Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Apr 25, 2012 12:20 AM UTC:
What I believe is an important thing to keep in mind, when looking at
solutions, is to realize that solutions don't always fit every context.
What I wrote about here doesn't guarantee to fit everything, but I do
believe it can fit a number of places.
In regards to what is discussed here, I hope what is described can be
recognized at least as a skill players can develop and test. This skill is
the ability to evaluate and create situations that work to their advantage.
The pie rule approach ends up providing a means to have this happen in, in
a way that would be in control of players.
Ok, let's apply the pie rule idea I have, modified, towards your game, For
the Crown. As it is now, players would randomize what cards they have in
the game. How about we consider the following: One player gives a list of
X number of cards they don't want to see used. The other player then
comes up with the cards they want the game configured, and the other player
then picks what side they want to be.
Idea here is you end up thinning down things and try to reach a state that
is agreeable to both players to play, even if it would give one player an
advantage.
As for said to hand the problem off to other people to solve, I believe a
solution is superior if it is fluid and adjust, rather than a fixed
solution. In short, if the solution is a framework able to handle what
players do, it is superior.
Again, to sum up, there are often multiple solutions for play balancing.
Here I list a number of them:
http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/9808/are-balanced-sides-have-same-chance-of-winning-rea
* Have players bid for sides, using the bidding as a mechanism to give the
weaker sides and advantage, or handicap the stronger side. This bidding is
a game unto itself of sorts, and challenges players to evaluate sides.
* Have players play all sides and evaluate the differences in how the sides
were played.
* Play the game teams and use a duplicate format. In games with luck, like
cardgames like Bridge on a tournament level, to account for the inherit
unfairness of the luck, they use a duplicate format where the same
conditions pass around and players play them all and they are evaluated.
Unlike the last idea, where individuals play all sides, this is done team
style.
* Fixed handicapping of one side, by giving it less resources or time to
play, or one side to count a draw as a minor victory.
* Use the pie rule. In this option, one player configures the game
conditions and the other player(s) then pick what side they want to play.
This also provides a game of sorts, where you try to figure out what would
be fairest in set up, and then decide what is the best options.
