Please please don't fix forbing! (game balance)

[cinder]

Would QR be a better game if more luck was taken out of it. I don't think so. One of the good things about it is that a worse player (like me) can still win sometimes against very good players (like Handi, daya, Tough, or Junkyarddog).

Of course very good players want to remove the luck element (or weaken some stronger powers as Daya argued for in a recent post) because it is too frustrating that they can't always win when they are clearly better skill-wise.

I think the game is better the way it is - luck levels the playing field and makes it more fun as you are learning he game.

The other thing that could be called unbalanced is the very strong powers. Someone talked about removing 2x in Qrimson. Maybe its a good idea, but again this makes the game fun: I can be losing badly against a good player, and get a recruit or 2x or Quad and win the game.
The fact that a few orbs can turn around the game is a good thing. [Maybe the QR experts need an option to take out a few of the luck elements, so they can have a skill-only based game].

So I recommend being careful making the game too balanced. If lesser skilled players can only rarely beat better ones, then QR has lost something.

Different topic:

Something I wanted to say:
If you added multiplayer, and resuming after disconnections, watching others play, and make-your-own board setup, the game would be damn near perfect!

Think how much fun we all would have with those things added to QR classic.
Sure, go ahead and make some tweaks and change some powers and add new powers, but it is already a great game.

(Thank you Jimmi!)

PS I do think Jimmi and other long term players have some good ideas to improve the game.

Your thoughts on this?

[skiddyfisk]

A player who has spent more time learning to play and has more skill should not benefit from it; this is because

[Shmoo]

A player who has spent more time learning to play and has more skill should not benefit from it; this is because

I doubt anyone thinks a players shouldn't benefit from skill. The question is how much should they benefit? Cinder likes the amount of benefit as it stands. Do you think the more skillful player should win 100% of the time? I sure don't - that is almost how I define boring in a game.

[driven2sin]

Shmoo you know this game has a lot of layered elements like MtG but I think the one problem QR has that a skilled MtG player usually avoids is manafucked because they can build a deck way better than a new player so their percentage of viable rollout is high.

A great player has only a few stalling options in QR to help overcome forbing. (bluffin, force trades)

that is why I suggested each player get two orb rehashes to start with on the menu screen. And when used, you lose your turn. That adds a subtle layer of strategy in a few ways since giving up a turn can also be used well in certain situations...

[Shmoo]

Beginning with rehashes is an interesting idea. It is analogous to mulligans in Magic, which also weren't a part of the original game.

I am not going to oppose every change that increases skill benefit - but I am going to be very careful endorsing them because it is hard to move the other way if you over shoot. I like the rehashes partially because they are easily understandable. All the solutions that involve more equitable orb solutions and more equitable powers fail for me because what they actually mean will be hard to decipher and may not even do what is intended.

[raymccullie]

I just played a game where I had someone down to 5 or so pieces in under 10 moves. Thanks to a lucky and early combo of JUMP PROOF and RECURSIVE. Most people would just quit. However since I didn't have any other pieces controlling the board, my opponent was able to grab powers. By the time I got near him he had QRed up and I couldn't touch him. He ended up winning.

The game isn't about powers, it's about control of the board. Access to powers, preventing your opponent from getting powers or moving them into a corner once you have a number advantage. All comes from controlling the board in the first place. Powers give you a chance for a turn around but they don't win the game.

And QR(the game) without useful powers would be reversi or checkers, which wouldn't be worth paying for.

[Snoop]

Couldnt be bothered making a new thread or checking if its been said before...

MY RANDOM SUGGESTIONS:

1. Ability to UNCHALLENGE a player in the lobby... ie.. I challenge you... you don't respond...I can click you again and unchallenge you...
Practical use: you accidently challenged the wrong person and want to unclick them before they drag you into the game by clicking you back !

2. Ability to choose the individual powers that will be available in the game. This could be a discreet button which says, "Select powers" or "Challenge Powers" (based on the principal of "challenging" jury members in court, where lawyers take turns eliminating members of the jury one by one until only 12 remain)...

Anyway... On the options screen at gamestart (where you select colours, board size and timer) ... clicking this button will open a new page in which each player in turn clicks one power they want to eliminate from that game ... when players are happy, they press OK. In this way, you can remove x2 but if you do so, no-one will be able to get a x2 in that game.
Don't want to choose powers, just leave it on default in which all powers are in play.

[temhawk]

Cinder, I am not sure what you mean exactly. I would be in favor of any balance tweaks involving existing mechanisms (e.g. the probabilities of picking up a certain power, better randomization), but if you mean you don't want any additional mechanisms added to change how the game behaves, then I think I agree with you.

I very much like the idea of starting out the game with (one or) two rehashes, by the way. (And I don't really know what MtG is.)

Snoop's first suggestion is solid. Not exciting, but solid.

Not sure about the second one. It'd be a cool feature, but it could easily add a lot of clutter to the game. Implementation would have to be very good; and I don't know if it would be used frequently enough to justify the effort of programing it.

Those are my opinions.

[raymccullie]

On the first one, UN-CHALLENGE could really be a bad idea.

I'm a guest in the lobby and no one will play me. Ok I'll just click on their name a million times. Making the wonderful little sound (beep beep beep). Sooner or later you'll have to start booting people from the lobby. The sore loser chat contests are bad enough without giving them another tool.

I agree I have clicked on the wrong person before and you know what I did? I said "Oops" and hit the reload button.

The second one is a great idea, I've played games that had options like that before. The only hard part is getting both people to agree. Right now people seldom want anything but default. I guess they figure their "System" couldn't survive a challenge. While I can understand not wanting to spend 3 hours on a good large/large game, what's wrong with changing things up once in a while?

Even having an option to turn off all secondary affects would be interesting. Or change the maximum number of powers a piece could hold, making it more likely a super piece will overheat.

But I digress.

[temhawk]

On the first one, UN-CHALLENGE could really be a bad idea.

I'm a guest in the lobby and no one will play me. Ok I'll just click on their name a million times. Making the wonderful little sound (beep beep beep). Sooner or later you'll have to start booting people from the lobby. The sore loser chat contests are bad enough without giving them another tool.

I agree I have clicked on the wrong person before and you know what I did? I said "Oops" and hit the reload button.

Oh crap, that's true. The feature could be disabled for GUESTs!

[raymccullie]

But what about the QR trolls that have money?

[temhawk]

Like who

[raymccullie]

Like STRONG for one, although he's been better lately. It really doesn't matter there will always be someone though. The real question is, does the benefit out weigh the abuse.

In this case, I'd say not.

[temhawk]

I like STRONG. I don't think he'd abuse the feature. But I may be wrong.

[raymccullie]

I don't really think he would either but see previous. Abuse out weighs benefit.