Play Balance and Map Changes

[Anendrue]

I think Steve and Patrice have done an excellent job of creating a marvelous new maps and integrating them into MWiF. I am anxious to learn how this has affected game play and balance.

Obviously anytime map scale, unit quantities, sizes, strength, or other capabilities are adjusted, play balance could have an infinite variety of unintended consequences. In this case it is primarily map scale only that is being adjusted. Therefore I would like to know what is being done to test and prevent game imbalance and other potential issues?

[trees trees]

WiF is infinitely balanced. Just change your bid.

[Neilster]

There will be lots of testing and optional rules can be used to adjust balance. Just a couple of thoughts.

Cheers, Neilster

[YohanTM2]

Sure hope Steve and the testers are not going along with the last 2 posts. The game needs to be well balanced out of the gate, not skewed by map changes etc.

Always good to have optional rules etc. but not to make up for any major issues with map changes.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

Sure hope Steve and the testers are not going along with the last 2 posts. The game needs to be well balanced out of the gate, not skewed by map changes etc.

Always good to have optional rules etc. but not to make up for any major issues with map changes.

My post wasn't incompatible with a balanced game "out of the gate". That's what the "lots of testing" bit was about.

The problem is that one person's idea of balanced is different from another's. That's what the optional rules bit was about.

Cheers, Neilster

[Anendrue]

Ok so if I understand what trees trees and Neilster are saying; there has been no play testing yet of all these extensive map changes. Additionally, play balance is suppossed to come by optional rules and bidding. Both of which play into the hands of expieranced players and leave casual players and new players out in the cold. Is this a game for the few or the many?
 
Steve please tell us you are not just accepting map changes without some level of regression testing to insure play balance without optional rules or extreme bid changes being used to justify these changes. Please inform us of how this will be tested and examined before we spend our money on what could become a major issue of game balance.

[Cheesehead]

The Asia map is the major part of the map that will differ greatly from paper WiF. The Beta testers are devoting a lot of time to this theater...especially China. Be assured that play balance will be significantly studied and played out before the game is released. Don't worry about "spending your money" on a poorly developed game. No other game developer that I know of has spent so much time and effort informing his audience of every stage in the development process. Steve would not be providing this service if he didn't have confidence in his ability complete a well designed (and balanced) game.

John

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Ok so if I understand what trees trees and Neilster are saying; there has been no play testing yet of all these extensive map changes. Additionally, play balance is suppossed to come by optional rules and bidding. Both of which play into the hands of expieranced players and leave casual players and new players out in the cold. Is this a game for the few or the many?

Player experience imbalances and built-in game mechanic imbalances exist is all games and sports, even checkers.

Steve and company are trying to acheive nearly the same level of (im)balance as it exists in WiFFE. But whether or not map changes as proposed need further refining will have to be tested by the beta team. Even then, the experience and expertise level of the beta players themselves (or more specifically, lack thereof, which is why I didn't volunteer) may effect the conclusions drawn from the beta-test games played.

To more directly answer your stated question, I don't think MWiF, or WiFFE, ever was a "beer and pretzel" game for casual players...

Steve please tell us you are not just accepting map changes without some level of regression testing to insure play balance without optional rules or extreme bid changes being used to justify these changes. Please inform us of how this will be tested and examined before we spend our money on what could become a major issue of game balance.

He's not.

I don't believe that you are looking hard enough amongst the other threads. You should have seen who the player testers were (at least some of them, anyway). You should have seen other fans state similar concerns, as well as some of the beta testers themselves. (And Steves replies to them.)

I also believe that Steve has stated in some of his posts that he stays more or less in touch with ADG...

Nothing made by man will be absolutely perfect. But for me, Steve and the fans that regularly post around here have earned my confidence, in that they will endevour to stay "true" to the boardgame, and that the finished product will be satisfactory.

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

The Asia map is the major part of the map that will differ greatly from paper WiF. The Beta testers are devoting a lot of time to this theater...especially China. Be assured that play balance will be significantly studied and played out before the game is released. Don't worry about "spending your money" on a poorly developed game. No other game developer that I know of has spent so much time and effort informing his audience of every stage in the development process. Steve would not be providing this service if he didn't have confidence in his ability complete a well designed (and balanced) game.

John

I never said this game was poorly developed to the contrary I think it is an example of the highest integrity and contribution by Steve. I take offense at your attack on me over my asking if play balance was being addressed over eye candy. Again my only question is what amount of regression testing is being done to address map changes. As to your attack on me I choose to ignore it as I will not stoop to that level. If you have further need of attacking me then please send a PM as this is not the place for it.

