Discussion Corner: Overpowered...?

KingJad · May 31, 2015

Sokolov said: ↑

To further the discussion in a slightly different directions, let us consider the following question:

Is there a point at which ANY mechanic is balanced?

For example, let's say that there is a spell that says, "You win the game." Clearly, this is extremely powerful. But is there a nora cost at which such an effect becomes "acceptable" or "balanced?"
Click to expand...

Don't really like the example but I guess it seems reasonable since most people literally do say X ability caused their opponent to "win the game". I don't think one spell/ability should be powerful enough to drastically shift the tide of the game. There are 100+ abilities in the game and 1 should not completely alter the tide. A combination of abilities/spells that create a larger mechanic that can turn the tide is acceptable/balanced.

Markoth · May 31, 2015

Sokolov said: ↑

To further the discussion in a slightly different directions, let us consider the following question:

Is there a point at which ANY mechanic is balanced?

For example, let's say that there is a spell that says, "You win the game." Clearly, this is extremely powerful. But is there a nora cost at which such an effect becomes "acceptable" or "balanced?"
Click to expand...

The reverse is already sorta in the game in Onus of Kiergana. If you dont win in X turns you lose. I think it would be possible to make a "You win the game" mechanic balanced but is balance always the desired result? Even if it was balanced people would hate to lose against it. No matter the expense that the victor payed the loser would feel that the win was "cheap".

nynevening · May 31, 2015

Sokolov said: ↑

So this is exactly the kind of thing I was getting at. Is it actually desirable that any specific rune isn't better or worse than any other rune? In the abstract, the logical conclusion this leads to is that you can close your eyes and pick 30 random runes and have that be as good as any other deck. Which doesn't seem like the kind of game we want to play.
Click to expand...

Nope, because runes have interactions.
Then you have themes, and some runes will always be played with other runes.

Because of sinergy, we will themes will emerge when balance is good enough. We will have the speed of elves, the mindless sacrifice of zombies, the uniqueness of dragons, the endurance of dwarves.

Each theme favoring a playstyle. None better than the other.

KingJad · May 31, 2015

If your were going to make an ability with that kind of power this is what I would consider balanced.

240 nora

"I win"
(Global aoe targeting like summon ant)All your champions are destroyed. After 34 turns, your opponent's shrine and all of your opponent's units are destroyed, even if they would otherwise not be destroyed, and you win the game (this effect cannot be removed).

nynevening · May 31, 2015

Markoth said: ↑

The reverse is already sorta in the game in Onus of Kiergana. If you dont win in X turns you lose. I think it would be possible to make a "You win the game" mechanic balanced but is balance always the desired result? Even if it was balanced people would hate to lose against it. No matter the expense that the victor payed the loser would feel that the win was "cheap".
Click to expand...

People will always cry, but in this case they will only be able to complain at their own skill.

badgerale · May 31, 2015

nynevening said: ↑

Yeah, but no rune should be auto-include. Sacrifice should not be better, nor worst, than any other rune in UD.

A lot of players will use ret/sac for flavor reasons but on competitive level guys will only use it runes for it cost/benefit.
Click to expand...

I think sacrifice is an interesting rune, because I don't think that the effect is OP in terms of cost-benefit.

What it is though, is unique in its effect - there aren't any other runes that give burst nora (as in a reasonable chunck of nora instantly). This effect is clearly very strong, and so any rune that provides it will be desirable.

But is it actually OP because it provides something you'll want in every deck, or is it like fireblast - doing what it does in a mediocre way, but is the only place to get it.

nynevening · May 31, 2015

badgerale said: ↑

I think sacrifice is an interesting rune, because I don't think that the effect is OP in terms of cost-benefit.

What it is though, is unique in its effect - there aren't any other runes that give burst nora (as in a reasonable chunck of nora instantly). This effect is clearly very strong, and so any rune that provides it will be desirable.

But is it actually OP because it provides something you'll want in every deck, or is it like fireblast - doing what it does in a mediocre way, but is the only place to get it.
Click to expand...

There should be more sacrifice/retribution mechanics available tough.

Like a samurai demon elf in UD with the hability of killing itself and doing a mini retribution.

