What Exactly is "Balanced"

[CornPuff]

In response to this discussion I've been listening to a lot of podcasts recently, trying to glean a bit more on balance and game design. Mainly I've been listening to 'Three Moves Ahead" and "Gamers with Jobs." They've made me realize that board games differ from video games because house rules and social pressure can easily make a game more enjoyable, while its a lot harder to use social pressure when you playing with some random people on the internet.

The social factor of board games makes social pressure a very real answer to balance:

Originally Posted by Kaemon Awa 123

... just discourage "That Guy" from brining tier 1 all the time

As heroscape players I think we all realize that we are playing for our enjoyment and for the enjoyment of our opponent. The social contract we have with our opponents has a large role in army selection.

I think you cannot have a conversation about unit balance without considering the social dimension. 'How will my opponent feel if I play 6 squads of rats'? 'Will my peers respect me more if I play a themed army'?

If your play group has an unwritten social contract discouraging heavy use of rats or stingers or whatever, changing formats can either make certain things permissible (General Wars allows people to use units like Q9 without guilt) or enforce the unwritten (DFW restricted list).

Another interesting thing as it relates to balance is story. No, really . If I were to reason why some units are better then others, its because of the awesome story that comes out of winning with crappy units. There is just not as much glory when you win with the established top tier. That narrative is important and perhaps its a reason to keep the units strengths different.

In one of the recent Gamers With Jobs podcasts they had Rob Davieau on (one of the original 'scape designers). He talked about why there is a 1 in 20 chance of surviving a molten lava hex: because of the fantastic story. He said if you had a hero with his back against the wall, and the only way to win would be to survive 2 lava rolls in a row, and by some amazing luck pulled off that 1 in 400 chance that you would remember that story and cherish it for the rest of your life. The narrative of the longshot and the underdog chance is important. Balancewise, I think that is why there are underdogs in Heroscape.

Heroscape is balanced for social play.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by CornPuff

As heroscape players I think we all realize that we are playing for our enjoyment and for the enjoyment of our opponent. The social contract we have with our opponents has a large role in army selection.

I bolded the part that seems like an incredible claim to me. You really care about your opponent's enjoyment? If I am going to a tournament, I could care less if my opponent has the time of his life or if he is cursing every turn because he has just lost 500-0. I've been in a tournament where I autokilled their Q9 on the 1st turn of the game, they likely were extremely annoyed but I loved it. Even at home, it is my opponent's responsibility to choose an army that won't get slaughtered by my choice; it isn't my responsibility to make for a close game.

I propose that the social contract is for each person to try their hardest to win. Yeah I enjoy advancing to the next round when my Heavy Grut army stomps their Agent Carr + Dund + Jotun + Shiori army but I am a little annoyed that they broke their obligation to bring a worthwhile army to make the match slightly interesting.

[Tornado]

To D A I think CornPuff's statement was less in regards to tournament play but more for home play. I could be wrong here but the "home-rules" comment got me thinking in this direction. Thank you CornPuff, your last post is one of the best I have ever read, very insightful... peace

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I bolded the part that seems like an incredible claim to me. You really care about your opponent's enjoyment? If I am going to a tournament, I could care less if my opponent has the time of his life or if he is cursing every turn because he has just lost 500-0. I've been in a tournament where I autokilled their Q9 on the 1st turn of the game, they likely were extremely annoyed but I loved it. Even at home, it is my opponent's responsibility to choose an army that won't get slaughtered by my choice; it isn't my responsibility to make for a close game.

I propose that the social contract is for each person to try their hardest to win. Yeah I enjoy advancing to the next round when my Heavy Grut army stomps their Agent Carr + Dund + Jotun + Shiori army but I am a little annoyed that they broke their obligation to bring a worthwhile army to make the match slightly interesting.

Devil's Advocate, I salute you in your attempts to be as wrong as possible. Often I think you've reached the pinnacle of wrongness but then the following week, you surpass yourself. This one will take some beating.

I don't know which is more wrong: the idea that winning and having fun are so closely related (have you never enjoyed a game you lost?) or that you don't care about whether your opponent is enjoying him/herself. Why do you play this game?

The idea of a social contract is a nice one though, because it indicates that you are willing to give up this viewpoint. If everyone else at a tournament wants a different (presumably unspoken) social contract do you accept that you'll have to revise your views? More specifically, if a good majority of people have armies that you don't consider competitive, do you think that puts you in violation of the social contract?



[I know we're not supposed to offer rep as a reward, but if someone could hack into my account and remove my ability to reply to Devil's Advocate's posts I would rep you every day (you might need to hack something to make that possible too). Or does anyone know of some good self-discipline exercises?]

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by ollie

[I know we're not supposed to offer rep as a reward, but if someone could hack into my account and remove my ability to reply to Devil's Advocate's posts I would rep you every day (you might need to hack something to make that possible too). Or does anyone know of some good self-discipline exercises?]