[Anendrue]

Actually I have read every thread for a very long time. I usually do not post a lot as I am usually in places where no connection exists so I catch up 2-3 months at a time. Yes I know Steve keeps in touch with Harry, Chris, and many others. I know the diversity of the beta teams also. I am also aware that game balance/imbalanace exists in all games events etc.. It would be a boring world if it didn't. My concern is... a game that took decades to fully develop and test is now having changes made over the issue of it looks pretty. That's a pretty casual step to take. Since the beta testers do not have the same dacades that ADG had I believe I have a valid question over regression testing and the effect of these changes.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

The Asia map is the major part of the map that will differ greatly from paper WiF. The Beta testers are devoting a lot of time to this theater...especially China. Be assured that play balance will be significantly studied and played out before the game is released. Don't worry about "spending your money" on a poorly developed game. No other game developer that I know of has spent so much time and effort informing his audience of every stage in the development process. Steve would not be providing this service if he didn't have confidence in his ability complete a well designed (and balanced) game.

John

I never said this game was poorly developed to the contrary I think it is an example of the highest integrity and contribution by Steve. I take offense at your attack on me over my asking if play balance was being addressed over eye candy. Again my only question is what amount of regression testing is being done to address map changes. As to your attack on me I choose to ignore it as I will not stoop to that level. If you have further need of attacking me then please send a PM as this is not the place for it.

I read Cheesehead's message too and can't say I feel he wrote it to attack you for
wanting to be reassured that the playtesters will regression test all map changes
before they're finally accepted.

I read his message in a way that he was doing what he could to support Steve and
reassure you that you don't need to be concerned. I hope you reread his message
and look at it in a more positive way. He was imho only trying to show his support
for Steve and his way of developing MWIF. Just as we all are supporting Steve. [:)]

I can understand your concern because it's very delicate to create a balanced
wargame. Especially a complex game like WIF. It's been decided from ADG that
MWIF should be using the European scale for the entire world. That means that the
map has to be changed in many areas whether we like it or not. I have the impression
that the MWIF designers (Steve, playtesters etc.) will not change the WIFFE
European scaled map unless the change has no effect at all (like the change
proposed for the Iranian border on the European map being moved southwards).
So the European scaled map will basically stay the same.

I guess you see from the China map thread that a LOT of discussion has taken
place about how to create the new Europe scaled China map without changing
game balance. Thorough playtesting will take place and changes will be made
when necessary. And then playtest again and again. You get my point. [;)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

abj9562,

The possible differences in play balance between WIF FE and MWIF are not taken lightly. Quite the reverse.

However, trying to anticipate such a broad definition of problem(s) isn't feasible. Rather, we work on each element of change at the level of change. China is a good example. The air distances between Pacific land masses is another.

In aggregate, the CWIF testing (as someone has mentioned in another thread) of the Pacific theater went on for years. And the players were happy with it.

In my list of concerns, hypothetical problems take a back seat to proven problems that have to be taken care of.

[mlees]

My concern is... a game that took decades to fully develop and test is now having changes made over the issue of it looks pretty.

They want the map to look pretty. Game "balance" first, absolutely. But within that framework, a pretty map is obtainable.

That's a pretty casual step to take.

I don't see where you draw the conclusions that the beta testers or Steve are casual about this... And I think that that is where I disagree with you. I think that they are fuly aware of the potential for unforeseen ingame affects.

And all they can do is:

1) Propose map clean up and art.
2) Install proposed map into beta test game.
3) Playtest the heck out of it.

Which, from what I have read, and inferred, is what they are (in the case of China), and what they intend (in the case of CenPAC), to do.

As for point #3, your right, they won't have years to fine tune the game. Merely months. (I assume.) How much "testing", time-wise, do you feel would be safe?

I could say 6 months is fine, you might disagree. In the end, Matrix and Steve will run up against a dead line, and will have to push the game out the door as it is.

If you feel concerned over the lack of testing, don't get the game right away. Wait a couple of months, read some AAR's, and PM people you trust on the forums for opinions. If their are glaring imbalances, hopefully they will be addressed in a patch. Even if they dont patch, (or before a patch) you have to decide if the game is worth the money to you. And noone else can make that decision for you, nor can they guarantee that you will like it before you try it.

(I don't know howmany games I bought that later turned out to be a)unfun or b)fun but buggy. I guess it's better than throwing my money away on strippers. Well, almost better...)

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


abj9562,

The possible differences in play balance between WIF FE and MWIF are not taken lightly. Quite the reverse.

However, trying to anticipate such a broad definition of problem(s) isn't feasible. Rather, we work on each element of change at the level of change. China is a good example. The air distances between Pacific land masses is another.

In aggregate, the CWIF testing (as someone has mentioned in another thread) of the Pacific theater went on for years. And the players were happy with it.

In my list of concerns, hypothetical problems take a back seat to proven problems that have to be taken care of.

Steve,
I would like to say you have my support and confidence and I am not questioning that at all. Also, I understand the need to compartmentalize each issue and if WiF FE/CWiF is the implementation then fine.

However I believe:

First map changes are occurring and years of testing is not available as it was with CWiF.

