Louis Wu said:
Since you haven't actually SHARED your definition of balance, this is a pretty difficult statement to process. (In fact, this whole argument seems rather silly; you made Frank 'define' balance for you, and then you spent several posts arguing about how HIS answers didn't match YOUR definition.)
Balance means that success is directly proportional to the abilities, choices, and actions of the players. Similar to how a 10 lb weight will tip a scale relative to a 5 lb weight, a highly skilled gamer will
proportionally tilt the scale of a game against a lesser opponent.
What it appeared Frankie was talking about was the act of balancing all the different "wants" of the gaming community. I'm talking about how the actual "sandbox" is balanced.
Louis Wu said:
I'm not the company making the game, I'm a gamer that wants to be treated fairly - and I MUCH prefer the former. (I'd rather something in the middle, of course, as would most reasonable people -but if I were made to choose between those two options, you've guessed wrong about which one I'd pick.) You're clearly coming into this argument with assumptions that fit YOUR worldview - and ignore mine. Why is that reasonable?
You're making gross assumptions about a rather ambiguous false dichotomy. If you are a gamer who wants to be treated fairly, you will want the most balanced game possible, even if only 1% of the population likes it. As a gamer, why would you care how many other people enjoy the game as long as you enjoy it? Assuming, of course, that there's at least a healthy enough population that you would have people to interact with.
I find it difficult to believe, based on your prior statements, that you actually want a "fair" game. From what I've gathered, you want a game that artificially equals the playing field; thats not fair. Maybe you mispoke on your previous comments or I misunderstood them though.
