[Concept] Balance through Balance Intervals

I'm sorry Ragic, I was thinking about how to say what I wanted to say and forgot to add in my last post that I didn't think it was that difficult to look up Sokolov's resume though we already do know that he is a game designer.

sokolov.carbonmade.com/projects/3077570
www.linkedin.com/pub/derek-chin/9/521/12

 

removed

 

The problem I'm seeing with the 'Perfect Imbalance' concept applying to Pox is that there are too many variables involved. Thousands of runes means that you're simply not going to be seeing this, even if you refine it to specific themes.

The other problem, is with this being a strategy game, there's an expectation that whatever you bring to the field, within reason, should have a reasonable chance to beat whatever your opponent brings. This is where I'd be focusing your argument.

Incorporate the A>B>C>A argument into your idea. A (FW in Pox) is expected to beat B (ST maybe), B is expected to beat C (SL?), and C should be expected to beat A (Back to FW). Not that it will 100% of the time, but it should be expected on maybe a 75%/25% or even steeper occurrence.

Part of the reason I favor and disfavor Hunter: Faction abilities. If we only had a handful of factions, they'd work better. But we have Eight, So it does become more complicated. But if we were to create a more realistic model of who should be beating who, and given that information, who else they should be beating on a less than common occurence, we could work on Imperfect Balance by looking at why the expected stats aren't lining up.

Kind of like how MTG does their 'Color Wheel' concept. Only in MTG, the color wheel explains how the different colors of magic interact, not expected win rates. But we can still apply that here. Populate the wheel with 'enemy factions' facing off from each other (FW across from ST, SL across from IS, etc). And have maybe SP and ST touching at the top (they seem to have similar concepts, if albeit very different methods, of how to handle their regions)

So if we focus on KF, we get something like this (Numbers just for explanation)


KF would be expected to beat UD in 90% of their matchups, SL in 80%, so on and so forth, down to an expected chance of winning against FW at 20%. Then you just shift the 'focus' around. Obviously, this isn't a perfect model by any means, because when we come around to UD, if we keep the focus model exactly as it is, we then see that we're expecting a 90% winrate from UD against KF.

I just made the graphic to illustrate the concept. As it is now, we're under the idea that any two factions coming against each other should expect a 50/50 outcome on the match. And the monumental task of balancing this notion will never be accomplished. If, on the other hand, we go in with a 'loaded dice' idea that Every faction will have favorable and unfavorable matchups (similar to how it is now, but hopefully not as skewed), it's much easier to achieve a 'rotating balance' because now you're not trying to make a 50/50 chance of winning for every matchup KF can get into, you're only expected to see KF have a strong advantage against Factions X and Y, poor footing with Factioncs A and B, and a fairly even chance against factions M, N and O.

Anyway, I'm just hoping attaching numbers doesn't detract from the concept. I would hope it doesn't really get skewed to the point that an UD player would likely benefit more from just conceding to KF, but polarizing the factions in a way that you know who you really are strong against and weak against would, in my opinion, help achieve a better state of balance overall through the game.

As always, thanks for bearing with me through a wall of text, and thanks for reading.

 

Do you play LoL?

 

Yes, Ragic, I choose to give Sokolov credibility based on his experience working on PoxNora about PoxNora.

I never said anything about discrediting Extra Credits, as I said, I just didn't know anything about his experience with independent and/or strategy games. Or really, anything about him at all.

 

To my knowledge he has never weighed in on Poxnora, though I really wish he would.

edit: I stand corrected
http://extra-credits.net/episodes/games-you-might-not-have-tried-3/

though it was more of a brief, 'hey you should check this out' rather than a detailed analysis. I guess it was an endorsement of sorts since he included it in the video, but he sounded less than enthusiastic.

 

I did for a lttile bit, tried DoTA as well. tower defense (edit: MOBA) is just not my genre of choice.

 

This would be an option 8 months ago, when we arrived at the crossroads of "how do we approach the revamp". Right now it seems more like "the road not taken".

goddamn I'm getting good at this

 

That would be MOBA dear sir, Tower Defense are the kin of Kingdom Rush.

 

Well, I was asking more in line with your statement about a game using iPox's proposed model as being fun and interesting. LoL uses that exact concept to create dynamics among the champ selections. Though, I can fully get behind tower defense games or similar quickly losing their shine. I don't think I play LoL, DotA or Smite more than a couple days at a time, if I play them even an hour, lately.

 

see? not my genre. thnx info.

 

.

 

I think we should actually be kind of grateful for that. I would be seriously worried about Pox's potential for ever growing past this indie sized palyerbase if they had done a detailed break down of Pox while under SoE's control.

 

do you think their analysis would be different today?

 

Right now, yes, because EC isn't a bunch of blinder-wearing ninnies. They'd recognize that the game is under a different helm, and that DoG is moving the game into something quite possibly worth getting into. At the same time, they wouldn't pull any punches, and would likely tear the current level of balance a new one. Though given that they bashed Pox on not having client side methods of adjusting BGs, using the marketplace or trader, they'd probably give the game some kudos for that on top of having the ability to do so on the main site.

 

I think these days, stuff like client side functionality is just expected. worthy of criticism when not present, but hardly worth mentioning when it is. I also wonder if they would play the game long enough to be able to weigh in on balance issues. they'd probably be less impressed with the newness of a tcg/tbs hybrid, since they arent new anymore. My guess is they would focus on the f2p model, and i don't think they would give that a favorable rating. if you click the links in my sig, you'll see why I think that. but I agree they would be optimistic about the new management.

 

What I got from Sok there was; EC is a very 'fluffy, perfect world' oriented show, that lacks a lot of disclaimers that 'a lot of this is mostly impossible to fully achieve.'

Which, if I was right, is mostly the same way I feel on EC. I love the show, but more than often at the end of an episode I'm wondering how plausible half the things they talk about really are. Though it seems to be 'hit or miss' with them. Sometimes they nail it right on the head, a seemingly irrefutable concept, but sometimes, it's more driven by hope than realism.

Reminds me a bit of Bill Nye the Science Guy. At least the old show that used to show up on PBS. Most of the time was really just spent scratching the surface of the topic covered. But it did it in a way you wanted to go look deeper.

Actually, yeah, I think that's the bigger underlying issue I have with most of EC's stuff. Too many episodes feel like a definitive 'this is how it is' rather than a 'hey, this is just the top layer, go take a deeper look.'

 

I like where this is heading. I'm a huge fan of 'bidding' before a match starts. I just have no idea if there is an economic way to implement such a system. Kind of like a sideboard. Because, as fluffy as we can be with numbers, a meta forms with only a portion of the rune pool, so it would be very possible to just have a small 5-10 rune section you can swap through before a match starts.

But again, is it even any kind of feasible inside the games infrastructure to build such a system? Because if it's possible, we could see even more fine-tuned counter pieces developed later, beyond the scope of plain Hunter: X. We could conceivably see the end of ridiculous hard counters like Unobstructed View for a dedicated detection unit for IS that doesn't hold back what you put it in (Wait, do any of IS's detection units even sandbag their BG any more?)

But yes, I can agree it depends greatly on how the system was introduced. I do however believe that weekly, or even bi-weekly tuning is way out of the question. I can see a sideboard or even a '50 in, 30 to play' system (You build a 50 rune bg, but only bring 30 into a match given what faction you're facing)

Actually, I could probably rattle off fifty different systems I've seen used over the last twenty some odd years of playing these types of games. It's just a matter of what's feasible to see in Pox's future.