I�m a sucker for game balance design discussions so I got to thinking�.
Not being the most experienced Dom3 player I�ve read the Vanheim/Helheim threads with a gamer's interest and I�ve found the disagreements interesting. Interesting enough to where I would like to see some testing done � not to prove any position � but just out of curiosity to answer the question: In an average game, using standard rules and settings, which nations have a distinct advantage/disadvantage and to what extent does this advantage/disadvantage matter?
So then I had to ask myself� how would I go about making a test? First of all one test doesn�t really prove anything. In a true MP game there will be personalities and diplomacy involved, so I know even the perfect test is inconclusive. That, however, doesn�t make it any less interesting to try. I though about Mods, but really they are one person's (or a select group of people) take on balance and many of those (e.g. conceptual balance) are hotly debated and don�t only take on the �balance between nations� issue but also address many other things � like �equality of options� � which won�t be the central issue I�m curious about.
So we stick with vanilla. How can balance that out? I've played hundreds of boardgames (a large hobby of mine) and a very popular way to even out balance issues, especially in a tournatment scenario, is to have a bidding mechanism where players bid using a resource to play differnt factions. To me this seems the easiest way to achive what we are trying to do. We let players bid on nations with resources from the game.
Ok � now what resources will a player bid with? We could mod the starting gold I suppose? But really that probably isn�t enough. It might still be more than worth it to play Helheim in the early era with no gold starting. And some nations (LA ermor) don�t give two licks about gold. So we need something else. Starting provinces? That might not be incremental enough. How about a victory conditions? Maybe provinces needed to win? Perhaps, but dom3 is often a momentum game � once you really have it then does it really matter if you need 10 more or 50 more provinces? As long as you have a steam roller going it will simply take time. So that�s out. Then I realized what would be a great bidding currency� Pretender Points!
We would need for the respective players to bid on nations and once the bidding is over the player designs a Pretender making sure to leave his bidding cost as unused pretender points. The player would then write down the stats, rather than actually creating a god. Since you can�t modify a created god we have no way of verifying if someone is following the rules so we would need a neutral party to create the gods based on the stats given and upload them to the server. I would think players would have to bid in 10 point increments so the bidding doesn�t take forever � though 5 pts might be ok as well.
How would the auction work? Multiple player auctions are difficult, but completely possible. Basically you would do the following (in a thread devoted to bidding perhaps):
1) Player A would bid (whatever increment they want) on a nation. A bid of zero is possible.
2) Player B would do the same but if they wanted to play the nation Player A choose they would need to bid higher than player A.
3) Player C would do the same bidding on any nation they wish. Continuing with Player D, ect�
4) Now it comes back around to Player A, assuming player A has been outbid he has to bid somewhere else either bidding higher than another player or taking once of the open nations that was never bid upon.
5) Repeat with Player B, Player C, etc until there comes a point where no one has been displaced. The final standing are the costs you pay in Pretender points you pay when designing your pretender for the nation you won.
So who plays? Bidding naturally favors those who are familiar enough with all the nations to a point that they can make experienced evaluations of the worth of nations. Also for the test to be good, you need players who can utilize whatever nations they have. The closer that all the involved player�s skills are the better the test should be. So in that vein it would seem that experienced players would be desired. How experienced? I�m not sure. I would *guess* that Dom2 experience would be a plus, that 10+ multiplayer games would be a good minimum and often really experienced players can identify others so a �referral system� might be good. Obviously trying to limit a game to experienced players could be controversial. In the end it might simply be that the top few well known experienced players who are interested in playing each invite one or two people to the game, and those players in turn invite others. We would have to trust that players do the invitations based on their assessment of the skill in other player, rather than personal preference. I�m not entirely sure I should have a hand in determining who plays as I am certainty not experienced enough to take part in the game itself.
One thing that would have to be taken into account is player mindset. Players desire to play a nation depending on their style or theme (I know I do). For this test however, those desires would have to be put aside for strict game play evaluations. You should basically bid on the nation that will give you the most bang for your buck. Ignoring the bidding on what you perceive to be an overpowered nation simply because you dislike their theme is fine for a normal relaxed game, but defeats the purpose of this sort of �testing� game.
As far as other game options I would want to stick to the base game suggestions as much as possible. The only thing debatable might be victory conditions. Since games using the standard victory conditions never end naturally it might be more prudent to have victory conditions based on controlling a certain portion of the map (provinces). But then again, perhaps the standard would be fine assuming players know when to concede the game.
I would highly recommend a mapsize of medium (15 provinces per player). Some builds are better for smaller maps and others for longer, so a medium would be the best way to determine overall balance. Graphs could be on or off, perhaps depending on a vote. Personally, since other players will be following the game (I will be) graphs on would be nice as (using the scores.html file) the general progress of the game can be followed by general observers. But that should be left up to the players.
Just seeing the bidding develop would be fascinating and informative I know to new players. I�d be curious to see how the bidding balances the nations and, after the game is all over, if players think they under or overbid for certain nations.
In conclusion I thought I would just throw this idea out there. I�d be interested in hearing people�s thoughts on the fairness of such a test and experienced players general interest in perhaps participating in a test like this. IF you�ve read this far I salute you!
I have a feeling that this sort of game will be invitation only so expressing interest in playing doesn't reserve a spot if it ever does happen.
Balance without a Mod? A Discussion (Long)
Linear Mode
