It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
rakenan: I think we are coming at this question from opposite directions.

You see imbalance as desirable because it promotes interesting choices

I see balance as desirable because it provides structure for those choices.

It is the dynamic tension between the two that makes a great game. Without some regard for balance, you end up with choices that are stupidly good to the extent that no player who wants to win would ever make other choices. Such choices are not interesting at all. With too much regard for balance, you end up with choices that are so similar that they just don't matter - whatever you choose, it won't make a difference in the game. Those choices are, if anything, even less interesting.

You cannot have controlled imbalance without an underlying structure, and that underlying structure must be balanced. Whenever an aspect of imbalance is not part of that controlled and skillfully crafted imbalance, it should be pared away to reveal the fundamentally balanced foundations of the game. And even the imbalance should be crafted so as to minimize the number of major choices which are, at least in game terms, clearly bad or clearly good - because choosing the option that is plainly and obviously correct is not an interesting choice.
avatar
Tervvo: What exactly is an underlying structure,say as applied to Mom?
Mom Intentionally or not is fairly rock paper scissors,with some chaos in the mix.Chaos is fundamentally not balanced. There is all of the balance possible needed out there and balance is needed in the real world not in a game which one plays by themselves and can make their own decisions about balance or unbalance.

I would love some tweaks just not any balancing race tweaks.
Well, you could always give Gnolls 500 health and 500 attack on their Spearmen. I mean, if there is not a balance point that matters, that's just as valid as any other set of numbers, right? Making Gnolls completely unbeatable is not balanced, but balance does not matter, does it?

If you acknowledge that this is an idiotic idea because it would make Gnolls too strong, you have acknowledged my core point - balance matters. There remains a question of how much it matters, but that is where the art and science of game design enter the picture.

There is a range of power levels in units, and units outside that range are not allowed to exist. Withinn that range, some power levels are appropriate for super low end units like Spearmen, and some are appropriate for super high end units like Death Knights. Within *THOSE* restrictions, some power levels are suitable for low end units of a low tech race focused on war like Gnolls, and others are suitable for low end units of a high tech race focused on city development, like High Men.

Having such rules in place, and understanding that they should not be thrown away arbitrarily, but only in service to a cool idea, is what makes a game interesting to play. The Gnoll super-spearmen I imagined above would be way outside of such rules. The argument can be fairly easily made that several other things in the game have been shown to be outside of the boundaries of such rules without any corresponding cool idea to justify them. The finite support life of a game led the developers to stop patching the game before all such potential flaws were repaired.

There is no cool idea that makes Orcs so blatantly inferior to High Men at every tech level. There is no cool idea that requires Klackons to be the worst race in the game - although that comes closer, since Klackon design was clearly influenced by a cool idea. There *IS* a cool idea behind why Halflings are so awesome - it is hard to imagine any changes to the race that would not directly infringe on the racial vision of friendly and agile race of diminutive farmers who get along with everybody and have a talent for throwing stones, which is pretty much standard for Halflings across most media that feature them.
avatar
rakenan: <snip>
+1 for the most coherent and entertaining rant I've read in quite some time.
Post edited September 28, 2013 by TwoHandedSword
avatar
rakenan: There is no cool idea that makes Orcs so blatantly inferior to High Men at every tech level. There is no cool idea that requires Klackons to be the worst race in the game...
Sure there is: you can play an inferior race if you want a different kind of game.

It's the same reason a game like Nethack has a player character class like Tourist. If you've exhausted the possiblities of being a wizard or a warrior or a whatever, you can choose to play a class that starts the game with a camera, some extra spending cash, shorts and a hawaiian shirt.

Another cool idea behind imbalanced races: it's far more realistic. Why should orcs be balanced with elves or humans? They're uglier, dumber, and more crude as a race.

Finally, i you make them all the same from a power perspective, you make them all the same except for the graphics and names, and that's less fun by far.
Post edited September 29, 2013 by UniversalWolf
Together with new Kickstarter Campaign, we have released alpha version of the Battleboard. A part of the game where the Tactical Combat takes place.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wastelands/worlds-of-magic

Now you can download it here:
http://myworldsofmagic.com/download

Please keep in mind that the full D20 setting will be implemented next week and also that the stats of the units are not yet balanced.

Best
avatar
doomtrader: Together with new Kickstarter Campaign, we have released alpha version of the Battleboard. A part of the game where the Tactical Combat takes place.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wastelands/worlds-of-magic

Now you can download it here:
http://myworldsofmagic.com/download

Please keep in mind that the full D20 setting will be implemented next week and also that the stats of the units are not yet balanced.

