Salem

I am totally sick of people who complain about a games balance.
Life is not balanced, nothing is ever balanced. Check out Horatio Nelson, Early in his service, Nelson discovered that he suffered from seasickness, a chronic complaint that dogged him for the rest of his life. 1775 Nelson suffered his first attack of malaria, which was so severe that he nearly died - it was recurrent malaria afflicting him many more times later in his life. 1781, Nelson’s left arm and left leg were troubling him and the fingers of his left hand were white, numb and swollen. He was wounded several times in combat, losing one arm(the right good one) and the sight in one eye.
1794, Nelson was almost killed when a huge shower of earth from a heavy shot landed on him. Only days later he was hit in the face by earth and rocks when a shell exploded. He wrote ‘I got a little hurt this morning’, when in fact he had been blinded in his right eye.
1797, Nelson received a musket ball shot just above his right elbow. The ship’s surgeon amputated the dangling forearm and gave him opium for the pain. Half an hour later he was giving orders for the battle, dictating letters and trying out his new signature.
Do you see him moaning that life is unbalanced and he refuses to play more until someone develops penicillin or proper hygienic medical treatment? NO, nope.

If the game is unbalanced use those superior features to win/take advantage.
Or if you feel they are a bug and will be fixed shortly, or prefer to defeat those who use obvious cheap advantaged (like me) then do it and prove that you are more clever.

This is not a personal blog for Nelson. I demand that you balance out your game vs. Nelson argument before posting further.

Balance literally is a highwire act. If you don't do it, the game is going to fall off the wire and break. However, trying to do it requires adjusting for all these little forces and changes in position. Some of those little forces and positions are the noisy players, some of whom are completely correct, some just very opinionated. Salem is a relatively easy game to do this with compared to others.

I'm not really sure where you're trying to actually go with this post, but it's not really constructive. If I were the developer, I'd rather know about the players concerns and issues over balance between various playstyles rather than nobody saying a word and letting me take a nose-dive into the dirt. Seriously, what fun is there when everyone is just abusing the same massively overpowered mechanic? It goes from being a chess game to a game a 3 year old can play. (Excuse the exaggeration there, but sometimes you need to make a strong point.)

Just using Nelson as an example, there are many others who have triumphed over adversity.
But some players complain about a game that is reasonably balanced - when they want a game that is PERFECTLY balanced.

One of the worst things is killers - if you don't like them start a police force. Here is how it goes:

In House of Burgess or perhaps Help, begin a post titled Law & Order or Police force.
Now players who join up pay a tax get protection and possibly loot back, perhaps have to work in the force or pay extra tax to employ Policemen.

Done. (I imagine Pagans moaned and wailed about murders all the time, until they had above mentioned idea).
You don't like something then create an organisation/beuracracy to sort it out.
You don't like boats on rivers regulate it, put up sign posts stating your laws, create a post in the Forums (in House of Burgess) "Rabbit Protection Society hereby forbids hunting of Rabbits IN and AROUND Roanoke, Rabbit Protected Sanctuary is sign posted." A fee may apply for breaking this law, or further confiscation of property, even death - please only hunt rabbits outside of this protection zone.

Who wouldn't want balance when you're talking about permadeath? This whole thread just feels like a "qq why do I have to read words?" post. You're on a forum for a beta game that's currently being developed. Why wouldn't people ask for balance? Taking real life examples of ****** things that have happened to real people have absolutely nothing to do with the way this game should take its shape in order to attract players. Given the option I think 90% of people would take a better alternative to real life if it were offered to them. Why else would people take mind-altering drugs? And why does nearly every religion out there speak of some form of "heaven"? Just because real life isn't fair doesn't mean anything.

colesie wrote:Who wouldn't want balance when you're talking about permadeath? This whole thread just feels like a "qq why do I have to read words?" post. You're on a forum for a beta game that's currently being developed. Why wouldn't people ask for balance? Taking real life examples of ****** things that have happened to real people have absolutely nothing to do with the way this game should take its shape in order to attract players. Given the option I think 90% of people would take a better alternative to real life if it were offered to them. Why else would people take mind-altering drugs? And why does nearly every religion out there speak of some form of "heaven"? Just because real life isn't fair doesn't mean anything.

Woah there, we are in off topic. I wasn't specifically speaking about Salem.
Actually real life has everything to do with actual game play - why do you think this game is so popular?
Yes people do take drugs, but many people don't. Many people including myself believe that this is it - one life, if you look carefully you can find enjoyment in the most mundane things, it is really all about how you look at life. For instance I believe you are simply looking for posts you dislike, or perhaps hate all that don't interest you specifically.

CockyBastard wrote:

colesie wrote:Who wouldn't want balance when you're talking about permadeath? This whole thread just feels like a "qq why do I have to read words?" post. You're on a forum for a beta game that's currently being developed. Why wouldn't people ask for balance? Taking real life examples of ****** things that have happened to real people have absolutely nothing to do with the way this game should take its shape in order to attract players. Given the option I think 90% of people would take a better alternative to real life if it were offered to them. Why else would people take mind-altering drugs? And why does nearly every religion out there speak of some form of "heaven"? Just because real life isn't fair doesn't mean anything.

