Changes.

[Cherek]

Wow Gorbaigh. There was a lot of things in that post... I don't think I will bite on your thoughts about society, other than to say I am all for equal opportunity for all people, regardless of where you happen to be born.

In terms of game design, I understand what you mean, and sure, if everything becomes too similar it becomes boring, and I also personally find the "instant-gratification" type of games to be quite boring. It's not a path I want for Genesis, and I don't think we are anywhere close to that. Or ever will be. You say you want Genesis to be more crazy, more stuff happening than solo play, etc. Well, I want that too. I'd like a game that has more elements of both cooperation and competition, so, it seems like we do want the same things.

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?

You did say that the racial imbalances makes it interesting and challenging, and that some races should probably be better at combat than others. But, if you like a challenge, why are you playing a fighter goblin, when a fighter gnome would clearly be much more challenging? But even you, who say you really like this part of a game (and life) chose the strongest fighter option. So if you, who really wants a challenge, still picked the best fighter race, why would anyone else select differently?

To actively strive _for_ imbalance in a game just goes against everything I personally believe in. The goal for me as a game designer is to try to ensure our races and guilds are equally good, and that there is no clear "best choice" at all. If we can achieve that, then we have a good and balanced game that I think the majority of people will enjoy a lot more than a game where a specific race and/or guild is the clearly best option that everyone will flock to. The goal for Genesis, and most games, is for all playable options to be equally good, but also make them different enough so that your game experience as a player will be different depending on which race and/or guild you select.

If we make the races more similar in terms of stats we'll likely get more people playing different races, and more people trying out different races in different guilds, creating a bigger variety. I mean, even if the stats are more similar, the race you pick will still matter as it controls which guilds you can join and which sub-races you can become. And depending on what you pick you will get a different experience with the game - but you won't be better or worse of than anyone else in terms of "power", which is the foundation for any sort of fair competition between players.

I am going to go with my gut feeling about this. I fully understand not everyone will like it, but as the Keeper, the lead developer of Genesis, I need to go with how _I_ feel, and what _I_ think will be the most fun. We all have different ideas about what is a good movie, good music, what is a fun game, etc. I've worked with creative stuff all my life, and my go-to strategy is always to be honest with myself, and create things _I_ would like, and then bet on that if I like it, others will too. I am going to bet on that here as well.

[Goirbagh]

Wow Gorbaigh. There was a lot of things in that post... I don't think I will bite on your thoughts about society, other than to say I am all for equal opportunity for all people, regardless of where you happen to be born.

Why should everyone have equal opportunity? That is just your (mayhaps virtual-signaling) opinion. It is not how reality works, and it is not the way nature works. In fact, equal opportunity no matter your genes, skillset, height, handsomeness, long-term effort (which everyone seems to be intentionally forgetting re. the game), strength and so on would break the order of things entirely.

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.

Hey man, you're trivializing a very deep and complex issue here. If my thoughts came across that way, I didn't do a good job of explaining myself. It *can* be more interesting, and it definitely *is* more interesting than everything being the-same (TM). A game of chess, to take your own analogy from just below, isn't necessarily fair. First of all, it could be argued that even the color of the pawns has an effect on the player's ability to win - probably. Secondly, one color has the first move. How is that fair? Thirdly, one player has likely spent more time than the other trying to master the game. Again, I feel as if you'®e trivializing the issue. You want the pieces to fall neatly into place in the "everything feels good for everyone," it seems.

Let me use your chess analogy:

Imagine a house full of chess players. They keep playing games of chess. Let's say you run the statistics. Oh, some people are winning 80% of the time. How unfair!

No, it really isn't. These people have been in that house for 30 years. It turns out the ones who are losing have been there for two weeks.

Is it making the game of chess more fair if you nerf one color until it's roughly 50%/50%? You could argue that from a socialistic point-of-view, I guess. That's not how I view the world, though.

