What Exactly is "Balanced"

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Aldin

He wins an understanding that it is completely impossible to measure value on different maps with different army compositions against different opponents over 100 games and somehow be able to divide his contribution by 100!

~Aldin, taking ollie's name in vein (bloodily at that )

You realize then that you are basically saying playtesting is worthless since it is "impossible to measure value on different army compositions against different opponents...."

Originally Posted by Aldin

Care to name a few? I play a lot of those types of games and can't think of any examples.

I find Allied General (1996) on the PC to be very well balanced although have not broken down the coding

[dok]

Originally Posted by ollie

A: Greenscales.
A-: Agent Skahen, Fire Elemental, Sgt Drake (SotM).
B+: Capuans, Crixus, Eltahale, Finn, Goblin Cutters, HSB, Kurrok, Moltenclaw, Othkurik, Red Wyrmling, Samuel Brown, Sir Hawthorne, Spartacus, Spiderman, Torin, Venoc Vipers, Venoc Warlord, Water Elemental.

Some of this is just a function of who's bothered to post their records. I know, for instance, that Greenscales (+Nilfheim+Raelin) won Utah NHSD.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by dok

Some of this is just a function of who's bothered to post their records. I know, for instance, that Greenscales (+Nilfheim+Raelin) won Utah NHSD.

Hmmmm, perhaps someone should start a new thread on this tangent.

[kolakoski]

Well met!

I believe that this data concerning how many different units have been in tournament winning armies is relevant to the issue of balance. See link below.

http://www.heroscapers.com/community...6&postcount=11

How many actually had anything to do with their armies' winning, however . . .

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

You realize then that you are basically saying playtesting is worthless since it is "impossible to measure value on different army compositions against different opponents...."

Amazing how that isn't what I'm saying at all when you read the entire sentence.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I find Allied General (1996) on the PC to be very well balanced although have not broken down the coding

Every attack is a "die roll" in that game (you can tell without the coding because the result has a random factor) and you typically attack 5-10 times per turn (quite a bit more than that in later scenarios). It's the exact OPPOSITE effect of what you're describing. There are so many rolls that the luck tends to even out over the course of a scenario. If Atlaga used Bolt of Witherwood every turn - or better, multiple times per turn, he'd be extraordinarily deadly - but much easier to price because he would become low variance just like Allied General's combat system.

~Aldin, who preferred Panzer General

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Amazing how that isn't what I'm saying at all when you read the entire sentence.

I stopped it there because of the length of the sentence, adding the rest makes no difference.

I find Allied General (1996) on the PC to be very well balanced although have not broken down the coding[/quote]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Every attack is a "die roll" in that game (you can tell without the coding because the result has a random factor) and you typically attack 5-10 times per turn (quite a bit more than that in later scenarios). It's the exact OPPOSITE effect of what you're describing. There are so many rolls that the luck tends to even out over the course of a scenario. If Atlaga used Bolt of Witherwood every turn - or better, multiple times per turn, he'd be extraordinarily deadly - but much easier to price because he would become low variance just like Allied General's combat system.

My Allied General was not an example in regards to variance and Atlaga. In regards to Atlaga, Bolt of Withwood does indeed have a "true" price, even if it is difficult to find like you say. Playtesting will reveal that true price.

My example was in relation to the balance of the Units. In that game, Artillery, Tanks, Anti Tanks, Anti Air, Level Bombers, Fighters, Ships, and Infantry are all useful.
There are no pieces that pretty much are irrelevant unless you are handicapping yourself such as there is in Heroscape (Groks, etc).

Even in the most competitive scenarios, each piece is viable which is not true in Heroscape-just ask the Groks

[Devil's Advocate]

ugh accidentally double posted

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Many tactical, hex based war computer games have great balance and have very little luck involved

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I find Allied General (1996) on the PC to be very well balanced although have not broken down the coding

Originally Posted by Aldin

would become low variance just like Allied General's combat system.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

My Allied General was not an example in regards to variance ... My example was in relation to the balance of the Units.

So... which game were you talking about that had very little luck involved? I sadly realize that you don't recognize what I was saying about high variance being inherently unbalanced, but how could you possibly fail to grasp that you said you knew of hex-based computer war games with great balance and very little luck and I asked for examples and you didn't give any?

~Aldin, boiling it down

[CornPuff]

I think we are using words like 'balance' in a lot of different ways. The word 'fair' has been tossed around too.
Let's see if we can come together a little bit.

Balance has been used in this thread to judge wether a units point cost is equal to a units 'goodness.' It's been said the grok's points are heavier then their goodness, so if 130 points were placed on one side of a balance, and a unit of grok riders was placed on the other.



