longer than this particular great game. Honestly, I'm surprised it draws so much negative comment.

[Boron]

only thing i would wish is a disband option.
because if you get one of the random events which gives you xx weak militias or zealots.
because the front can be some provinces away and only thing surely to assasinate them is letting them attack strong fliers or something like this otherwise they will just rout and be in some of your neighbor provinces .
they are just useless but cost you some upkeep.
i think it is considered as a good event so if you have "bad" luck with high luck scale and get these suckers every few turns you have quite an upkeep for them and they are ABSOLUTELY useless .

or is there already a easy way how to get rid of them in the turn you get them ?

[Blitz]

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?

I'm getting a little bored of this propaganda Norfleet. Now that the Vampire Queen has been rightfully nerfed, it's still impossible for you to admit (even to yourself?) that you were either incorrect in your assesment of the pretender's relitive strength, or simply bsing us all in a futile attempt to hide the obvious imbalance that you enjoyed abusing so much. You are very likely the Last defender of the old VQ, even Gandalf and Zen have given up and finally conceded that changes had to be made.

If you are correct about your theory, then it will only be a matter of time before the next huge outcry against a "perfectly legitimate" strategy starts. The reality is that while there may be some occasional discussion about certian issues... there simply will not be a debate about anything currently in the game that rivals the VQ outcry. This is obviously because nothing else in the game is as hopelessly broken as that pretender god was. I would wager that clam of pearls would most likely be next on most ***** lists, but I seriously doubt that there will be anywhere near the fuss over that than there was over your flying, regenerating, erthreal, vampire-summoning, lifedraining lich.

I remember you posting about how your strategies would work just as well with a Ghost King, and you argued that his cheaper paths and better defensive stats made him almost as attractive for munchkin Ermor. By your own arguments, this is hardly a crippling blow for your strategy, and I'm sure you will have just as much success without your hopelessly broken immortal SC. Unfortunately, this most likely won't be the case. The fact is, you probably knew better than anyone how overpowered that unit was, being arguably the game's foremost expert on abusing her. It's unfortunate that now that the fight is lost that we must continue to read the sour-grapes Posts arguing a point even you yourself do not believe.

[ June 17, 2004, 13:34: Message edited by: Blitz ]

[Scott Hebert]

Blitz,

Norfleet's comments are not propaganda; he simply has a very forceful way of expressing his opinions.

The fact is, there IS a lot of whining on this forum. Norfleet may have a broader view than most as to what quantifies it, but even to the rather strict interpretation, it happens here. I don't think Norfleet's ways of dealing with it are particularly useful, but he generally can stay within reasonable bounds.

Norfleet is also more correct than he sounds when he talks about game balance. Reading his post, he sounded a lot like Mark Rosewater in one of his columns about designing Magic: the Gathering; specifically, the one entitled, "Why do we make bad cards?" One of the main arguments that Mr. Rosewater puts forward is that recognizing what is good and what is not-so-good in a game is part of learning the game, and without less-than-optimal game parts, there's nothing to separate good players from bad players. There's also the fact that if you don't have bad cards, you can't have good cards. The article isn't totally applicable to Dominions, but in the main holds true.

To take a Dominions example, why is the Prince of Death better than the Lord of the Gates, in general? If you can give a good answer for that, you're a better player than someone who can't give a good answer.

Now, I also believe that there could be better balance between the Pretenders. A good illustration of this is in my PoD vs. VQ thread. I, a not-so-good player, tried to compare the VQ post-patch vs. the PoD, and felt that the PoD was clearly superior. Better players than I (specifically, PvK and Zen) pointed out that I was comparing apples and oranges, and that the Pretenders served different functions. This is another place where you can see the difference in play skill.

What I feel Norfleet is missing is the rich variety of strategies available in Dominions, and so a clear hierarchy is not necessary. Now, if Norfleet believes there is one best strategy to win Dominions, then his comments make perfect sense. Changing all of the Pretenders to be more balanced devalues the choice of Pretender. However, with all of the different options available to Dominions players, a single 'best' strategy would be hard to quantify.

Anyway, just my take on the situation.

[Gandalf Parker]

I consider the thread topic insulting. Just my opinion.

Besides, nearly everything mentioned works just as well if you said "How would you MOD this game?". And MODding have already been put into the game at players request.

And while I think the most used and least used is worth looking at, I understand that the wonderful balance of this game is NOT from equalizing things. The extreme of that route would be Chess. The balance of this game is closer to the National Football League

[ June 17, 2004, 13:32: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]