Originally
posted by
galleri:
Originally
posted by
VicRattlehead:
Nothing works every set. How retarded are you?
I see your speech skills came from iSoviet. Terrible skill.
He took a roundabout way to answer my question. He could have just said "very" and moved on.
Celphi, I see at least part of the problem. You're implicitly insisting that every strat should have an equal chance to win - i.e., that "balance" between the strats is somehow optimal for fun or enjoyment. That is categorically incorrect. The best games never have perfect balance.
Look at video games - Hades won everybody's GOTY in 2020. It has 24 weapon aspect options and modular difficulty from 0-64. The weapons are not equally optimal to maximize the difficulty, or for speedrunning. Some are just better than others. And that's a single player game. Nobody would argue that every role/strat is equally effective in COD or Minecraft either.
Look at TTRPGs. D&D has been around for 50 years and a slew of editions now, and it has never once been "balanced." Wizards are always OP. And yet, it remains the world's most popular RPG.
Look at board games. In the modern board game scene, there are too many to look at. Take a popular one like Splendor. Perfect balance in a vacuum - but as soon as you lay out the board and see what nobles and cards are available, it's completely unbalanced, and it's a race to capitalize on scarcity. Take Arcs, the spaceship game. Unbalanced out of the gate (pun intended because I'm not a coward) due to the layout, and even more so if you use the advanced rules. The Dune board game, which has been popular since the 70s, gives each player *different victory conditions.*
In summation, your basic premise (that the strats must be balanced perfectly) is intrinsically flawed, as games with perfect balance are actually boring.
