Quote:
Kalin said:
Terrel, it's only bad because you think of it like this:
extra gems = [Gems spent - (Cost x (1 - 0.2))] x 1.2
...
|
Exactly right.
Quote:
Now, you might argue that a site is SUPPOSE to give that advantage, but then I would have to disagree. I mean, is a site really suppose to give you 200+ free gems (if you are into the thousands for that slot)? Wouldn't that make the site plain overpowered?
So if you're saying we should fix it and add that 20% to the free gems, then I have to respectfully disagree (due to insane imbalances). But if you're saying we should fix it so that it discounts properly, then I agree, but as I pointed out earlier, it's really not THAT bad of a problem.
|
This is in fact what I am arguing. It is also true that I really don't have enough experience in this game to make any strong argument one way or the other on game balance.
However, I have played many strategy games over the years and on thing I
can say with confidence is that the very fact that it is "not THAT bad of a problem" also means that these sites are not very significant strategically (at least not in the end game).
My argument is mainly motivated by the sense that the game would be more interesting and more fun if the were strategically significant (or better yet important). In fact, I do believe that the construction, conjuration and most of all that famously unbalanced blood site are strategically quite important from the time they are discovered through the end game. (Come to think of it, I have a hard time seeing why my suggested formula for extra gems is unbalancing, when my formula is quite consistent with the way non-global spell bonus sites already work.)
Anyhow, just my thoughts on the question. Like I said, I really don't know enough to opine on balance questions, though (obviously) I do have my opinion on what makes a game fun.