Second these map changes being implemented are not hypothetical and do open an element of the unknown and unproven.

Third I do not see how the balance issue is being addressed.

Fourth if the map is following CWiF hex placement locations for cities, rails, resources, islands, etc.. that is a positive solution with no additional isasues. However I understand that cities, rails, islands, etc... are being relocated and not the same as CWiF or WiF FE (which would be impossible due to map scale).

So if 30 or 40 map changes occur that opens a potential pandoras box. Therefore, my concern is hypothetical but based on the factual premise of untested map changes occurring. What programming necessities is there that the map needs to be changed from the CWiF version?

[SurrenderMonkey]

I would think that the chief programming necessity would be the AI.  Without conforming the Pacific map to European scale, you would need to write a whole separate AI situation-assessment routine for the Pacific - essentially a second AI.  The first one will be difficult (impossible?) enough.

[Anendrue]

I think 6 months would be adequate considering games can be completed much faster. Also I will purchase the game as soon as its released. Steve has my full support. I am sorry that many feel my questioning of this issue is somehow wrong. I am not against Steve Patrice or anybody in this process. Furthermore I am not a naysayer. I just wanted to know what steps are being done. So far I have not seen a concrete answer to weather the cumulative effect of map changes will or will not affect game play and if so how.

This is a very complex game with an intense amount of infinite iterations of answers. That alone may be enough according to "chaos theory" (disorder to order) and in my personal opinion most of the changes in China, USSR, and middle east will all wash out. However in the Pacific map with the intensely lower amount of land availability in the Pacific Ocean areas , changes are intensely multiplied and exaggerated as Air ranges and bases become more exacting and dictating to strategy.

In the end I will buy the game no matter what! I just want to see that the changes are necessary to good programming and not over eye candy. The drawings are very good and I like them and can't wait to play them. I just do not want to see land masses appear in the Pacific that could cause severe game imbalance. I guess only time will tell.

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey

I would think that the chief programming necessity would be the AI.  Without conforming the Pacific map to European scale, you would need to write a whole separate AI situation-assessment routine for the Pacific - essentially a second AI.  The first one will be difficult (impossible?) enough.

I am not talking about scale changes that must occur. I am asking about changing the CWiF map which has already been playtested and already matches the map scale and is the base map for MWiF. It is these map changes I am talking about. There is no necessity to move or add an island, rail head, city, resource,or other map changes due to programming requirements. Chris already extensively playtested that for many many years and that was completed. By introducing all these additional changes such as, this city 2 hexes west and this rail line 1 hex northwest changes the vast sweep of strategy and game play. If an addition of islands in the Pacific allows extra aircraft then perhaps I can now stay at advantageous land ranges that did not previously exist. These are the issues I am questioning.

In conclusion...
If the CWiF map is the standard with improved graphics then fine. However if the CWiF map with numerous relocations and additions is the standard then why and how is this being dealt with?

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

The Playtesters are testing.
The Playtesters are testing.
The Playtesters are testing.


???Maybe??? the changes are because the playtesters have tested and found some flaws.

There was a long discussion about counter density, number of hexes, and the balance between China and Japan. There were suggestions of how to increase counter density by allowing more divisional breakdowns as long as the total forces did not increase. I took part in those discussions and think it was advisable to do - something -.

???Maybe??? these changes are a logical progession of that.

I haven't followed the map change threads closely, but I have seen remarks that boil down to 'ensuring a valid supply line is available without a bazillion HQs' and 'retaining the status quo with regards to ability to ferry aircraft'. These are critical concepts that can have large changes to balance. THey are being addressed.

???Maybe??? CWiF wasn't done and ready for publication. ???Maybe??? the core group of CWiF testers had been lobbying for changes that Chris was unwilling to make or was intending to make at some later date.

???Maybe??? The playtesters are looking into it.

Guess What --- The playtesters are under a non disclosure agreement. They are not allowed to say what they are working on.

???Maybe??? they wish they could.

Steve has been more than forthcoming on all changes so people could point to them and say 'This is bad because...' or 'This won't work because...'

If you have a specific idea of why something is bad, please say it. It could very well be something no one else has thought of.

The sheer volume of discussions surrounding the map changes in China indicate that these changes are not being made lightly.


One last thing.... While WIF is a great game, it is NOT perfect. If it were, Harry would not have changed the rules so many times. If it were, there would not be 70+ optional rules to satisfy the masses who think it is lacking. If it were, there would not be 70+ rules marked as optional to satisfy those who think it is better without them.

???Maybe??? some small changes will be good.

Remain calm.

All is well.


The Playtesters are testing.
The Playtesters are testing.
The Playtesters are testing.

[trees trees]

I think the biggest factor determining "play-balance" in a game of WiF is the experience levels of the players.

I am hoping that once MWiF gets rolling along next year perhaps the player registry can be revived.