Reply: Terra Mystica:: General:: Re: Balance?

by SirElliotTheNoble

ljwoodw wrote:

JamesWolfpacker wrote:

DocCool wrote:

gaaloechild wrote:

The balancing is official, simple, quick and does not affect the tactics, so just have fun and enjoy the new match-ups!

...and if there ever would be enough games of sufficiently good players with the variable VPs, then there would be a new meta with another faction or two always picked first, and another set of factions would be never picked because they are very weak. It's a change, not an improvement, and it certainly isn't a "balancing". The approach can work, but the actual execution (i.e. the precise VP changes per faction) failed to meet the target.

The map balanced vps were created using the average in-game finish. Basically, when you use them in a 4p game every faction should have an equal chance at finishing tied between 2nd and 3rd (i.e. 2.5 = avg(1,2,3,4) ). The map balanced vps are VERY close to this target. There could be a few tweaks by a vp or 2 and this would even make win percentages almost even too.

Average players and expert players play differently. It may have been balanced on "average" but horribly imbalanced in expert games. And that's setting aside the possibility of new metas.

The newly imbalanced VPs were clunky, inelegant, and utterly ineffective, and most advanced players could have told you that was exactly how it would work out if they had been asked. It's unclear why you keep defending it.

I'm not very good myself but to make the claim that they "utterly ineffective" seems quite debatable, especially at this point with the limited data there is on them.