Now, of course, you could also argue that, hey Goirbagh, if we don't cater to the losing color, they will be upset, and they won't play, and people will be unhappy, and the winning people will be all lonely. You may be right, but then you are essentially moving the goalpost - we're no longer talking about fairness.

That kind of goes against what almost all other games tend to strive for - balance.

Yes, I'm sure doing what "almost all other games" do is a sure way to create a unique and fun game. (Not really, you're falling into exactly the same trap that so many are these days - thinking that giving players what they whine for is the right way to go. Remember, Genesis had 15 years of psychopath wizards and people still love(d) the game.)

What you are suggesting is basically to take the game of chess, and have a different set of rules for white compared to black.

Yes, that is how chess works. The rules are not the same, white always moves first.

Different races should have different sets of rules. Depending on which race you pick, you will play Genesis in "easy", "normal" or, "hard" mode?

Have people actually lost their mind? Yes, different races have different "rules" or abilities. Yes, parts of the game will be difficult or easy depending on your race. That concept is the very foundation of how we understand the reality we exist in. Being relatively better off or relatively worse off in whatever metric is how *EVERYTHING* works in life. That is the hardship of life, and I understand your gut-reaction of wanting to make a move against it. But I'm telling you, it's not the way to go.

You want to make the game more interesting to players? Here's a trivial but still relevant idea: Remove imbues to 99%, make physical combat mundane, make magic really rare and really, really powerful. A goblin on a wolf (such as myself) should obviously be transformed into a red mist (i.e., a bloody explosion) by a nazgul within seconds. Is that fair? Who cares? It's funny, fascinating, extreme, interesting, lore-fitting and also how things work in life.

You did say that the racial imbalances makes it interesting and challenging, and that some races should probably be better at combat than others. But, if you like a challenge, why are you playing a fighter goblin, when a fighter gnome would clearly be much more challenging? But even you, who say you really like this part of a game (and life) chose the strongest fighter option. So if you, who really wants a challenge, still picked the best fighter race, why would anyone else select differently?

I play as a goblin because back in 1998 when I was 11 years old, I loved (and actually still love) my mental concept of goblins. You can nerf them all you want - I would still play a goblin. I actually wanted to make a priest goblin (most recent char) for an interesting RP experience but it seems difficult. I bet it would suck, but I would still enjoy it. Let's not discuss me personally because it's an ad hominem and not relevant - but just to make a point, I put my money where my mouth is.

To actively strive _for_ imbalance in a game just goes against everything I personally believe in.

I figured from the ingress of your post. That is a problem.

The goal for me as a game designer is to try to ensure our races and guilds are equally good, and that there is no clear "best choice" at all.

Well, that *might* be okay, but there has to be a best choice when it comes to particular situations. You are trivializing the issue by saying they should be equally good, but a better way (yet more cumbersome) is to change the game, not to make the races equal in the same situations, but create different situations for them to thrive in. Let me give you a few examples:

Let's say hobbits suck as fighters. The right way to compensate for that is not to make them fighting machines like goblins, it's to give them unique situations to thrive in. Make them expert herbers. Make herbs more rare. Give them the ability to sell herbs and make tons of money and experience that way. Give them the ability to manage books in libraries around donut once they attain some certificate. Give them unique items to use. Unique emotes. Give them a social house (goblins aren't social in my mind, except maybe fighting in packs now-and-then).

It used to be this way, which is why you see some towns and cities not wanting to trade with goblins or even letting them in, or even attacking them once they smell their foul odor. I won't mention any to not spoil anything, but you obviously know about this. But if you are trying to reduce it to equal in combat ability, then you are reducing the game to single-player combat. Which, it turns out by playing the game, you actually are.

If we can achieve that, then we have a good and balanced game that I think the majority of people will enjoy a lot more than a game where a specific race and/or guild is the clearly best option that everyone will flock to. The goal for Genesis, and most games, is for all playable options to be equally good, but also make them different enough so that your game experience as a player will be different depending on which race and/or guild you select.

