Cherek wrote: ↑08 Jan 2023 04:05
Regarding your take on game balance: As I understand it, you feel it's interesting if some races are simply better/worse than others in combat, and the same goes for guilds. That kind of goes against what almost all other games tend to strive for - balance. What you are suggesting is basically to take the game of chess, and have a different set of rules for white compared to black. Rules that make white a much worse option than black. That is how races in Genesis work today. Would chess be fun if one player is playing with a different set of rules, that makes winning almost impossible? Is chess currently boring because you, as a black player, has the same chance of winning as the white player? Yes, I know it's an extreme likeness, but, I mean that is kind of what you are saying? Different races should have different sets of rules. Depending on which race you pick, you will play Genesis in "easy", "normal" or, "hard" mode?
I like that you use the chess board to exemplify the changes. But I think you overestimate some of the racial differences. It's not that only white or black can win. It's not that the rules are so one-sided that one side always wins. A chess board is a balanced game where several pieces are the same, and then some have their own weird rules. Much like some guilds feel the same (merc/da/gladiator/aa) while others are wildly different (kender/MM). Which makes the game fun.
I think some of us worry that you are replacing all the special pieces and only leave 16 peasants on the board for each side. Because you want equality of opportunity, it may end out with equality of outcome. Which is not desirable. We don't want everyone to be the same.
Having a bishop move as many tiles as he wants to, does not make him overpowered. It just means that his strength is that he can move far, diagonally. Now if that piece can move like a queen, then it's not a bishop it's a queen. You need to keep pieces separated, like races in Genesis. If one race in Genesis can do everything, then yes things are clearly unbalanced. But if one race moves like a bishop, a tower or a knight, then he's not overpowered, he just has different rules for movement.
And yes, I am in favour of having some races being better fighter and some races being better mages.
It may be that some newly designed games want everything to be bland, but they, like many new players, churn through quickly and do not stick around. I like using World of Warcraft as an example because it is widely regarded as one of the most successful games of all times simply because it has been running for so damn long. Their races are not the same. There are very potent differences between them. Some races are only for Horde, some are only for alliance. Not all races can be all classes (guilds). And people love the game because of this diversity.
Can you pick a gnome warrior in wow? Yes. Can you raid with him? Yes. Will he win in a one on one duel with a tauren warrior? Not likely, but possible. Is a gnome a better thief? You bet!
Much like in Genesis some races were good melee and some were good mages and some were mostly for fun. Which was great!
Do we want some races to have a lot more + % than others? Nope. So even it out a bit. Don't strip all racial differences.
And honestly, trying to balance things so much that you end up with 16 queens instead on your side, probably not a fun game. A good game of chess requires peasants, towers, rooks, bishops, queens and kings. All of them. Variety.