Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)

[Foodstamp]

DonCorazon,

No biggy. I see the term thrown around quite a bit to explain why people won't use certain features, bugs etc. That is why I pushed the conversation a bit. I think it is interesting that people identify the game style as roleplaying.

Personally I would term it "casual play". By casual play I mean the player plays the game his way. If things do not jive with his way of playing, he is not engaged enough with the game to play outside his playstyle, which means he will quit, or choose to play with people who are willing to play by his rules.

Basically a mindset where the player says "I know this can be countered, but through a lot of tedious work on my part, and I am not in this game for tedious work."

Oftentimes roleplayers fit into the "casual player" mode as well, and I think that is why sometimes people consider them synonymous.

For instance, in an MMORPG I play, when our group ran with 3 priests, we were near invincible. The average group consisted of 2 priests normally. We would get /tells telling us that we were lame because we had three priests in our group, and that it was boring fighting us because they could not do enough damage to get through all the heals. There was nothing in the game to stop us from having 3 priests in our group, but rather than countering an unorthodox group make up, they chose to quit, because the time/thinking investment was beyond what they were willing to commit to.

Fixing bugs is one thing. But in the past I have seen this go beyond fixing bugs. As people get more vocal, some of the more unique aspects of some of the games I have played have been brought in line with what is the norm for the rest of the game, to make the vocal players happy.

There was a pet class in DAOC called an "Animist". Originally the class could summon as many pets as it's mana bar allowed. I used to play one of these characters and I would die more often than I would kill. This class had stationary pets that could only damage an enemy if they were within a certain close range. Animists would hide their pets behind walls so when enemies came through openings, the pets would damage them. The damage was weak, and if the player ran back out the hole in the wall, they would live. But more often than not, the player would freak out and run around in circles and die. Seemed like good strategy to me. But to people who felt beguiled by such tactics, it was cheap and lame. Over the years they were able to persuade the developers to cap the number of pets the player could have, until finally that character went from having as many as he could muster, to 15, and now finally 5. The thing that made the class unique was taken away because people complained enough. Not people in the know, but people who had just started playing, or refused to change their charge forward playstyle.

[Cerlin]

The second part of foodstamps post has special meaning for me...What i am seeing here is making me afraid of too much "nerfing" (an mmo term especially.)

I also played Dark Age of Camelot back in the day, and the reason I stopped playing the game is because people who did not want to think to counter good tactics would go on the forums, and whine until the developers changed the game to their liking. I really hope that does not happen here. After watching that happen in DAOC i totally understand Foodstamps reaction and I would say I have a similar one. People, please do not just whine about a tactic you dont like. Of course hacking the game files, or using glichy mapmovie isnt intended. But things like spells you personally dont like, that is just preference, it doesnt mean the game should change.

I would also like to say that I do not consider myself a great player at this game, I am mediocre at best. But i am one of the masochistic players who enjoys playing for the experience and losing and discovering new things. Hell I was playing on Sloth as LA C'tis and managed to lose to Tien Chi in less that 7 turns! That was a hell of an experience.

In conclusion, I want to say I love this game because of all the options, units, and counters. and I especially enjoy the forums because you all are for the most part interesting, mature, and intelligent people from all over the world. So let us please keep it civil on both sides (it seems to be getting back there.) And for the dev's please consider the whining just that, and fix the problems you feel are best.

[Sombre]

Rebalancing and nerfing does NOT automatically equate to less variety or in any way ruin the gameplaying experience. Often the people saying they're worried about this happening are just trying to protect the way they play, doing exactly what they accuse others of by whining to try and get things their way.

Let's say random indy light infantry were an amazing unit. Basically better than any national recruitable, better than any other indy, widely available. So everyone's using them because they're great. All is fair. But effectively people who want to try and use varied strategies, make the most of different units and so on are being punished since it's always better to build these light infantry. So it is suggested they are overpowered and should be nerfed into line with the other units. I guarantee there would be a few people up in arms about how the game was in danger of being nerfed into oblivion and how X random online game was ruined by nerfs and people complaining and how nothing needed to be done because hey, everyone can build them, so they're fair.

I just don't get it. Is it that hard to understand that good balancing /increases/ variety? Ever heard of Rock Paper Scissors Mentok? It's like Rock Paper Scissors, but with the added variety of Mentok, which beats the other three and ties with itself. See where I'm going with this?

Honestly the only reason I can see for their behaviour is that they really like using the overpowered unit/tactic/spell/whatever being discussed, particularly if their opponent isn't using it and is trying to make use of the outclassed other options.

[Cerlin]

Oh trust me, as for me I am very conventional in this game. I have problems using traditional strategy and winning with it. But I find it part of the fun. Dont get me wrong, I really think several things here need to be fixed or not used, like MoD. I am just saying that I can understand why people are afraid of it getting out of control. But at the same time im sure some people defend MoD because they love to use it (or others.)

