• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

"Balance"

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
Can someone explain the concept of "balance" as it applies to FOE? The most common reason cited for why INNO will, or will not, implement a change to the game is that it will affect "balance". It seems to me that, every time INNO introduces a new feature (e.g new settlement, new era, new GB, new special building, etc.) that "balance" would be disrupted so I must not be understanding what "balance" means.
 

Sharmon the Impaler

Well-Known Member
When a specific group of players or another gains an advantage over the rest due to the change or it creates any sort of run off effect. An example of runoff would be unlimited goods or Cyborg level fighting ability.
 
Last edited:

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
Yes, every time a new feature is implemented or any change to the any item in FOE is changing the balance of the game. Deciding what is necessary for 'balance' is solely up to Inno since it is their game and it's their views of balance that matter. They have access to all of the game data and are the ones best positioned to decide if something is an issue for balance. They could no doubt test ideas although whether or not they do so effectively is another question but in the end, it is their call because FOE is their property, and it is on them to decide how best to continue the game and to make money on it.

Balance is so very subjective and is up for quite a lot of debate which is why few game developers (well in my experience) actually debate such matters. Players tend to think that the developers should convince them that they are right when it is actually the other way around. If a player disagrees then they always have the decision to decide if the game still works for them or to look for a new game.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
You understand balance just fine. You just don't like the implications of it. Bottom line, it's their game to balance, not yours. They also have insight into the game in aggregate, not just the player perspective of, "I want..."

Balance is the entire flow of resources throughout each world. Why can't we store FPs? Balance. Why does Inno reward most FPs to the bar and not inventory? Balance. The game requires a constant flow of FPs to other's GBs to function.

There have been unintended consequences along the way that have required Inno to make changes to the balance after something was introduced. Capping RQ aborts, a recent example.

Balance is also why any idea to make yourself richer, or the game easier by tweaking the resources immediately fall into DNSL. The message is pretty clear. When it comes to balance, it's theirs to mess with as they wish. Any ideas from players that affect balance? They don't want to hear it. Which is what the DNSL provides. A mechanism by which they never even see the idea.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Balance refers to how one feature effects another or the speed in which you can achieve something. The game balance will determine game difficulty

If the balance swings too far in one direction it’ll be too easy or creates loopholes bypassing normal gameplay. If it swings too far in the other direction it’ll be too hard.

A game designer needs to have a game difficulty in mind to direct the game balance. If they intend to introduce changes tehn they need to have some understanding on how those changes are going to impact the balance to know if it’s a good or bad change for the intended vision of the game


If the thing that prompted this question was the idea about returning FPs from donations on Great Buildings, I don’t think that’s a good idea for two reasons: (1) the problems it’ll create with donations between players (2) I would rather the increased FP gain from that come from something else. We’re going to get new features at some point. That’s just a given. One of the biggest complaints with this game is it’s too easy because resources are so easy to come by. If you remove the ability to lose resources on something that has very little ways to lose them already, then you’re just conflating that issue without offsetting the gains in any way


An example of how game balance comes into play would be things like the Alcatraz and Chateau Fronteau. When they were introduced they were powerful but didn’t make other game areas completely redundant. Then the Level 10 cap was removed and The Arc introduced. Now while it was necessary to remove caps on some Great Buildings at the very least just so you can collect from your city, once that was combined with the power of the Arc it drastically shifted the game balance to the point where we potentially don’t need goods and military buildings. That decreases the difficulty level until you can find something that can keep up with the production output of a hyper levelled CF and Traz. Had the Arc been introduced but kept a Lvl 10 cap on the Arc, or The Arc have no cap but certain Great Buildings such as CF and Traz keep the cap then the game balance would be far less swung in that direction
 
Last edited:

