Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7907054" data-attributes="member: 996">Sorry to engage in non-linear conversation, but, one definition of balance I ran across that seemed to work really well for RPGs was something like:&quot;a game is better balanced the more choices it presents the player that are both meaningful and viable.&quot;Because it's the internet.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;If anything, balance (above underlined definition) is more important in a cooperative game than a competitive one.In a competitive game, fairness is quite adequate.&nbsp; Equally weighted choices can be of varying value in a competitive game, it just makes those choices part of the competition.&nbsp; First make the best choices, then put in the best performance with them, and you win.&nbsp; As long as every player has access to all the same choices, it's fair - balance be damned.Balance is a higher standard, and, in a cooperative game, the performance of every player contributes to victory, so underperformance whether due to a sub-optimal or non-viable choice, or due to poor play, is undesirable.&nbsp; Thus, non-viable choices presented in a cooperative game aren't real choices, they'll be eschewed by better players - and by players taking advice from those they're cooperating with, in favor of viable choices.&nbsp; They might as well not exist. Less obviously, it matters if choices are meaningful, as well, because, well, players are making them, and if there's nothing to choose between them, again, it's not a real choice.&nbsp; The reduction ad absurdum of 'perfect balance' - everyone plays exactly the same thing with exactly the same stats - thus isn't balance, at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7907054, member: 996"] Sorry to engage in non-linear conversation, but, one definition of balance I ran across that seemed to work really well for RPGs was something like: "[U]a game is better balanced the more choices it presents the player that are both meaningful and viable[/U]." Because it's the internet. ;) If anything, balance (above underlined definition) is more important in a cooperative game than a competitive one. In a competitive game, [I]fairness[/I] is quite adequate. Equally weighted choices can be of varying value in a competitive game, it just makes those choices part of the competition. First make the best choices, then put in the best performance with them, and you win. As long as every player has access to all the same choices, it's [I]fair [/I]- balance be damned. Balance is a higher standard, and, in a cooperative game, the performance of [I]every[/I] player contributes to victory, so underperformance whether due to a sub-optimal or non-viable choice, or due to poor play, is undesirable. Thus, non-viable choices presented in a cooperative game aren't real choices, they'll be eschewed by better players - and by players taking advice from those they're cooperating with, in favor of viable choices. They might as well not exist. Less obviously, it matters if choices are meaningful, as well, because, well, players are making them, and if there's nothing to choose between them, again, it's not a real choice. The reduction ad absurdum of 'perfect balance' - everyone plays exactly the same thing with exactly the same stats - thus isn't balance, at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification