ORIGINAL: JWE
Ouch .. that's harsh.ORIGINAL: derhexer
"House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? "
House rules are there because this is a computer game. The game engine has certain limitations, and a large degree of flexibility has been built in. As with all computer programs, it is quite stupid unless it is doing precisely what it is programmed to do, and precisely when it is programmed to do so.
Such being the case, it is very easy to cheat it. The program’s flexibility is the cause and people who can figure it out can always find a way to cheat it; something that is endemic to every computer gaming program ever written. The problem is compounded by the existence of certain battles that have been researched to the extent of identifying what some pilot had for breakfast that morning and the DEMAND that those battles have historical results: ignoring the fact that those results depended on purely human, psychological factors that a computer is not able to deal with. So tweaking for those specific, historical, and unusual results will skew the base paradigm and pull everything else out of whack.
But people DEMAND that flak kill precisely their opinion of attacking planes. People DEMAND the PH strike kill precisely their opinion of BBs. People DEMAND that artillery causes their opinion of casualties. People DEMAND that each and every engagement in the game unfolds just like the Victory at Sea DVD. Accommodating this nonsense causes the code to get even more skewed when applied to more general cases.
So House Rules aren’t bad. Intelligent players tend to understand where the holes are and obviate the cheats by making House Rules that attempt to limit things to the middle of the program’s mathematical distribution. House Rules allow players to define their own particular takes on the location of the 50 yard line and the extent of the sidelines and the location of the endzone. Flexibility is the key. Self-absorbed persons won’t understand it, but the flexibility of the game system allows a huge play space that can be narrowed and defined by suitable House Rules.
JWE please forgive me ,but I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who designed and created this game. And faith in them. I know that you were involved in it, so you'd definitely be more knowledgeable about the game and it's flaws than I would. But my point of view is, when I buy a tool, a electronic device, or any other product , do I immediately take it apart and say "well, I don't need this, or that , and obviously the people who designed this are idiots. I know better!"?. [X(]
I don't know many people who would. (Except of course for my idiot relative who takes his new car and says "Emissions equipment? I don't need that!)[X(][:D]
Seriously , what I'm trying to say , is unless someone who knows a heck of a lot more than me, or someone from Matrix themselves, says to us "there is a flaw in the game, use this rule to fix it", I have a real problem with people "screwing with the recipe". But I hear constant whining of how this game is broken, etc. And often house rules are used to "adjust" the game to deal with a players desires, rather than any real flaw. So , as you can tell, I'm not a big fan of house rules unless 1) there is a definite flaw in the game (hence "gamey") 2) there is an "imbalance" between players (ie-and experienced player and a "weak" player) OR there is an attempt under way for one or more of the players to test a theory (I'm currently playing a PBEM with Chickenboy who's attempting to test some of his).
If I'm harsh , then I apologize , but I honestly do feel that many house rules commonly used have more to do with the inadequacy of players than the game.
