Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9185563" data-attributes="member: 996">More meaningful/viable choices is how I've been defining better balance, which does make it possible for a game to be better, sure.  Different classes allowing players to choose different roles in which to contribute to the success of the party, is an example of that. Imbalanced classes, OTOH, may make some roles inaccessible, or make specializing in a role via one class choice moot when alternatives fils that role better and/or fill that role and more besides.  In a meaningful choice, there's something about each option that makes it a real alternative to the others.  If effectiveness is the only axis you make that decision on, then the most effective choice is the only choice, and not a meaningful choice, nor even a choice, at all.  Likewise, a choice made in ignorance isn't meaningful, so just obfuscating effectiveness (making the bad choices enticing traps), doesn't make them meaningful either.  I don't think meaningful really applies....The way I look at it, effectiveness is more about viability.  Meaningful gets pretty subjective, viability is more quantitative, effectiveness can be, too.  Choices that are close to the same effectiveness may or may not be meaningful for other reasons.  Choices that are lacking in effectiveness become non-viable.I'm not sure what "perfect asymmetric balance" would even mean?  Generally, asymmetric balance constricts the range of play, as each choice's area of high and low performance must be brought into play in the specific proportion that 'balances' them.</blockquote>

Verification