kcfgogbfalgfl
Auto-translated
I don't quite understand how things have come to this. Aretz is acting as if someone criticized an idea he patented. There are some pointless discussions about who won based on skill and who didn't.
Past games should be analyzed from the following perspectives:
a) Learning from mistakes (the players themselves, their actions, and decisions).
b) Identifying moments that negatively affect the gameplay.
The second point could imply working on the balance, but firstly, each setting is written from scratch and differs from each other, and there are no standards (i.e., it is impossible to determine the appropriate state even before it is written), and secondly, objectivity is lost (for example, it is enough to read the latest discussions about the game Neba).
Of course, you can always play for fun, without delving into the setting, without asking the host to make changes, etc., and there is nothing wrong with that (and that's how most players play), but in this case, complaining about the balance after the game is over (or rather, after it has begun) is at least a waste of time, and at worst, it is rude to the host and those who really put in the effort and won.
Even in a seemingly well-made setting, a situation may arise in which one side is in a very unfavorable position (for example, in the first night, a city marksman and a maniac eliminate two members of the Mafia at once). This does not mean that the host "did a poor job," and nevertheless, it may leave a bad taste in the mouth of the losing side, but there is nothing that can be done about it.
It is from this point of view that I see the need to improve the quality of games in terms of mechanics and balance (for my part, I note that I do not consider my opinion to be absolute and mainly make observations based on discussions and the arguments given in them). Once upon a time, it was fun to play any settings, and the more beautiful and interesting roles there were, the more exciting it was, but in Hive, this has long since become obsolete (no desire to win => no reason to try => activity decreases). Of course, even some changes cannot guarantee an increase in interest from the players, but it also does not entail any negative consequences.
Past games should be analyzed from the following perspectives:
a) Learning from mistakes (the players themselves, their actions, and decisions).
b) Identifying moments that negatively affect the gameplay.
The second point could imply working on the balance, but firstly, each setting is written from scratch and differs from each other, and there are no standards (i.e., it is impossible to determine the appropriate state even before it is written), and secondly, objectivity is lost (for example, it is enough to read the latest discussions about the game Neba).
Of course, you can always play for fun, without delving into the setting, without asking the host to make changes, etc., and there is nothing wrong with that (and that's how most players play), but in this case, complaining about the balance after the game is over (or rather, after it has begun) is at least a waste of time, and at worst, it is rude to the host and those who really put in the effort and won.
Even in a seemingly well-made setting, a situation may arise in which one side is in a very unfavorable position (for example, in the first night, a city marksman and a maniac eliminate two members of the Mafia at once). This does not mean that the host "did a poor job," and nevertheless, it may leave a bad taste in the mouth of the losing side, but there is nothing that can be done about it.
It is from this point of view that I see the need to improve the quality of games in terms of mechanics and balance (for my part, I note that I do not consider my opinion to be absolute and mainly make observations based on discussions and the arguments given in them). Once upon a time, it was fun to play any settings, and the more beautiful and interesting roles there were, the more exciting it was, but in Hive, this has long since become obsolete (no desire to win => no reason to try => activity decreases). Of course, even some changes cannot guarantee an increase in interest from the players, but it also does not entail any negative consequences.