You're wrong here. Again, you're catering to a wider ranger of players, trying to make everyone whine less, and then feel like you've done a good thing. That is where my analogy involving society is coming into play. Cater to those who whine the most and then think you've done a good thing. Behind the curtain, things will start crumbling.

If we make the races more similar in terms of stats we'll likely get more people playing different races,

So, to me, this is a testament you've more or less lost your mind. Sorry.

I am going to go with my gut feeling about this.

You do that, I can't stop you. I'm not coming from a perspective of "prove to Cherek that he's evil" - I truly mean well and the way I view things has built Genesis for first 20 years.

I fully understand not everyone will like it, but as the Keeper, the lead developer of Genesis, I need to go with how _I_ feel, and what _I_ think will be the most fun. We all have different ideas about what is a good movie, good music, what is a fun game, etc. I've worked with creative stuff all my life, and my go-to strategy is always to be honest with myself, and create things _I_ would like, and then bet on that if I like it, others will too. I am going to bet on that here as well.

I thank you for your effort (no sarcasm here) - I understand it's a big undertaking and requires a lot of patience, effort, engagement, rumination and so on. The game wouldn't exist without people who cared (like you and I, both) and especially people who put effort into manifesting our ideas (like you).

[Cherek]

You're house of chess players example is totally irrelevant to this discussion. I've never said we should nerf people who are better at playing the game, that's not what we are discussing at all. As for white starting in chess, yes, yes, fine, they have different rules if you count that, but you know what I meant, didnt you? It's not like white has 16 pawns instead of 8. And even with the white starts rule, in tournaments they alternate who starts to make it as fair as possible. Because chess is a game where the player with the best skill should win, and to ensure that happens, they try to make it as fair and equal as possible. Just like basically ALL other sports and games. If you're really going to argue otherwise, it's just getting silly.

About your ideas for an alternative balance that isn't always based on combat. Sure, that's definitely an idea. "Assymetric balance" as we say in the board game business can work, but it's of course harder to get it right. And of course unrealistic for us in Genesis since it would require changing how the game works completely.

Genesis is a lot about combat, and that's isn't likely going to change anytime soon. We need to work what we have here.

[Goirbagh]

As for white starting in chess, yes, yes, fine, they have different rules if you count that, but you know what I meant, didnt you? It's not like white has 16 pawns instead of 8. And even with the white starts rule, in tournaments they alternate who starts to make it as fair as possible. Because chess is a game where the player with the best skill should win, and to ensure that happens, they try to make it as fair and equal as possible. Just like basically ALL other sports and games. If you're really going to argue otherwise, it's just getting silly.

Well, first off, now I'm nitpicking, but first you presented chess as an example of where the rules are the 100% fiar. Now you seem to be agreeing that, indeed, the rules are not 100% fair. It's important to think about this because it's a concept tied into the very fabric of reality. I'm not being facetious here. 100% fairness simply does not exist. You're moving the goalpost and now arguing magnitude instead of principle (i.e., agreeing that, indeed, chess is not fair, but it is MORE fair).

This is something that we can discuss; to what magnitude should we strive for balance and fairness, and to what cost - and that is a relevant discussion to have. It seems you have realized now that 100% fair doesn't exist. Should we still strive for 100%? Or 90%? And to what cost? Think about these concepts.

About your ideas for an alternative balance that isn't always based on combat. Sure, that's definitely an idea. "Assymetric balance" as we say in the board game business can work, but it's of course harder to get it right. And of course unrealistic for us in Genesis since it would require changing how the game works completely.

You don't have to get it right - it's a process, a journey, of an ever-changing world. Not a goal to be met. Introduce something nice for another race. Go over the line. Watch placers get frustrated (and ignore them). Give it time. People will start moving to hobbits (if you give them some nice feature). Too many hobbits? Move on to evolve the next feature for the next race. Dwarves maybe? It's an ever ongoing process that should be managed. Just like balancing a plate on a stick on your finger. Sure, you can glue everything together and just set it there. But it's not an interesting dynamic. The interesting dynamic is the act of continuous balancing and rebalancing.

