Home
Thank you for the additional insight. Preference is certainly a side factor here, but my main complaint is for full on unbalanced design towards the winning team. To clarify I am definitely not a pro blue-shell kind of guy. Losing due to sheer randomness or just because someone else was doing awful not long ago is even more infuriating. I know I briefly noted if someone needs help it is the new guy, but there was no intent to infer I think more games need a forced built in handicap. I feel most of these "it pays to be a winner" situations are to keep the player interested when it is human nature to want to win anyway, it all seems quite unnecessary.
You do bring up an interesting point up about piece loss in chess. I see this more as the equivalent of hit points. Everyone starts with the same equipment and losing them is part of the core game. On the flip side, the Counter Strike money system or games with kill streaks, suddenly new powers are gained during what could have been a more balanced game. It is not limited to personal perception and is easy to point out the unbalanced gameplay aspects. Saying chess has the same issues would be like saying any multi unit based game is unbalanced because you lose units. To win or even just play the game (special rules aside) units need to die. For the modern unbalanced games I speak of however, their core gameplay fundamentals would all still be there without all the fluff unbalanced additions. In Counter Strike everyone COULD get a set amount of money each round, but it gets all jacked up by giving the winners significantly more money to spend.
Team Fortress 2 is certainly not a perfect example of balance, but it is a good example of balancing free-to-play elements with gameplay balance. As stated, compromises are possible; my warning is to keep an eye out for systems clearly only in it for the money with blatant disregaurd to what most would consider fair gameplay situations.
I see you hate Farmville as much as I do, but it is still a good example of game design custom crafted to abuse human behavior for profit. Other games do it, just not quite so obvious.
And in closing I made sure to note I played CS and enjoyed it plenty to separate the good / bad game factor from balanced / unbalanced. I am quite aware of the design; whether or not I like it is a separate issue from the winner money system being a good example of breaking balance. Someday gamers are going to look back on how awful of an experience some games made it for new players and shake their heads, I just wish we would hurry up and make it to that day."
Forgive my hasty example of hit points, as your detailed breakdown is certainly more correct. That said, at the end of the day I was merely trying to convey games with the foundation of losing units or pieces as a part of gameplay are totally different than examples such as modern games with their own unique gameplay foundation with unbalanced game design latched on at the end.
I feel strategy games such as Starcraft are more about knowing tactics and counter tactics for all situations than specifically resource managing, but alas that is a seperate topic :)
As for the Counter Strike factor, I agree it isn't so lop-sided that it is a disaster, yet depends a lot on the round count. When playing 20 rounds with people coming and going, the money effect is less noticable; however if you are only playing 3 rounds, it is a pretty big deal. I can't speak for others, but offhand if my team loses round one, I always feel like, welp round 2 is going to suck, but let's try our best. To me that gives off more of a surrender vibe than being the last man alive where the incentive is to win not only the round and bonus money, but priase from your team as well. Again the issue is that winning is plenty positive feedback enough, while unbalanced addons create unnecessary complications. Level grinding aside, I think it is safe to say it is rare where a player has already decided to play a game, but then decides to keep playing simply based on round money or a kill streak. Staying on that topic, the rage quit factor is much higher for those who suffer from being defeated by other players deploying such unbalanced "perks".
A friend brought up an extra note worth consideration with one example being how the match time and respawn times change in TF2 as the assaulting team progresses through a map. This technically is a "pays to be a winner" class design, but I still think appropriate since even with this feature, TF2 can still suffer from stalemates. I bring it up as a reminder that balance is very much a grey subject where not all tweaks are necessarily unbalanced ones or bad ideas.
I highly appreciate you taking the time to put in thoughtful dialog as well! Always good to have further review to ponder on missed and new concepts."