Or a demon elf priest who can sacrifice other champs. Stuff like that.

badgerale · May 31, 2015

I can imagine a rune similar that is a reverse marsh song - it gives you a burst of nora which you must pay back with interest:

Pay day loan - 25 nora

You gain 75 nora, at the start of your next three turns you lose 25 nora.

kalasle · May 31, 2015

badgerale said: ↑

I can imagine a rune similar that is a reverse marsh song - it gives you a burst of nora which you must pay back with interest:

Pay day loan - 25 nora

You gain 75 nora, at the start of your next three turns you lose 25 nora.
Click to expand...

The combos are already swimming through the air.

KingJad · May 31, 2015

badgerale said: ↑

I can imagine a rune similar that is a reverse marsh song - it gives you a burst of nora which you must pay back with interest:

Pay day loan - 25 nora

You gain 75 nora, at the start of your next three turns you lose 25 nora.
Click to expand...

um where's the interest?

badgerale · May 31, 2015

KingJad said: ↑

um where's the interest?
Click to expand...

It costs 25 nora to use, so you are paying 100 in total for +50 immediate gain.

KingJad · May 31, 2015

badgerale said: ↑

It costs 25 nora to use, so you are paying 100 in total for +50 immediate gain.
Click to expand...

completely ignored the cost to cast it.

nynevening · May 31, 2015

@Sokolov you could stop releasing new mechanics and start only releasing new runes into existing themes.

It should be done since day one. Only release new mechanics and themes when the existing are ok.

Also, please publish the rune usage data of the top 10%. Dont forget the KF bonus change, please consider the ranged bonus change. I have a post that fully describe the change.

nynevening · May 31, 2015

In fact, could you make available real time public report page with the top 10% players rune usage.

SireofSuns · May 31, 2015

kalasle said: ↑

It's the fundamental distinction, the choice of words by which you make a distinction, with which I take issue. There are many ways to not understand someone, but I think the simple mechanics of your words are not at issue here.

"Purely playing it" -- that phrase takes a particular view of a game. I might as well "purely read" a book. Using "play" within that context asserts that there are other non-diegetic or even other diegetic elements which do not constitute play. Here at least, is how I see a game:

A game is a set of mechanics and images and sounds that together produce a goal, an idea, or even just suggest possibilities. Maybe the game focuses more on mechanics, a game like Chess or Go, or wants to create a deeper interaction with its ostensible narrative, such as Dark Souls. Whatever the case, a game brings some assumptions and values forward for a player to inspect, which a player may then accept or reject. Perhaps in Dark Souls, a player gets stuck on a boss and quits the game; they've tossed aside some assumed amount of progress and interaction with the game, and maybe the designers of Dark Souls accounted for that, and maybe they didn't. Games can also bring up ideas as would a movie or book, through dialogue and character development. Some players while playing through The Witcher 2 might become disgusted with Geralt's constant philandering, and refuse to engage with some parts of the story as a result -- like the inverse of putting down a book because you think all the characters are goody-two-shoes people who wouldn't exist in real life. Heck, maybe you decide to read the book differently, and instead continue on to mentally disparage the story and critique the writing. A person may engage with a work in any number of ways, depending upon how that work conveys and communicates what it assumes the audience believes, what it wants the audience to believe, what it values, and what it wants the audience to value. An audience member need neither explicitly accept nor reject those various facets of a work, but they're there, and any audience will interact with them in one way or another.

The same holds in a basic way for a game like Chess. The game comes with a set of rules for the players, which govern how players are expected to interact with the game and with each other. White moves first, players take turns, each piece moves in a particular pattern, and a player becomes the winner of the game when they check mate their opponent's king. In the way it normally functions, Chess also assumes that the desired end goal for any player is to win within the rules of the game. This is a basic, core value of the game which helps to drive and shape the interaction with the players. By just sitting down at a chess board with another player opposite and playing a game of chess, both players must make a decision about how much they respect, value, and believe in the explicit rules of the game. They must. Any action they take at that board exists in relation to the rules, either in deference or rejection, and those actions also exist in relation to the assumed values of the game. Those need not always be in perfect parallel; a player may remain exactly within the rules while making an intentional effort to lose. Think of a father and daughter playing a game of chess: the father may make moves that he knows would prevent him from winning the game, so that his daughter may have a better chance. By doing this, the father rejects a central assumption of the game, namely, that winning is the chief goal. In this case, the father values spending quality time with his daughter, talking with her, and helping her have fun above the values that the game supplies. Which is more than a legitimate way to play a game, it's a wonderful way to play a game! Heaven forbid we doom a generation of children to tears and fallen pieces because we demand that people follow the exact rules and values given to them. It's a different way of approaching a set of rules, beliefs, and assumptions. Not right or wrong, just different.