[Foodstamp]

Sombre,

Balance rarely leads to more variety when the items in question are unconventional to begin with. More often, it is easier to bring those elements inline with the rest of the game. In the end you end up with scissors, rocks and paper as you suggest, leaving out fire, dynamite, water balloon, the attacking jesus and a toothless grin. Ultimately, it becomes a choice of left handed or right handed scissors, blue construction paper or college rule, sandstone or granite. They are different, but they are still rocks, scissors and paper, so there is no depth beyond learning the initial strategy, and there is limited replay value.

[Sir_Dr_D]

Foodstamp. Have you looked at the CB mod? What in that mod does that. In my opinion in brings in the fire, dynamate, water baloon, attacking Jesus, and the toothless grin, by doing things like boosting the unused summons, giving the unused pretenders cool powers,and making unused magical items more interesting.

What you are talking about is balanace being done badly. But if it is done well, it adds depth to the game, and not take it away.

[Sombre]

I'm sorry I don't buy that in the slightest. There's nothing particularly unconventional about dominions at its core and it isn't so varied or complex that you can't work towards balance. Balancing increases replay value not by making all elements the same, but by ensuring different elements can effectively be used and different paths explored. Certain elements need to be improved, certain others need to be weakened.

You talk about what is 'easier' as if that is what will be done. Yes, the easiest way to balance the game is to make all sides the same, all maps the same, all spells the same. But no-one is suggesting that and it isn't going to happen. The kind of balancing that we're realistically talking about is the fixing of the overpowered and, judging from what happened with LA Abysia, MA Mictlan, LA and MA Ulm etc, addition and boosting of national units and spells.

Beyond that the main balancing movement is CBM, which again aims to increase variety through balancing, toning down the overpowered and boosting the weak. Is that in your opinion heading towards a less varied game with restricted replay value?


I personally haven't been part of a game that's been 'ruined' by balancing. Even when people describe these 'horror story' examples of balancing from other games I rarely have much sympathy. I remember a friend telling me about some online WW2 shooter where far and away the best weapon was the shotgun, which everyone used. So people banned 'shotgun whoring' on certain servers and there was a backlash of people complaining that if everyone could pick the shotgun it was fair. Then the makers of the game toned down the shotgun so it wasn't obviously better than all the other guns. My friend quit in disgust. Why? I guess because he liked killing people with the shotgun who hadn't worked out it was the only weapon worth picking. I'm not saying MoD/SoW is the 'shotgun' here, just talking about balancing and fixing in general. To me a game where the elements are different but equally effective (if you use them correctly, in the correct context) is far more interesting than one where a handful of elements are simply more effective. Especially when those elements are flat out cheesy like MoD/SoW, or in some other game, spamming stuff on a spawn point or doorway. Clearly fun for some people, but not at all for me. Looks bad, plays bad, is bad.

[Cerlin]

In response to triqui, I do think that spells do not work as intended should be fixed by the dev's. I did not say that i consider exploits of bugs as legit gaming. Fixing bugs isnt "nerfing."

And Sombre I do not disagree with you, I just do not think I was being clear myself, though you did a good job of it. I do think they should fix things, not so everything is 'the same' but so all countries have a chance. I mean if there is only one late game strat and only say Air countries can counter it, that basically destroys the game for everyone else who wants to play like a fire nation. What Im trying to say is the fact this game has many strategies and just as many counters to those strategies. I enjoy it. I wouldnt like to be beaten by an exploit, but if someone can beat me with a better strategy then mine then they are welcome too. And I am far from a "min/maxer" or "powergamer." I tend to pick nations in this game that are thematically fun to me, then try to make them work.

I have just seen whining do negative things too so I am careful. Since you are using metaphors then so shall I...
When I was playing DAOC, the instance that made me quit was that my favorite character was an Armsman, which is just basically a fighter with a Sword and shield. He was fun for me to play and I did it well (considering the class was considered weak.) But because other warrior types of other nations complained enough they made it so we could kill nothing, and became useless as a class. I am all for balance, I am just afraid of i when it goes too far. That is all.

Please fix the bugs or ban them, I never plan to use power gaming strats like this, I will just continue doing medium in my games and enjoying myself.

[K]

Sombre said:

I just don't get it. Is it that hard to understand that good balancing /increases/ variety? Ever heard of Rock Paper Scissors Mentok? It's like Rock Paper Scissors, but with the added variety of Mentok, which beats the other three and ties with itself. See where I'm going with this?

The thing I don't understand why everyone thinks that any of the above stated tactics are "Mentok." They aren't. Every one has a counter (usually several).

Sure, maybe you don't have that counter or aren't good enough at the game to keep it prepared, but isn't that the very essence of this game?

At it's essence, this game is about using tactics your opponent cannot or won't counter. Mere superiority in army size, income, or provinces can't win you this game unless you opponent is a noob.

[MaxWilson]

It's partly an Outside Context Problem. MoD, for example, has no counter that an attacker can employ within the context of a particular battle. That makes people tetchy if they want a game of tactical maneuvering instead of strategic second-guessing--the counter requires shifting contexts. It's Mentok for the specific battle in question.

-Max