by Shampoo4you
dbuel wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
dbuel wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
dbuel wrote:
The fact is that asymmetric board games, like asymmetric video games (fighting games, MOBAs), are going to have higher-tier and lower-tier factions.
If this is concerning, have your group bid VPs for factions
If Lizards are weaker than the Vagabond, but every time somebody in your group wants to be the Vagabond they have to start with -5 VPs, and they get to start with 0 VPs as the Lizards, you've just balanced the factions
If this is concerning, have your group bid VPs for factions
If Lizards are weaker than the Vagabond, but every time somebody in your group wants to be the Vagabond they have to start with -5 VPs, and they get to start with 0 VPs as the Lizards, you've just balanced the factions
It's lazy design and publishing to pawn balance off on the players.
Not in a player-balance game :D
Even in "player-balance games". Did you not read the thread? We've been over this.
If you're going around calling people you've never met "lazy," you're doing something wrong
"We've been over this" in the sense that you got disagreed with!
I didn't call anyone specific lazy. And Leder Games is certainly not lazy. They rebalanced the game! So clearly they disagree with you.
Also see: literally every video game designer that releases balance patches (which is pretty much all of them) and an increasingly large number of board game publishers. Unfortunately board games are much harder to "patch" for obvious reasons, otherwise it would be just as common in board games as it is in video games.
We only disagree because you don't understand a very important concept of balancing multiplayer asymmetrical games. And that's okay. I'm just glad you're not in charge of a publisher that makes any. 😆
I can imagine it now, Pete: "Sorry our game is imbalanced, but folks, it's a 'player balanced game'. Balance it yourselves! Good luck!"