Thanks to that long introduction, that lets me talk about how I pick the games that I play, the ones with which I spend my free time. I look for games in whose explicit rules and implicit values I want to participate. This is why I play Legacy, Modern, and Standard in MtG, but will never touch Elder Dragon Highlander. EDH is a fundamentally different game in most contexts because the assumed values are different. Games are ultimately a construction of their players (and I could probably go for a couple more pages on that, but for now --), and when a group of players sit down to play EDH, they usually want to play some large creatures, get a lot of mana on the field, talk with their friends, and see weird interactions go off. Those aren't the exact same as winning, though, at least in the specific sense of the rules.

So I approach a game by asking "What does this look like when I take all its rules and values and jam them together? What does ostensible winning look like? What ideas and themes (literary, aesthetic) emerge from interacting with this game in the way it expects? Do I want to do what this game wants me to do?" Now, I certainly also enjoy games which may challenge those questions, or the assumptions in those questions. Sometimes, games assume things or say things that people don't like. Books and movies and poetry and sculpture do that too. But I don't have to like everything a work does to get something out of it, to appreciate it. I'll play games like Glitchhikers or Darkest Dungeon that may actually promote or suggest ideas that I don't like, that make me feel icky, or make me think, because in that case I'm bringing a new and different value to that interaction which supersedes the value of the game: I value understanding the game and its designer by temporarily experiencing what the games wants me to value and experience.

For most games, though, games with which I spend a great deal of time and from which I derive a different kind of enjoyment, I want something that makes an environment with its values that I enjoy. For me, that's Pox. Pox implies that players should want win, because that's how it's constructed, as a conflict between players. I like going through Pox as a competitive game. I take Pox at its face values, where winning is absolutely everything, where how you get there matters only as far as it works, where expression of an idea only matters as it is actually expressed within the rules and assumptions of the game; I won't play a concept BG that delivers on some abstract idea if it doesn't actually work. It's the working within the rules that I enjoy. For me, that's playing Pox, and that's all I do -- play. The fantastic part is seeing everything that emerges from the stresses and contortions and controls of a limited, definite, rules-based environment.

There is no pure competitor. This person that enjoys winning more than playing is a phantom, a linguistic trick of the light. Every player enjoys playing the game, or they stop playing. But to me, "playing the game" means interacting with the assumptions and values, both implicit and explicit, within a game, much as reading means to a book. Players may do different things with those initial emotional and intellectual objects, but it's play just the same.

And it's quite alright -- once more, more than alright -- for players to approach a game differently. Different people look for different things, not just in books or movies or in games. A businessman might come home and watch a light drama to get away from the trials of the office, a critic may watch the same show to delve into the director's intent and ideas, and yet a high school kid might watch the very same show because they empathize with the characters and feel they can learn something from them. They're all watching the show, just interacting with what it brings to the table in different ways.

Yes, players do look for and want different things. Sometimes, even, the same person wants different things from different games. Yes of course developers must make decisions. "Players want different things" and "Developers must make marketing decisions" are such straight and bland statements of fact that saying them does little. But it's how you build and talk about these ideas that provides them weight and substance, and I think framing anything as a playing-winning dichotomy, in any light, places two fundamentally different parts of the game, ones that inhabit different spheres entirely, in direct and false opposition. How a player sees a game, how they interact with one, comes from much more than just marketing, too, it comes from the mechanics at the heart of that game. Quite the contrary to balance having nothing to do with it, balance has everything to do with it. Nothing is balanced in the abstract, and nothing is overpowered in the abstract. They all require reference. Balanced upon what? What axis of action? In the case of Pox and any other game that professes to be competitive, along the axis of both players moving against each other to win the game. Neither is joy some abstract absolute, but something the game must assume and the players must decide. My real concern -- point of difference -- here has to do with how you have, through your choice of language and framing of ideas, structured the relationships between various ideas. Here's a quick chart that breaks down two different ways to structure a player's approach to a game.