Ebeondi Asi

Well-Known Member
To me, aside from Cf and Arc which shifted the game before I arrived...The Event Buildings Goods totally change the game from needing Era specific Goods buildings. and a lot more effort after older goods are needed to make new goods. etc begin. And again when Mars Era and the Goods are in the Mars settlement needing mars Ore... but not with Event Buildings. all goods are just made no problem. This streamlines the game temendously.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
When are RQ aborts capped? I am EMA and cycle thru the same 9-10 several times daily.
unknown.png
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
Thanks all. Considering the variety of responses, it appears that "balance" means different things to different players which is not surprising. To me, the term "balance" implies equilibrium or steadyness, a condition not achievable in this game because new features do not always come with a counterbalancing feature so as to maintain "balance". Most, if not all, new features favor diamond spenders over F2P players. While this makes perfect sense for INNO's bottom line it runs contrary to a goal of maintaining "balance". Perhaps the goal is more along the lines of avoiding becoming too unbalanced.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
To me, the term "balance" implies equilibrium or steadyness, a condition not achievable in this game because new features do not always come with a counterbalancing feature so as to maintain "balance". Most, if not all, new features favor diamond spenders over F2P players. While this makes perfect sense for INNO's bottom line it runs contrary to a goal of maintaining "balance".
Apparently, giving you the benefit of the doubt on your understanding was in error. You don't understand balance at all. #NotSurprised
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
Apparently, giving you the benefit of the doubt on your understanding was in error. You don't understand balance at all. #NotSurprised
Twelve hours ago, you said that I understand it "just" fine. Now, you say that I don't understand it at all. Being able to disagree, without being disagreeable, is a skill that you have yet to acquire. When I posted the question, I did not understand "balance". After reading four different replies from four different players, I'll admit that I still do not understand it. But, neither do you apparently.
 

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
Thanks all. Considering the variety of responses, it appears that "balance" means different things to different players which is not surprising. To me, the term "balance" implies equilibrium or steadyness, a condition not achievable in this game because new features do not always come with a counterbalancing feature so as to maintain "balance". Most, if not all, new features favor diamond spenders over F2P players. While this makes perfect sense for INNO's bottom line it runs contrary to a goal of maintaining "balance". Perhaps the goal is more along the lines of avoiding becoming too unbalanced.

Balance in no way implies and has never entailed being static. A simple googling of the term game balance would have provided you more insight into the meaning. Also, I have to agree you still don't understand balance if you think that it has different meanings to different people. What features are 'balanced' within the game will vary person to person but that doesn't change the meaning of balance just on what people think makes the game balanced. Reread the posts that addressed your question on the meaning of balance as they all contained the same basic concept just explained slightly differently.
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
When a specific group of players or another gains an advantage over the rest due to the change

Balance is so very subjective and is up for quite a lot of debate

Balance is the entire flow of resources throughout each world.

Balance refers to how one feature effects another or the speed in which you can achieve something. The game balance will determine game difficulty
 
When are RQ aborts capped? I am EMA and cycle thru the same 9-10 several times daily.

Something to keep in mind is that in lower eras where there is only one recurring quest slot (and generally a smaller number of quests per abort cycle), it is harder to hit the abort limit because you have less aborts to worry about in your questing routine. From what I hear, it is easier to hit the abort limit in higher eras.
 

Gypsy Grace

Active Member
Something to keep in mind is that in lower eras where there is only one recurring quest slot (and generally a smaller number of quests per abort cycle), it is harder to hit the abort limit because you have less aborts to worry about in your questing routine. From what I hear, it is easier to hit the abort limit in higher eras.

Ohhhhhh...I long for the day that my RQ are different and have more than one available at a time!
 

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
You need to manage your completion of the Continental map to have more than one at lower eras/ages. Which is a bit of a pain admittedly in that you have to come looking for when and where not to proceed on the map versus how you've progressed on the tech tree.
 

Ironrooster

Well-Known Member
Can someone explain the concept of "balance" as it applies to FOE? The most common reason cited for why INNO will, or will not, implement a change to the game is that it will affect "balance". It seems to me that, every time INNO introduces a new feature (e.g new settlement, new era, new GB, new special building, etc.) that "balance" would be disrupted so I must not be understanding what "balance" means.
Inno's idea of balance for new ideas, seems to be to keep the game from being too hard or too easy. Of course that does not apply to Inno's own changes to the game.
The other balance is keeping the cash flowing into Inno's coffers through diamond purchases. So they balance the useful of diamonds against the ease of doing without them to encourage the purchases without turning players off and having them quit the game. A good example of this are the event main buildings, you can almost always get 1 of the main building if you play the event correctly every day, but not 2 or more unless you spend lots of diamonds. If you don't play the event correctly or daily, you can usually spend a few diamonds to get that last upgrade.
 
Top