Re: [Human-beings-discuss] balance human development and war

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

"Régis Guinvarc'h" <address@hidden> writes:

> another way to improve the balance is the goal of the game. sorry if you've 
> already talk about it, but what is it exactly?  just wipe out all the other 

No problem, I haven't said a word about it yet :-).

> players ? or something like the best score (which score has to be defined) ? 
> or something like spacerace ?

Honestly, I don't really know.

As I'd like to have not only war but also civilization
development, I guess "destroy all other players" is not a good
bet - except if, as you suggest, balance is well set so that it's
possible only if civilization is well advanced.

The problem of Civilization-like score is that it led a player to
destroy all oponents but a unique city, very quickly, then
develop internals of the civilization, spacerace, and get more
points because of a long peace.

Regarding network play, I think it would influence a lot the way
the game should be handled, and particularly the goal of the
game. Also, a cooperative or a deathmatch network play are
generally very different (mainly because AI are often very good
with primary resources gathering [another idea to remember =>
artificially limit the performance of AI there to have more
enjoyable games] but very poor in development and war strategy)
and I bet the best goal of the game would be different.

I don't really know what to conclude. Anyone has good suggestions
about that?


Probably, the most straightforward and "easy" way to define the
goal of the game would be "destroy oponents", and if the balance
is well defined, it could be combined to civilization
development. But, maybe, it would be a bit frustrating that your
"nice" and well developed civilization, after 3-4 hours of game,
is "abandoned" since you just won the game.

I really don't know..


-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://www.frozen-bubble.org/