Game balancing

[Phyresis]

(01-10-2013 01:14 PM)garcia1000 Wrote:  Hmm I think the regenerating thorns idea is better than this one. 3HP is a significant buff against Adorables, Veggienauts, and Feedback, but it is a tiny buff against Scallywags.

This seems to be implying that they have the most trouble vs scallywags.

[garcia1000]

Yes, Veggienauts has the most trouble against Scallywags.

[burnodrod]

(01-09-2013 10:09 AM)connor34911 Wrote:  I like how it is. I like that you pick a team and are challenged to do well on any given map.

It's up to you, you can always stick with your team and never change it. But why do you want to force others to do the same? You can't make all maps perfectly balanced for all races, I think that's impossible. Having that we have to choose one race that we feel is safest to play on all the maps in average. I would choose different races for different maps if I had that option. And that would be more interesting replays to see, I guess. Sometimes I'm just losing my interest for the game when I get the map which I don't like to play with this race. Am I the only one?

As you probably know, those who start a game can choose a map and, therefore, can choose a race, i.e. you can decide what race and map you want, than you start massively games with the chosen race and cancel all maps you don't like. So, additionaly to FTA first player has SFTA (Second FTA) as he can choose a map\race.

And now I ask my question again: why don't give us that option since it's not so hard to implement and it would tike less time rather than trying to get a perfect balance among all maps and races?

[Necrocat219]

I'm pretty sure that this does a lot for defence vs shells, that extra wit and extra turn to take out the vine with the AoE should make quite a differenence. I'm not sure it solves the biggest problem that they had (most expensive) but it does give it a massive advantage in capturing wit spaces.

[garcia1000]

That would lead to a lot of boring mirror matches though

[Necrocat219]

(01-10-2013 09:48 PM)garcia1000 Wrote:  That would lead to a lot of boring mirror matches though

Exactly, I thinks its actually healthy to favour a team you are comfortable with on all maps even if people say that it has a disadvantage on said map

[brayton]

Although unlikely, id like to see effects happen later in game.
Such as initially bramble/bombshell has this strength, but at turn(40 or so) X stats decrease, so as to stop turtles. Might(probably) not work though

---

Whats significant about 1337

[game_taker]

(01-10-2013 09:00 PM)burnodrod Wrote:  

(01-09-2013 10:09 AM)connor34911 Wrote:  I like how it is. I like that you pick a team and are challenged to do well on any given map.

It's up to you, you can always stick with your team and never change it. But why do you want to force others to do the same? You can't make all maps perfectly balanced for all races, I think that's impossible. Having that we have to choose one race that we feel is safest to play on all the maps in average. I would choose different races for different maps if I had that option. And that would be more interesting replays to see, I guess. Sometimes I'm just losing my interest for the game when I get the map which I don't like to play with this race. Am I the only one?

As you probably know, those who start a game can choose a map and, therefore, can choose a race, i.e. you can decide what race and map you want, than you start massively games with the chosen race and cancel all maps you don't like. So, additionaly to FTA first player has SFTA (Second FTA) as he can choose a map\race.

And now I ask my question again: why don't give us that option since it's not so hard to implement and it would tike less time rather than trying to get a perfect balance among all maps and races?

Someone already posted a thread talking about this. I will give your comment the same response I gave the thread, "No".

[ImperialSun]

It would hurt the game if you could just pick your team based on your map. As someone said above, boring mirror matches is one thing. Another issue is that then everyone will congregate to the accepted best team on a map and that will hamper innovation for other teams on said map. Sometimes the "best" is just what people use the most because it is already considered the "best". What I mean is, say thing A is considered better than thing B at completing task C. In reality, thing B can actually accomplish task C more efficiently. However, far more people use thing A because it is thought to be better. As a result, the use of thing A to complete task C has more chances to become optimized than the use of thing B. Then, even if thing B has a higher potential threshold than thing A, it is never realized because everyone just keeps using thing A, the accepted best, not the real best.

---

Instead of just throwing in the towel and saying, "Scallywags are clearly OP on this map and Adorables are clearly OP on that map so we should be able to choose which to play on which map", shouldn't we be addressing the real issue? That the maps aren't balanced? I'd say we do two things:

~ attempt to fix the imbalanced maps
~ challenge ourselves to overcome perceived imbalances

If given time the second isn't possible, then we revert to the first. Continue this cycle, rinse and repeat. The game is boring if we just take the easy way out all the time instead of challenging ourselves to overcome hardships. Mobi reaper rush is one example. When people realized Adorables were wrecking on Reaper, OML could have immediately said, "oh no! Let's change the map". That would have been a shame. It's more interesting to have thought-provoking discussion on how to counter the rush then just nerf it immediately from a map change or allow all players to just play Adorables on Reaper. What fun is that? Yay, AvA every game on Reaper!

[Necrocat219]

Us Betatesters kinda messed up on not identifying that Mobi's had a rush on Reaper, and the results pulled from beta by Adam on the +1 wit per kill really only indicated a Scrambler nerf.