130 points are better than Groks. This is imbalanced.

Fairness is about whether or not things are equal to all parties. From dictionary dot com. "Fair: 6b. Just to all parties; equitable"

When I played Atlaga at Gencon in 2009, he was fair to all parties except me (that darn bolt was 0 for 8 I think). Now if I had killed an opponents Nilfhiem at full life, that wouldn't really feel fair. Well, it'd feel fair to me because I had just watched Atlaga miss 8 times and rolling a 20 would feel like karma. My opponent may be thinking "That jerk just killed my lizard king. I would have destroyed him otherwise. This isn't fair." And it's not fair to my opponent. It could have been anyone, but it was him.

So can Atlaga be balanced? Yes. I think he's doing pretty good because 90 points represents the expectation value of his contribution. Is he fair? Not to me when he underperforms, and not to my opponent when he kills an unwounded 185 point dragon. He is high variance, which is another way of saying he isn't always fair.

Takeaway: High Variance units are not fair, but they can be balanced.

[chas]

People who actually hear what the oher person is saying are being Fair.

People who think they can force others to accept their opinions are
Unbalanced!

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Aldin

So... which game were you talking about that had very little luck involved? I sadly realize that you don't recognize what I was saying about high variance being inherently unbalanced

This is just incredibly inaccurate. Balanced means a piece is priced accurately whereas unbalanced means it isn't. Just because a unit is unpredictable/unbalanced does not mean one cannot find out the value of that ability, just that it might take a little more effort. You might not understand how to do so in a balanced manner but that does not mean others are not able to do it.

For example, say a unit had an ability where you could roll one time and an 11+ let's you place 100 points of destroyed figures onto the board. This would be a high variance unit by definition and yet I contend (as others would too) that this ability can in deed be priced. 50 would likely be a good starting point as to the value of this ability but playtesting would stabilize it.

To price it you playtest to see how large of an impact it has when it works and then factor in its liklihood of success. After you have done this you have a rough idea of its value.

Originally Posted by Aldin

you said you knew of hex-based computer war games with great balance and very little luck and I asked for examples and you didn't give any?

Allied General is very well balanced. Yes there are very dice rolls but they are heavily modified by terrain, unit strength, entrenchment, etc. If you think it is more luck oriented try using some a 1 strength infantry to attack a 15 strength panzer and let me know how often the infantry wins.

Apparantly for you, listing a name is not giving an example? If listing a game is not an exampe then what is???????????


Also is the game is not well balanced then tell me which Unit Dominates or which is not worth using, tanks?, level bombers? artillery? fighters? anti tank?, anti air craft?

[vertigosmooth]

Originally Posted by CornPuff

I think we are using words like 'balance' in a lot of different ways. The word 'fair' has been tossed around too.
Let's see if we can come together a little bit.

Balance has been used in this thread to judge wether a units point cost is equal to a units 'goodness.' It's been said the grok's points are heavier then their goodness, so if 130 points were placed on one side of a balance, and a unit of grok riders was placed on the other.



130 points are better than Groks. This is imbalanced.

Fairness is about whether or not things are equal to all parties. From dictionary dot com. "Fair: 6b. Just to all parties; equitable"

When I played Atlaga at Gencon in 2009, he was fair to all parties except me (that darn bolt was 0 for 8 I think). Now if I had killed an opponents Nilfhiem at full life, that wouldn't really feel fair. Well, it'd feel fair to me because I had just watched Atlaga miss 8 times and rolling a 20 would feel like karma. My opponent may be thinking "That jerk just killed my lizard king. I would have destroyed him otherwise. This isn't fair." And it's not fair to my opponent. It could have been anyone, but it was him.

So can Atlaga be balanced? Yes. I think he's doing pretty good because 90 points represents the expectation value of his contribution. Is he fair? Not to me when he underperforms, and not to my opponent when he kills an unwounded 185 point dragon. He is high variance, which is another way of saying he isn't always fair.

Takeaway: High Variance units are not fair, but they can be balanced.

But to me isnt that supposed to be what a high variance does?? Either performs lower or higher than the point total of their card? To me thats the only way to price them is some where in between. I definitely know the feeling your talking about, having my Braxas in two seperate tournaments get destroyed by a d20 ability that if failed would have been a sure victory for me(Witherwooded in NHSD 09 in Dallas, and Chilling touched in our last local tournament here). Now I dont feel Cyprien is very high variance but considering he chill touched both my braxas and Hydra after I totally obliterated the rest of his army to win can be pretty discouraging(he also went on to win first, which probably wouldnt have happened without beating me) Anyway, Im not sure how you would "fix" units with high variance abilities.