Print

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

[StupidElves]

From what I've seen, it'd be interesting if there was an ancient power that worked with an artifact that people found, and the artifact possessed them. Like the One Ring, or Majora's Mask. That would be real fun.

[Neonivek]

From what I've seen, it'd be interesting if there was an ancient power that worked with an artifact that people found, and the artifact possessed them. Like the One Ring, or Majora's Mask. That would be real fun.

I am thinking more Soul Calibur/Soul Edge.

That kind of fits more.

[gimli]

While we are at it...there is a huge potential in this game. It will be complex and unique on the strategy market. [I think it can be compared to Doms 4. in complexity.] I am only worried about the AI. Creating a decent AI for a complex game like this...well it isn't an easy task. Let's hope that the devs won't fail with the AI coding, especially because this is a "singleplayer only" game, unlike Doms 4. which is basically MP only. [IW never cared about the AI or the singleplayer experience, it's known for ages.]

Oh and here is a new post by Josh:

"We've decided Fridays make the most sense for us based on our scheduling, we've already wrapped up this week's video which will be on The Map Builder, and we will release it on the same day to the beta backers. Next week's video will be on the redone Scenario Builder and we'll go through making custom nations/cultures/races/POIs."

Hell yeah! So the new dev video is going to be released tomorrow! 

[Digital Hellhound]

The beta backers? Does that mean only people in the beta? If so, I hope lesser-tier backers get them soon as well.

[Neonivek]

The biggest issue with the game is that it isn't balanced.

But that it is intentionally unbalanced and asymmetrical.

Though I am guessing by just looking at it.

Not sure if people will appreciate that.

[Delta Foxtrot]

Seems a bit silly to be guessing that based on very little we know so far.

[sebcool]

The biggest issue with the game is that it isn't balanced.

But that it is intentionally unbalanced and asymmetrical.

Though I am guessing by just looking at it.

Not sure if people will appreciate that.

IMO, balance isn't really all that important in games like this. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Large scale, complex genres like Grand Strategy and 4x rely on the unbalance and asymmetry to give the game depth and challenge. When you have so many variables, it is impossible to make it balanced without simplifying the mechanics and making the game dull. What makes a game like this interesting is that every faction is different and have strengths and weaknesses which can be exploited, and some factions are just weaker than others. It makes the game competitive and allows better players to play with worse ones, by using a more difficult faction (not to mention in singleplayer, where it can be vital to keep the challenge)

A lot of the best Grand Strategy and 4x titles are unbalanced and asymmetrical. Frankly, I don't think balance is really a good thing in most games, unless they are highly competitive, skill based genres like FPS or RTS. When you have to worry about having everything be balanced, it makes it harder to create complex and interesting mechanics, which allow for greater depth and more fun gameplay.

Edit: That which sleeps is a perfect example of this. Yes, you could make the game more balanced, but that would mean stripping out a lot of complex mechanics and interactions in order to make the game simple enough to balance what remains. Making it balanced would pretty much rip out the soul of the game, and turn it into a much shallower experience.

On the other hand, by making it deliberately unbalanced, it can paradoxically make it more competitive. A faction which is dominant in one aspect of the game is often inferior in another, something a clever player can exploit. It can turn the game into a complex and fun web of strategies and manipulation, where every player tries to use their strengths while exploiting their enemies weaknesses. Endless Legend is an example of such a deliberately unbalanced game.

[gimli]

The biggest issue with the game is that it isn't balanced.

But that it is intentionally unbalanced and asymmetrical.

Though I am guessing by just looking at it.

Not sure if people will appreciate that.

It's impossible to talk about balance right now, but as we know, all the Old Ones are very different with regard to their gameplay mechanics, and it's awesome as it is. If the AI will be able to handle them properly, it's all good. We can mod almost everything in the game, including the Old Ones, so buffing/nerfing them will be possible IF needed. Let's wait and see.

[Delta Foxtrot]

I'd like to point out that asymmetry and balance are two different things. While certainly asymmetry is harder to balance around, it's a rather bold claim to make that asymmetry automatically equals imbalance.

Take Starcraft 2 for instance. Three without a doubt asymmetric sides, but winrates for all hover in the 45-55% range ie. balanced.

[nenjin]

We should really stall this debate until there's a game to play.

[TempAcc]

"Symmetry = balance" is an idea that, when applied, has ruined many a game for me, since it tends to make the game less fun and your choices seem less significant. Its what made the age of wonders and heroes of might and magic series progressively less interesting for me, spell and faction wise.

Asymmetry isn't easy to balance around, certainly, but makes for a far more enriching experience then just creating a basic structures for all game entities (factions, gods, spells) to follow, like AoW and the later Heroes of Might and Magic games did, with things like "this is your basic attack spell! Its very similar to the other basic attack spells except for its elemental affinity" and "this is your basic ranged/melee/siege/high speed unit", etc.

[puke]

Yeah, starcraft is the classic example.  3 distinct playstyles, very different tactics, very different unit functions and production / logistics strategy.  I never played 2, but I assume it was cut from the same cloth.

The grand daddy of them all, Dune 2, was its self asymmetric.  Production models were identical, but the unique units for each faction really stood out and made them play completely differently

On the other side of the coin, you've got something more like TA or Supreme Commander.  The three factions in SC are basically identical, completely symmetric, and (to my tastes) completely boring.

After I explored TA a little deeper, I found lots of little features like the fact that one side's minefields MOVED while another sides did not -- and this was completely undocumented.  I came to realize that it had thousands of these little details that made it a RTS aficionado's dream, it was exceptionally nuanced and also exceptionally well balanced --- but it was still totally not the game for me.

Which was a shame, because I bought it *really* wanting to like it.

Edit: Also, FFS, how can you possibly level this sort of critique at a game that is still in active development?  Especially the crazy modern kickstarted open beta kind of "we're still taking fan input as we go" kind of development, where the whole thing might pivot on a whim?

Also, Also, isnt this a single player game? How is symmetry or balance even a thing?

[Cthulhu]

Guys, we're debating over a Neonivek post.

This strikes me as the kind of game that doesn't necessarily need an airtight balance.  Like some out of control things like the original Limos design were overpowered but more because they introduced problem game cycles than that they were by-the-numbers too stronk.  He was either not winning or he was winning, there was no middle ground, and it was really a matter of how long the game went.

It's a single-player game so I don't see tight competitive balance as necessarily being the best approach anyway, I like the idea of a looser balance.  You've got all kinds of crazy shit at your disposal but at the same time the kingdoms of the world united can put you down hard.

[puke]

Whoops, are we debating over that?  I thought I was responding to Delta Foxtrot & TempAcc, and just discussing symmetry as an abstract thing.  I must have been ignoring the instigating post.

Didn't mean to dip my toe in something unpleasant, sorry if I said anything provocative, I take it all back, etc.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Guys, we're debating over a Neonivek post.

This strikes me as the kind of game that doesn't necessarily need an airtight balance.  Like some out of control things like the original Limos design were overpowered but more because they introduced problem game cycles than that they were by-the-numbers too stronk.  He was either not winning or he was winning, there was no middle ground, and it was really a matter of how long the game went.

It's a single-player game so I don't see tight competitive balance as necessarily being the best approach anyway, I like the idea of a looser balance.  You've got all kinds of crazy shit at your disposal but at the same time the kingdoms of the world united can put you down hard.

+1 for being amazingly accurate.