Genesis is a lot about combat, and that's isn't likely going to change anytime soon. We need to work what we have here.

You're contradicting yourself, because you might as well say "hey, player, I get your frustration, but we have to work with what we have so you have to put up with the differences". Again I'm nitpicking but you're mixing up arguments of principles and arguments of magnitude and I think that's confusing.

It doesn't have to be one or the other - you can do both. What happens if you were to give hobbits a boost in herb skill, nerf every other race in terms of herbalism, square the value of herbs? Be creative - you're not doing a good job if you think you're solving problems and being creative by measuring the DPS between two races and then try to sledgehammer it until it's flat.

[Cherek]

Goirbagh: Okay, I surrender. I can see that you will deconstruct everything I say, sentence by sentence, word by word, in order to "win" the argument.

[Goirbagh]

That's a really lazy attitude. I'm not out to win an argument, I'm out to try to make you think about this in a different way. Saying "ok I surrender" and then still not accepting the argument is just a way of saying "you may be right, but I still don't care." You're free to put it that bluntly - it's not like I can force you to think about this the way I do, but I think it may be better for you in the long run to at least adopt part of what I'm saying (as rude as it may sound, it's implicated that that is my position, otherwise I wouldn't be debating with you to begin with). Best of luck. Just speaking out of my personal position (rather than some theoretical utalitarian what-is-the-optimal-evolution), I don't really enjoy Genesis more beyond chatting with friends because:

1. Everything is too accessible (both in terms of loot because of saving items, but also in terms of geography because of teleports and whatnot)
2. Combat is too balanced and fair.
3. Everyone is solo'ing.
4. The effort-reward balance is skewed (more reward for less effort). I always max difficulty on games because I don't like winning (not even this debate), I like playing. I like playing because it evokes emotions within me.

But this is just my personal two cents. Anyway, again, I thank you for your continuous effort (although I may not necessarily agree with it).

[Cherek]

The reason I decided to step out of this is not because I think you are right, it's because I think you have a very condescending "know-it-all" attitude. You have given me a lot of feedback, I think it's only fair I gave you some. Do some research on how to give feedback in a positive and constructive way, and try to apply that next time. I think you'll find that the outcome of the discussion will be much better if you enter the discussion with a more positive and friendly approach. You barge in, tell me everything I do wrong, and instructs me about how it really should be done. All it does is make me annoyed, obviously. You would likely be too if someone from the street barged in at your work, pointed out everything you do wrong, and told you how it's supposed to be done.

[Goirbagh]

The reason I decided to step out of this is not because I think you are right, it's because I think you have a very condescending "know-it-all" attitude. You have given me a lot of feedback, I think it's only fair I gave you some. Do some research on how to give feedback in a positive and constructive way, and try to apply that next time. I think you'll find that the outcome of the discussion will be much better if you enter the discussion with a more positive and friendly approach. You barge in, tell me everything I do wrong, and instructs me about how it really should be done. All it does is make me annoyed, obviously. You would likely be too if someone from the street barged in at your work, pointed out everything you do wrong, and told you how it's supposed to be done.

Well, that's your interpretation of how our conversation went. Others' might differ. I don't care about know-it-all or sounding nice. Too bad you took it the way you did (I explicitly thanked you for your work, what!?). I can't apologize for something because I still don't know what I've done wrong (I don't think I've given criticism the wrong way). I don't know more than you about your job with regard to Genesis, but I think I am better at reasoning than most people. I hope I could bring a new couple of thoughts to the table, that was my intention (not lecturing you). Your reaction is in line with wanting everything to be fair and my interpretation of that. For the third time, I am grateful for the effort you put in. If you feel frustration, maybe that is reason for you to question your position rather than feel attacked. Just saying.

