4 ms·

I feel like some of these questions are a bit backwards. Isn't it better to give the model an arena to play within and try to make all of the options _viable_?

I feel like some of these questions are a bit backwards. Isn't it better to give the model an arena to play within and try to make all of the options _viable_? I.E. Balance is maintained when the average of the weapons the gladiators choose to take into the arena are diverse and have less bearing on the win outcome? This means that rather focusing on what is merely broken one is focusing on both ends, what is broken and what is useless, attempting to push both towards an average of usability. Personally it astonishes me that groups like WOTC (who produce MTG) don't appear to be using such models given the quantity of mistakes they seem to continue to make in game design.

meheleventyone 6y ago
For something like a deck building game, if all decks are viable (competitive) then there may as well be no deck building component. In fact a game like that is probably a pretty muddy brown color in terms of card variety. That would adversely affect the business model of selling new cards as well. Desirable qualities in a game in terms of how it is balanced are way more complex than just every option being viable and leading to an even win rate against a similarly skilled opponent.
vladTheInhaler 6y ago
Attempting to optimize the card generation process, or deck building, or just play itself seem like unbelievably difficult problems. Some effort at least has been made in the first part (see RoboRosewater) but the other two seem almost intractable, given the combinatorial explosion of possibilities in deckbuilding, the incredibly nonlinear interactions between cards (Splinter Twin is a 1/10 card, Pestermite is maybe 3/10, Splinter Twin + Pestermite literally wins the game on the spot).