Best
Incidentally, will it be possible to choose settings for AI opponents in the same way as you can design your own mage? The inability to do that is something which somewhat bugs me about MoM and MOO(2).
In case anyone is interested, there's a combat demo for Worlds of Magic available from the website.
Do they have a timeline or something? All i see is one year passed and the game is still pre-alpha. Anyone played the demo and can comment on it?
avatar
unifear: Do they have a timeline or something? All i see is one year passed and the game is still pre-alpha. Anyone played the demo and can comment on it?
I played it. It's fairly limited in scope at the moment. You can select one of 6 different battlefields, and you can select whatever combination of troops you want for the player side and the computer side. Then you battle.

It follows the general rules of MoM: a big grid of squares, with the player on one side and the computer on the other. Typically infantry units have multiple figures, while larger creatures like elementals have only one figure. Units move faster than in MoM though. Infantry units move three squares, while bigger, faster units move more. Not sure I like that, unless the grid gets even bigger than it is.

You can cast a limited selection of spells, too. In the demo this is extremely unrevealing, because the most obvious thing to to is exactly what the computer does, which is to cast Fireballs over and over until all your magic is gone. All the available spells work, though, as far as I could tell, so you can try them out.

The camera is a problem. Unlike in MoM, you can move around and zoom in and out (because it's fancy 3D!), but how far you can move the camera forward and back, left and right, is extremely limited. The actual percentage of the battlefield you can focus on is frustratingly small, and to see everything you have to zoom out really far. So far that all the units look tiny.

The graphics are a mixed bag. Personally, I can't stand the Warcraft-esque style that has become so common, where warriors have gigantic oversized swords and enormous shoulderpieces with spikes on them, and that's the kind of style the demo has.

Overall I found the combat demo to be a disappointment, but on the other hand, it's hard to judge the whole game because it's just the combat, with no context. What would the MoM combat seem like if it were extracted from the overall game so it had no story context? It might feel a little bit like this demo feels.
Post edited March 26, 2014 by UniversalWolf
AoW3 turned out into a standard 3D sh*t. WoM seems to be the last hope. Though in fact I feel that there's no hope for something outstanding on fantasy-TBS front. Only independent loners (that made Eador Genesis or Dominions series) can put some SOUL and MAGIC into their games, while game-developing studios seem to put only MONEY into it.
avatar
Rodor: AoW3 turned out into a standard 3D sh*t.
Sorry to hear that.

I certainly hope WoM turns out to be good, but I worry because I think it's a monumental challenge for anyone to improve on MoM.
avatar
UniversalWolf: I certainly hope WoM turns out to be good, but I worry because I think it's a monumental challenge for anyone to improve on MoM
Maybe it's here where the problem is. Everyone tries to IMPROVE MoM (AoW is the good example). The similar situation we can see with another great game from Steve Barcia - Master of Orion (1 & 2). Time passes, game studios rise and fall, but nothing changes.
Me seems, Oscar for a role of a main villain goes to Internet. Multiplayer-oreinted pattern sits in developers' heads. Plus making games in 3D is a MUST now. Why "must"? I personally prefer 2D. But I know that making 3D is SIMPLER and CHEAPER (yes-yes, read the Eador's maker notes on his site).
Summing all this, I'd say that money rules over all. They will keep making CHEAPER, SHALLOWER but more GLAMOROUSLY looking games for BIG Internet multiplayer auditory to make even more money.
So I think there's no possibility to improve MoM, 'cause it was created in quite different circumstances of gaming market (moreover, I think there was no such "market" in those years yet... How much money Steve earned for MoM?:) )/
Post edited April 06, 2014 by Rodor
AOW 3 is okay but a bit underwhelming. Terrible performance but at least a decent game. I'm going to try Fallen Enchantress: Heroes, I've read good things about it.
To me all the Age of Wonders games are just very, very different from MoM, even though they copy a lot of mechanics from it. They're much more about narrative and story. I've played AoW1 and AoW:SM, and although I enjoy them I must say I still prefer MoM. What AoW doesn't try to copy from MoM is one of it's strongest points: it's focus and limited scope. Each time you start a game, you know exactly what you're trying to accomplish, and what it will take to get there. MoM is so great because there are so many different ways that can play out.

Playing the game creates the narrative rather than the narrative creating the game.
Post edited April 08, 2014 by UniversalWolf
avatar
UniversalWolf: To me all the Age of Wonders games are just very, very different from MoM, even though they copy a lot of mechanics from it. They're much more about narrative and story. I've played AoW1 and AoW:SM, and although I enjoy them I must say I still prefer MoM. What AoW doesn't try to copy from MoM is one of it's strongest points: it's focus and limited scope. Each time you start a game, you know exactly what you're trying to accomplish, and what it will take to get there. MoM is so great because there are so many different ways that can play out.

Playing the game creates the narrative rather than the narrative creating the game.
It's kind of the unrepresented feature of this genre, you create a new narrative or history with each new game and turn. I didn't realize it until I replayed Alpha Centauri but story and narration have a very strong potential in the 4X genre. I guess the whole "Civ 2 Eternal War" thing should have been a giveaway.

The thing I really like about AOW3 is that it's a modern sequel that doesn't water down or retard the series, it's a good sign for the genre.