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

[Régis Guinvarc'h]

Le Mercredi 17 Avril 2002 15:22, Guillaume Cottenceau a écrit :
> "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.

that's a problem, regardless of the goal. One can also do this with a "kill 
them all", or a spacerace. But i agree, something has to be found to avoid 
this.

>
> 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] 

just put different levels of AI, or AI which are differently balanced. I 
mean, as in HOMM for instance, you could have builders, warriors ... But AI 
is another problem.

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.

because of that, i like the score goal. Thanks to it, you can define 
different "secondary goals". but in that case, one have to define **wery 
well** these goals 

In my opinion, spacerace is not a solution, as all of your resources are 
focuss on only one point. Actually, that might also be the problem of the 
"kill them all"


>
> I really don't know..