The outcome of the discussion? I'll leave that to you. I have no unfriendly feelings toward you at all (my tone might be a bit stoic or harsh but that is because I speak about things and problems here, not really opinions unless I do so explicitly).

[Cherek]

Goirbagh: Yes, I know you’ve thanked me for the hard work, but it kind of falls flat when there is an insult in the paragraph before it. This summer we had a long discussion about how we treat each other in our community, I don’t know if you were here or remember, but it started when a few wizards spoke up about how they felt very badly treated by some players. While your posts here are nowhere near as bad as stuff that happened then, I really do think we need to try to be nicer to each other. I am probably taking out some extra frustration on you because of the constant barrage of complaints and insults I deal with as the Keeper. Every time we make any sort of change to the game our competence is questioned, the message from many players is clear, we’re incompetent idiots who should stop messing up the game. And when we don’t make any changes to the game? Then we’re incompetent idiots who doesn’t fix the glaring problems with the game. It is exhausting. It stings. It definitely makes me question why on earth I spend time on this. That’s the honest truth. You say you don’t know what you did wrong, and you don’t understand why I reacted the way I did:

I do not like - actually, let me rephrase that - I absolutely despise the posts on racial changes, saying that it shouldn't matter so much for combat.

It's a trendy, modern, post-modernistic, inane way of thinking about things.

Remember, Genesis had 15 years of psychopath wizards and people still love(d) the game.)

So, to me, this is a testament you've more or less lost your mind. Sorry.

So, you started with selecting the words “absolutely despise” to begin your feedback on a project me and others have spend A LOT of time on, and then called our thinking “inane”. I have worked in a creative business my entire life, and I have never ever had someone tell me to my face they absolutely despise something I have done. Why? Because everything I do is amazing? No, because it’s hurtful.

Then you decided to use the word “psychopaths” to describe the work of former (and current?) wizards. Unclear which fifteen years you are referring to, but what kind of thing is that to say about the people who created the game you used to(?) love?

And then you decided to tell me that my plans for the racial balance in genesis are so utterly bad that you think I have lost my mind. Wow, thanks for that.

What’s worse, though, is that I started this post by saying that what you wrote here isn’t even especially bad, and that I am (somewhat unfairly) taking out all my frustrations against several of players on you. And this is true, the stuff above is just normal stuff we wizards deal with all the time. What you said would normally not even register for me, since I am so used to comments like this, but each and every comment like this adds up, and eventually I too snap. If you don’t think anything you said was hurtful or insulting, fine, but now you know how I felt about it at least.

[Goirbagh]

...and eventually I too snap. If you don’t think anything you said was hurtful or insulting, fine, but now you know how I felt about it at least.

Hey man, I understand. You're painting some mental image of me attacking you and your work, thinking you're bad and your work is bad. That's not the case. Don't make me into your enemy, this isn't a battle between you and I, this is us trying to reason why something is good or bad. I think you're great and I think Genesis wouldn't even exist today without people with ideas trying to manifest those ideas by putting effort into it. This isn't something I'm just saying, it's a matter of fact. Without you and all the wizards before you, Genesis wouldn't exist.

What I don't like though, or yes, actually despise, is this trend of catering towards the lazy, naive, unskilled, weak all the time. The starting point is often or always "someone is weaker, so something must be wrong." Something being stronger isn't wrong per se. A zebra doesn't stand a chance in battle against a lion. Does that mean no one will want to be a zebra player? Maybe. Do you address that by giving zebras fangs and claws? No, give them something else that lions can't have. Is a lion or zebra better? The question doesn't make any sense. They're different. You're not solving anything by making them more alike. Instead, be creative and make them more different.

If there are two races that are different (lore-wise and mechanics/numbers-wise) and 80% of players are preferring race A, don't solve that by making race B more like race A. Make it even more different and give it some perks in a different direction.