Woah there, we are in off topic. I wasn't specifically speaking about Salem.
Actually real life has everything to do with actual game play - why do you think this game is so popular?
Yes people do take drugs, but many people don't. Many people including myself believe that this is it - one life, if you look carefully you can find enjoyment in the most mundane things, it is really all about how you look at life. For instance I believe you are simply looking for posts you dislike, or perhaps hate all that don't interest you specifically.

This game isn't popular lol below 300 people on 3 servers isn't exactly a cash cow. I'd argue that a game should be fun and fair. Many games have OP classes (usually range classes) and it leads to everyone in pvp playing the same class and anyone who isn't that class simply gets raped. It's not good gameplay. Sure, it's fun for a while but the fun dwindles very quickly. People don't like to even attempt the other game classes/alternatives because they know that in the end they'll never be good enough. The idea of ignoring balance and just abusing it instead doesn't make for entertaining gameplay and its the reason why many games spend months/years trying to iron it out.

so if i was to take the OP as an example for unbalanced play for a video game... the op is basiclly saying they would be happy playing a game be it free or pay to use (own/subscription) and wouldnt have any problems if they were killed instantly during character creation??

or to put it another way as most older FPS gamers would know.. the old automatic snipers from counter strike.. the op would be happy playing every game of counter strike armed only with a knife in a match against 1 vs 10 where the 10 enemies all have automatic snipers and the match is played in a field map with flat ground and no cover....

^ that totally sounds like a fun game ...... OH yes.....

using real life 1700s commanders as a base for arguments about a enjoyment in a personal pastime is so lopsided, you may as well use holly wood actors paychecks as a reason you dont get paid for working at mcdonalds.. cause the actors dont complain about their checks why should you??


for any game to be successful it has to have balance without balance the enjoyment is not there, and without the enjoyment its no longer a game. i would not play chess or checkers if they did not have balance. why would i want to play chess if a person can instantly checkmate me in move 1 by placing their queen where mine is?? or checkers if the opponent is all kings ???

any game without balance loses its playerbase with out a player base you have no game. if raiders have no one to raid why would they play? and if there is no one playing why run the game?

raiders only have people to raid because the game is balanced for people to populate it and find it fun, which gives raiders enjoyment as they can raid people. (sure victims dont always enjoy it but if there is balance they cant overly complain to extremes)

colesie wrote:People don't like to even attempt the other game classes/alternatives because they know that in the end they'll never be good enough. The idea of ignoring balance and just abusing it instead doesn't make for entertaining gameplay and its the reason why many games spend months/years trying to iron it out.

That is a fair enough point, and that kind of thing needs to be fixed. But much of the issue with say and over powered ranged attacker is not the fact that it is overpowered, if you stand at a safe distance and kill its just the way physics works - more about how much time needs to be spent on fletching (crafting arrows) and making a flexible bow (search for slim specific breed of tree) & being good at crafting the bow. On top of that having a good enough skill level to actually hit.
Wheres most people would simply yell nerf the archers damage or some other unrealistic balancing.
And yes I am in favour of balancing if something is drastically wrong (unbalanced). But I'd rather see subtle balancing like the increased costs gradually phased in just to see if it evens it out - rather than suddenly ruining Archers and then the next slightly better class comes along and everyone chooses it then every other person jumps on forums crying Overpowered Nerf it NOW!

Robert
I used to love picking the M60 in Counterstrike or even the Desert Eagle Pistol and facing all the other players with M16's - they all cheered for me when I got my kills.

CockyBastard wrote:

colesie wrote:People don't like to even attempt the other game classes/alternatives because they know that in the end they'll never be good enough. The idea of ignoring balance and just abusing it instead doesn't make for entertaining gameplay and its the reason why many games spend months/years trying to iron it out.

That is a fair enough point, and that kind of thing needs to be fixed. But much of the issue with say and over powered ranged attacker is not the fact that it is overpowered, if you stand at a safe distance and kill its just the way physics works - more about how much time needs to be spent on fletching (crafting arrows) and making a flexible bow (search for slim specific breed of tree) & being good at crafting the bow. On top of that having a good enough skill level to actually hit.
Wheres most people would simply yell nerf the archers damage or some other unrealistic balancing.
And yes I am in favour of balancing if something is drastically wrong (unbalanced). But I'd rather see subtle balancing like the increased costs gradually phased in just to see if it evens it out - rather than suddenly ruining Archers and then the next slightly better class comes along and everyone chooses it then every other person jumps on forums crying Overpowered Nerf it NOW!

Robert
I used to love picking the M60 in Counterstrike or even the Desert Eagle Pistol and facing all the other players with M16's - they all cheered for me when I got my kills.

Making it harder for a class to get the gear prepared for pvp doesn't exactly make it more balanced. One example of this being runescape. Ancient magics were some of the most OP **** out there. Drop a freeze on a guy and then just rape him down with powerful spells was one of the normal methods of pvp. They made it so that you needed a lot more expensive runes/needed a certain staff to use the magic but that never stopped anyone. Bottom line is, if people want to abuse a broken/OP class they will go to whatever lengths that they can to do that. Even if that means making other characters to make the money to fund their pvp character.