1. Preferences
2. ->Choice of how to weigh and portion things based on preferences
3. winning - enjoying - learning (some people may be more or less about enjoying the game)

1. Establish personal definition of enjoyment
2. ->Decision on how to interact with game's values and rules based on definition
3. accept - reject - modify (note that fun is nowhere in here, it's already a given concept)

I feel that enjoyment is at its core not one option based on preferences but itself an element of a person's preference, because it doesn't exist as some abstract, whole concept but as a concrete experience in relation to a person's actions and ideas; it's too vague and personal to be a distinct choice. So really, really, -- really -- my main problem here is what words you used. It's a tiny problem and a lot of words, but that kind of problem needs a lot of words, because if just one word doesn't work between two people, you need a whole lot of backup to fill in that mental gulf.

To attempt to address the distinction I think you're bringing up, in the way I would frame it, because I certainly feel there's something there -- I think some players take a broad view of all games as fitting a certain set of values, which they themselves take into any experience and substitute for the game's values, where other players approach a game first on the game's own presented terms. That former group comprises those guys that kick watermelons across the continent in Skyrim, that play EDH to see how much mana they can spend on a commander. They're the goofballs and wildcards and re-makers who play by their own rules. Sometimes they expect others to do so as well (if anyone has heard of "honor" in Dark Souls PvP, it's those guys, in a different vein). The latter group, those who approach a game without any immediate rules of their own, often seem like the die-hard competitors, those who win at any cost, by any means. Power above all else, and damn the scrubs that don't try. And while I disagree with the way you set up that kind of split, it's darn useful to talk about those two different groups of people, and if you can't tell, I sure love to talk about stuff that so much as sneezes at useful. I would even bet, just based on comments you've made in this thread and one or two others, that we fall into different groups.

Done for now.
Click to expand...

Tl;dr.

I kid. After seeing your post, I actually hid myself in my room to look it over and spend a worthy amount of time one it (read: half an hour).

In actuality, I myself do not agree with what I said.
I'll let people hate me for it, 'cause what people think of me makes little to no difference to me. Almost to a scary extent.

I say it that way for the benefit of those that need a short and sweet simplification of a complicated subject. In this case, the developers are looking for a short and sweet answer in order to make the game better.
My main purpose in writing it was to attempt to enable others that wish to speak to recognize exactly what it is they should be addressing. That is, not things that make them happy/unhappy about the game in general, but specifically things labeled as "op" so that the developers might address it as they see fit (which will also be affected by player feedback, supposedly).

I realize that there is a lot more to it than "playing vs. winning", which is itself a fallacy. But most people are able to realize what I mean, that is:
Desiring to win above all else, and not being able to enjoy a game if they do not or cannot win. These people do exist, I've met them.
Desiring interesting interaction (intentionally vague umbrella term) with the game above all else, and not being able to enjoy a game if they are inhibited or stopped from doing this for any reason.

What drew them to the game in the first place will be something that told them that the game enables them to enjoy it in their preferred method. This is what we call "marketing". Marketing for games spans a much broader spectrum than most realize. It encompasses getting people in, and then keeping them there. This means that they must plan on who they wish to target.
It is possible to get both of the vague-not-exactly-realistic groups, but it is difficult. One of the main issues in regards to this for Pox, is the issue of how runes should be designed.
The first group prefers the runes designed one way (end over means). It doesn't matter how they win, just so long as they can/do. These people are okay with losing, if it means they have a better chance of winning next time (the road doesn't matter, what matters is what's at the end of it).
The second group prefers another way (means over end). How they win is more important to them then winning. Often these people are okay with losing, as long as they enjoyed trying to get there (it's not the end of the road you enjoy, it's the ride there).

I hope that's clearer. I can be overly subtle sometimes.

I personally play Pox because I want to win. I play because Pox itself interests me (especially the lore and world), and I enjoy trying to win, even if I never get there. Although I'll try my hardest, and I literally refuse to ever press the forfeit button. That itself has actually allowed me to win most of my games.

NiGhtMaRiK · May 31, 2015

Bellagion said: ↑

You've stated right there at the end the exact idea I was disagreeing with. "FUN or WINNING." The two aren't opposed to each other, and that's an artificial distinction that makes it sound as though winning is an alternative to fun, rather than an element of the game that different people value more or less highly than others. Winning is not a separate motivator than fun, and saying that it is puts an implied value judgment on those two different types of players.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the word "scale"?
I didn't say you had to have fun or win. I stated that the motivator is different for different people.
Some people are more motivated by winning than they are having fun.
If you think a unit looks cool, you like its abilities, you like it lore and it's your favorite and it happens to be meta when you picked up the game,
and then 2 expacs later it is outclassed by superior units who you aren't too interested in or even care for their design but they are the top meta units
and you stop playing your "favorite" unit and supplemented these unit's in because they ensure victory at a higher rate, then you aren't motivated by
having fun, as much as you are motivated by winning. When you win, did you have fun? Sure. You are having fun. Im not denying that.
Outmanuevering your opponent is fun to you? Yes! So you have fun playing at the top level of the game and battling skill with the best players and best units.
Fun is a motivation. However, your reluctance to use units you actually like verse units that have a higher win probability means you are more motivated by winning.

This is really simple, i don't know why its such a deep debate.

NiGhtMaRiK · May 31, 2015

Sokolov said: ↑

To further the discussion in a slightly different directions, let us consider the following question:

Is there a point at which ANY mechanic is balanced?

For example, let's say that there is a spell that says, "You win the game." Clearly, this is extremely powerful. But is there a nora cost at which such an effect becomes "acceptable" or "balanced?"
Click to expand...

Theres a spell that says, " I lose the game." It's 40 nora.

Garr123 · May 31, 2015

On a related note, I worry the potential upcoming nerf to boost could shoebox some themes which rely on it if not handled with a lot of care.

I guess Treefolk would be beyond shoeboxed, maybe tossed in a waste bin somewhere, because I never even see anyone trying to play them anymore.

kagebunshn · Jun 1, 2015

So, there is a Magic Card that says 'you win the game' simply if you have 200 cards or more in your deck.

It is balanced because you have to play with a deck that has 4x the normal number of cards in it.

In Pox that is the rough equivalent of calculating the number of turns it would take an average deploy curve to rush shrine and kill it, then converting that to average nora gen/turn in total, then doubling that amount.

That gets you 'if your shrine is not transmuted, you win the game.' Being balanced Probably for around 800-900 nora. It would be a terrible spell and you would be humiliated if you lost to it, but it would be balanced.

If it was only 300 nora that could be done easily and it would break the game.

badgerale · Jun 1, 2015

kagebunshn said: ↑

So, there is a Magic Card that says 'you win the game' simply if you have 200 cards or more in your deck.

It is balanced because you have to play with a deck that has 4x the normal number of cards in it.

In Pox that is the rough equivalent of calculating the number of turns it would take an average deploy curve to rush shrine and kill it, then converting that to average nora gen/turn in total, then doubling that amount.

That gets you 'if your shrine is not transmuted, you win the game.' Being balanced Probably for around 800-900 nora. It would be a terrible spell and you would be humiliated if you lost to it, but it would be balanced.

If it was only 300 nora that could be done easily and it would break the game.
Click to expand...

I think more could be done with extream high nora costs and crazy strong effects.

A 300 nora spell that permenantly turned all enemy champions into fluffy bunnies would be a lot of fun.

Log in or Sign up

Discussion Corner: Overpowered...?

KingJad I need me some PIE!

Markoth Lord Inquisitor

nynevening Member

KingJad I need me some PIE!

nynevening Member

badgerale Warchief of Wrath

nynevening Member

badgerale Warchief of Wrath

kalasle Forum Royalty

KingJad I need me some PIE!

badgerale Warchief of Wrath

KingJad I need me some PIE!

nynevening Member

nynevening Member

SireofSuns I need me some PIE!

NiGhtMaRiK I need me some PIE!

NiGhtMaRiK I need me some PIE!

Garr123 I need me some PIE!

kagebunshn I need me some PIE!

badgerale Warchief of Wrath

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Discussion Corner: Overpowered...?

KingJad I need me some PIE!

Markoth Lord Inquisitor

nynevening Member

KingJad I need me some PIE!

nynevening Member

badgerale Warchief of Wrath

nynevening Member

badgerale Warchief of Wrath

kalasle Forum Royalty

KingJad I need me some PIE!

badgerale Warchief of Wrath

KingJad I need me some PIE!

nynevening Member

nynevening Member

SireofSuns I need me some PIE!

NiGhtMaRiK I need me some PIE!

NiGhtMaRiK I need me some PIE!

Garr123 I need me some PIE!

kagebunshn I need me some PIE!

badgerale Warchief of Wrath

Share This Page

Useful Searches