Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iä! RIAKTOR!]

Intelligent undead powers are just broken in general.
I have had adventurers that I have sunk considerable amounts of time and effort into be instantly destroyed when I look at some intelligent undead funny and BOOM. He gestures and now my entire spine is lightly rotten, I'm paralyzed and I'm bleeding all over the place. And now the intelligent undead has punched my head in while I was lying on the floor paralyzed. Game over.

That's a good point about Toady's balancing.
He seems to have this idea that if something is ridiculously overpowered, it's fair and balanced if it exists as a possible result for a random creature generator, even if the chance of getting something overpowered is actually pretty high. Hence, the most overpowered things in the game (taking into account how common they are) are the random things.

Toady not need to do any balancing. Real world have no game balance at all.

[NW_Kohaku]

Toady not need to do any balancing. Real world have no game balance at all.

While partly true, it's also kind of a false metaphor.  Real-world people react to the "imbalance" of their "game", and that tends to create a new equilibrium we would consider "balance".

To give a very generalized summary of military technology, the Middle Ages were "balanced" around castles and wearing heavy metal armor favoring the super-wealthy that could afford such things dramatically over masses of peasants, and then cannons "ruined the balance" of castles and metal armor, only to create a situation where you tended to have a "rock-paper-scissors" dynamic between musket infantry, cavalry, and cannon units where armor was useless for a few hundred years before that "balance" was ruined by technology like machine guns and tanks in World War One.

In fact, in one game I was playing recently, they included a real-life US Army TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) manual that they said inspired the balance of the game, and sure enough, on one of the first pages talking about how infantry should be expected to be carrying anti-tank weaponry, they straight-up include a rock-paper-scissors "balance" of modern military units diagram in a discussion of how there "is no 'ultimate' or invincible weapon. The modern battlefield is a contest of measures and countermeasures which, taken together, and on balance will determine the outcome of battle."

The problem is that, unlike real life, there is a limited capacity to adapt new measures in this game to changes to the meta.  That's why people complain about game balance in games, since you're not allowed to invent your way out of problems the way that real people do by the nature of the game's restrictions.

[Iä! RIAKTOR!]

Toady not need to do any balancing. Real world have no game balance at all.

While partly true, it's also kind of a false metaphor.  Real-world people react to the "imbalance" of their "game", and that tends to create a new equilibrium we would consider "balance".

To give a very generalized summary of military technology, the Middle Ages were "balanced" around castles and wearing heavy metal armor favoring the super-wealthy that could afford such things dramatically over masses of peasants, and then cannons "ruined the balance" of castles and metal armor, only to create a situation where you tended to have a "rock-paper-scissors" dynamic between musket infantry, cavalry, and cannon units where armor was useless for a few hundred years before that "balance" was ruined by technology like machine guns and tanks in World War One.

In fact, in one game I was playing recently, they included a real-life US Army TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) manual that they said inspired the balance of the game, and sure enough, on one of the first pages talking about how infantry should be expected to be carrying anti-tank weaponry, they straight-up include a rock-paper-scissors "balance" of modern military units diagram in a discussion of how there "is no 'ultimate' or invincible weapon. The modern battlefield is a contest of measures and countermeasures which, taken together, and on balance will determine the outcome of battle."

The problem is that, unlike real life, there is a limited capacity to adapt new measures in this game to changes to the meta.  That's why people complain about game balance in games, since you're not allowed to invent your way out of problems the way that real people do by the nature of the game's restrictions.

My preferred game mode is worldgen. And Legends reading is interesting too.

Fortress mode is challenge. I think, worlds of current game have too few necromancers.