Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6403523" data-attributes="member: 4937">I suppose that is possible, and I certainly agree that a game might have problems with mechanics that aren't related to balance - slow play, repetition, vagueness, internal contradiction, and so forth.&nbsp;&nbsp; And I likewise agree that there are degrees to which we could say a balancing mechanic was well designed.But none of that agreement suggests to me that if everyone had equal access to the ear mechanic, it would be mean the ear mechanic is balanced.&nbsp;&nbsp; I argued earlier that balance in a game was a close synonym to fair.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd argue that the close synonym of imbalanced is degenerate.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think balance implies a certain amount of interplay. Consider the case of Magic the Gathering.&nbsp; Suppose we print the card &quot;Chuck Norris&quot;, and the card says something like, &quot;If Chuck Norris is in your hand, immediately put Chuck Norris into play.&nbsp; Chuck Norris cannot be countered.&nbsp; If Chuck Norris is in play, the controller of Chuck Norris just wins, immediately.&nbsp; Chuck Norris is legal in all formats.&nbsp; Chuck Norris cannot be banned.&nbsp; Chuck Norris cannot be restricted.&nbsp; You may put as many copies of Chuck Norris in your deck as you like.&nbsp; Judges may not object to Chuck Norris.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact that every player had equal access to Chuck Norris would not make the game, post Chuck Norris, balanced.&nbsp;&nbsp; Everyone would immediately say, &quot;Chuck Norris is not balanced.&quot;, and they'd be right.&nbsp;&nbsp; It does things no balanced mechanic can do.&nbsp;&nbsp; Any easily accessible &quot;I win&quot; buttons is not balanced.&nbsp; The create a degenerate situation where everyone must play the same strategy, make the same moves, and the only remaining argument is about priority.&nbsp;&nbsp; The &quot;grab your ear&quot; mechanic is a &quot;I win&quot; button with no restrictions on its access.An example of a game that is balanced, but lacks good design would be Tic Tac Toe.&nbsp; However, the game would be even worse if the first person to play also had a winning strategy.&nbsp; No game that lacks balance in my opinion also has good design.&nbsp;&nbsp; Balance is a necessary though not sufficient condition of good design.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not even sure equal access is actually a necessary condition of being balanced, and it is certainly not a sufficient one so I disagree with your claim that the ear mechanic was either perfectly or trivially balanced.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6403523, member: 4937"] I suppose that is possible, and I certainly agree that a game might have problems with mechanics that aren't related to balance - slow play, repetition, vagueness, internal contradiction, and so forth. And I likewise agree that there are degrees to which we could say a balancing mechanic was well designed. But none of that agreement suggests to me that if everyone had equal access to the ear mechanic, it would be mean the ear mechanic is balanced. I argued earlier that balance in a game was a close synonym to fair. I'd argue that the close synonym of imbalanced is degenerate. I think balance implies a certain amount of interplay. Consider the case of Magic the Gathering. Suppose we print the card "Chuck Norris", and the card says something like, "If Chuck Norris is in your hand, immediately put Chuck Norris into play. Chuck Norris cannot be countered. If Chuck Norris is in play, the controller of Chuck Norris just wins, immediately. Chuck Norris is legal in all formats. Chuck Norris cannot be banned. Chuck Norris cannot be restricted. You may put as many copies of Chuck Norris in your deck as you like. Judges may not object to Chuck Norris." The fact that every player had equal access to Chuck Norris would not make the game, post Chuck Norris, balanced. Everyone would immediately say, "Chuck Norris is not balanced.", and they'd be right. It does things no balanced mechanic can do. Any easily accessible "I win" buttons is not balanced. The create a degenerate situation where everyone must play the same strategy, make the same moves, and the only remaining argument is about priority. The "grab your ear" mechanic is a "I win" button with no restrictions on its access. An example of a game that is balanced, but lacks good design would be Tic Tac Toe. However, the game would be even worse if the first person to play also had a winning strategy. No game that lacks balance in my opinion also has good design. Balance is a necessary though not sufficient condition of good design. I'm not even sure equal access is actually a necessary condition of being balanced, and it is certainly not a sufficient one so I disagree with your claim that the ear mechanic was either perfectly or trivially balanced. [/QUOTE]

Verification