I have mixed feelings about this offer, Ollie, setting aside your atrocious breach of protocol with the offer of rep to the master computer hackers/ mind controllers among us.

I actually do have him on my ignore list, but if I'm feeling patient and grounded (pretty often, these days) then I'll look, or if I'm concerned he's posting about something important to me I'll look, and those have both happened in this thread.

Earlier, this thread was nagging at one of the things most important to me about this hobby - that people should be excited to get out of their homes and play with others - so I argued with him. Now more recently the thread's in a good place, but DA *did* say he wanted to run a tournament, and ignore list or not that's a good thing and I hope he does it so I'm encouraging him.

But I'm not sure I want to use my hacking / mind control skills on you, because your post was very entertaining and for selfish reasons I'd rather you carry on, so keep your rep, thank you anyway.

[Sherman Davies]

Wow, if that post was someone's first here, I'd think they were trolling and doing a wonderful job of it. As is, I can at least applaud Devil's Advocate for being honest about what a poor excuse for a human being he is.

Legacy fans, you may want to ask him to stay off your side.

[xraine69]

There is a reason why most people refer to him as DA, instead of his full username.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by ollie

Devil's Advocate, I salute you in your attempts to be as wrong as possible. Often I think you've reached the pinnacle of wrongness but then the following week, you surpass yourself. This one will take some beating.

I don't know which is more wrong: the idea that winning and having fun are so closely related (have you never enjoyed a game you lost?) or that you don't care about whether your opponent is enjoying him/herself. Why do you play this game?

The idea of a social contract is a nice one though, because it indicates that you are willing to give up this viewpoint. If everyone else at a tournament wants a different (presumably unspoken) social contract do you accept that you'll have to revise your views? More specifically, if a good majority of people have armies that you don't consider competitive, do you think that puts you in violation of the social contract?



[I know we're not supposed to offer rep as a reward, but if someone could hack into my account and remove my ability to reply to Devil's Advocate's posts I would rep you every day (you might need to hack something to make that possible too). Or does anyone know of some good self-discipline exercises?]

After any given incident of sturm und drang amongst the Gang of Four, chas always "insists that you do whatever you want." But, of course, that is colored by our regard for one another. If I were going to a tournament, I'd undoubtedly bring Deathreavers x 2/Raelin. But at chas' Game Palace, although he recently recanted his outright ban on (and Eternal Hatred of) them, I don't play Deathreavers. And Raelin is there to cover my less than optimal, but oh so , Tagawa Samurai Archers, or whatever odd synergistic relationship I am exploring at the moment (Wyvern & Tagawa Samurai, for example). I found it interesting that the Gang is willing to play Legacy, when it is my turn to "host," but balked at my adapting the CUC modification to the Tagawa Samurai Archers (or anything else). [I don't know where that fits into the more general discussion we've been having.] This social contract idea also addresses the issue of whether I believe Heroscape "needs" a complete overhaul. Obviously I do not. Do I still believe an evolutionary system like Legacy would be superior as the standard ("Official") pricing one? Undoubtedly. I agree with 99% of the comments in this thread, believe it or not. And, from the above, you can see that I am willing and able to play (and have fun) in any and all contexts within which each of you are comfortable. I don't find my position to be logically inconsistent.

Ollie, you could join a Karate dojo. Or perhaps Meditation is more your speed. In any event, your lack of self-discipline is entertaining in this context, so you might want to reconsider the whole thing.

</IMG>

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

You really care about your opponent's enjoyment?

Yes.

~Aldin, suspecting that almost everyone on this site would say the same

...

...

...

I was going to stop there, but I feel compelled to point out that even from a purely selfish point of view you want your opponent to have fun so that they will desire to continue to play. What's the point in being the best in the world at a game no one will ever play with you?

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

If I were going to a tournament, I'd undoubtedly bring Deathreavers x 2/Raelin.

"Undoubtedly?" Why?

Looking at my own tournament armies, every single one, obviously I'm doing it wrong because somehow I've survived without either one.

Originally Posted by Aldin

Yes.

~Aldin, suspecting that almost everyone on this site would say the same

I like it when they cry. Does that make me a bad man?

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

"Undoubtedly?" Why?

Looking at my own tournament armies, every single one, obviously I'm doing it wrong because somehow I've survived without either one.

Well met!

I have been creating, and not playing , potential tournament armies with Deathreavers x 2/Raelin for ages, but have been in only 2 tournaments (although 1 was a tournament series). I like the flexibility 2, as opposed to 3 squads provide, especially given my self-imposed unit restrictions (Valhalla Society). If I were to go to tournaments more often, I would play other faves, such as Brutes/Goblins or Phantom Knights. I was not implying that I would always play them.

[Dad_Scaper]

Sounds good.

I wish there was a more robust tourney scene *in* NYC; it's always seemed strange to me that there isn't.

Go get 'em, tiger, says I.