(12-02-2018, 12:05 AM)Mephistoles Wrote: I think it might be a good idea to study this further by having a few more similar events, but ones that don't immediately effect story development.
Maybe people wanted Gallia to lose. Maybe people will support whatever they like more. Some people are in it for the fun, balance and mindless pews, but it'll never apply to everyone. When you factor in an outcome that makes a major change, of course it's going to be unbalanced.
I have no argument with this. If that's the way it's going, that's the way it's going.
My point is that the objective the players had to meet wasn't balanced. It's not possible to balance this off the bat but with some further testing it may be possible to make it fairer it in the future.
(12-02-2018, 12:10 AM)Riehl Wrote:
(12-02-2018, 12:05 AM)Mephistoles Wrote: The initial NPC LSCs were far too strong and in all fairness the subsequent player LSCs were also too strong. That said, it is obviously entirely impossible to find the perfect numbers in this regard as nobody can predict who/what is going to show up and what number is the most reasonable to assign to the targets. I think it might be a good idea to study this further by having a few more similar events, but ones that don't immediately affect story development. That way we can all put together a better picture of what is an equitably balanced manner of hosting these events in the future.
That is not 'in all fairness'. You would have won if BAF didn't massively up their tactics for the final round. That scenario worked out pretty much as equally as it could have.
I fought for both sides. Barring no defending players, Gallia had no chance of winning this.