|
|
Post by Stormwall on Dec 25, 2016 15:30:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sieglinde Whitemane on Dec 25, 2016 16:04:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormwall on Dec 25, 2016 16:39:45 GMT
The video's fascinating, Sieglinde. Makes a ton of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormwall on Dec 25, 2016 16:58:43 GMT
this video you linked is pretty sweet
makes a ton of sense
the bit about creativity being relegated to beginner and world-class divisions is fascinating
Sieglinde - Today at 9:40 AM
Don't hate me, but I mostly linked it as a counterpoint to your article.
Because I didn't agree with that article at all. XD
Stormwall - Today at 9:42 AM
no hate here lol
i like discussion
i think the first one might be more relevant to what people are doing at kingmakers, and the second one is everything that's wrong with chaos
Sieglinde - Today at 9:43 AM
Calculated imbalance enhances gameplay by creating potential for thriving creative thought. Wanton imbalance is extremely unhealthy and creates a horrifically toxic environment where hard work is punished by the dice of fate.
Like, I'm not involved enough with Chaos to make any claims, and KM is too new to draw any conclusions yet.
I'm just saying that keeping both of those perspectives in mind might be a good idea, going forward.
Stormwall - Today at 9:45 AM
i just re-read the article i linked, and I'm not sure I'm entirely seeing what you're seeing
granted, i haven't played a lot of the games they mentioned
so that may have something to do with it
Sieglinde - Today at 9:47 AM
I haven't played any of the games they've mentioned. All I can do is look at it from the perspective of the games I have played. It's suggesting ignoring balance entirely in favor of flavor. Making some options not just potentially better with applied skill, but fundamentally better in that they have an inherent and unignorable advantage over others.
Most of my experience with strategy games comes from the tactics style of play, turn-based with squares and a small group of individual units against the enemy's (often much larger, but controlled by a dumb AI) group of units. This is balanced because, in single player, the AI is stupid. It is painfully easy to manipulate if you know how it thinks, and a large portion of the difficulty is in figuring out that thought process and exploiting it.
But if you translated that imbalance into multiplayer, you'd get an unending parade of stomp-fests.
Stormwall - Today at 9:51 AM
you're right, that's a perspective i need to consider. Me, i like playing, say, EU4 as Africa or something peripheral, and a lot of the fun I've had on Chaos is about taking little things at a serious disadvantage and makingw aves with them - but not everyone finds that fun
i WANT to be the little guy, I enjoy that, but that's a personal preference
Sieglinde - Today at 9:52 AM
I think this also might be because we're looking at competition in different ways. In the vast majority of games, there isn't just a clear winner and a whole bunch of losers. The entire game constantly soldiers on towards that inevitable conclusion as a matter of course. It has to. The purpose of playing the game is to win, and by definition there's only one winner.
That sort of competition won't be found on a freeform forum. Or, if it is, something has gone horribly wrong.
See: One Sith
Stormwall - Today at 9:53 AM
or selena-era republic, yeah
what interests me is what political scientists call rear-end collision
the rise of an underdog nation relative to the primacy or decline of a major power, and the conflict that results
rises and falls and supplantings without an end victory state
Sieglinde - Today at 9:54 AM
There's no real "end" to a forum, and no real "winner" in most of the competition therein. If you get your ass kicked, you turn your attention somewhere else for a while. So maybe my point doesn't apply yet. It can apply, though, which is sort of the whole reason I'm bringing it up. We've seen it on Chaos, and there's no reason it can't happen on KM.
Stormwall - Today at 9:55 AM
nods
in theory, yeah, it could
smaller systems are easier to imbalance
would you mind if i posted parts of this conversation? it's stuff i feel like people might want to consider
Sieglinde - Today at 9:56 AM
Sure!
Stormwall - Today at 9:56 AM
excellent, thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexandra Feanor on Jan 15, 2017 3:30:31 GMT
These are exactly why I am setting up the way I am with Gyn. I figured considering it looked like you had a dark patch in the spot I was thinking, that a heavily welsh like kingdom would make more sense which meant that cavalry were going to be spotty and rare as well as resources that would allow for mass legions of armored knights. So I took a bit of idea from other fantasy kingdoms and played to the idea of archers and infantry which makes for a more defensive people than an expansive one due to the lack of any real cavalry force to protect them in open areas. This also downplays their knowledge of siege weapons, but on the hindsight allows them greater focus on how the construction of defenses can be improved.
Loved both links. (I apologize for the rant)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mirielle Merlon on Jan 15, 2017 14:51:40 GMT
Alexandra Feanor - yeah, I had a very similar train of thought when designing Ashdell, except that forest was my geographic impediment. I tend to view kingdoms as characters: some are just going to be stronger than others, but they all have different advantages. Location, size (recruitment base), wealth, stability, military focus, preferred terrain - it all factors in.
|
|
