Symmetrical factions provide greater depth in any game than asymmetrical factions by placing greater emphasis on the core game and its mechanics.

Symmetrical factions provide greater depth in any game than asymmetrical factions by placing greater emphasis on the core game and its mechanics. These "Copy-paste" civs all reinforce the central game of deer, boars, archers, and knights while adding their own special touches. Asymmetry detracts from this and forces us to simplify the core game to prevent WACKY bonuses like houses spawning vills or gold-generating hunting camps from dominating the game. The stronger and more nuanced this core game is, with its own internal sense of timing and balance, the more factions and niches it can support.

This lack of emphasis on a core game has meant the downfall of the genre.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Sandy Petersen is a hack

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, he's just mormon.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What a mental midget you are.
    1. Asymmetry CAN detract. It does not absolutely, all the time detract.
    2. True symmetry is a single faction.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Asymmetry CAN detract. It does not absolutely, all the time detract.
      Show me a game where it hasn't detracted from the overall game.
      >True symmetry is a single faction.
      Yes. We just don't want it because it'd be bland, but it's ideal for what I've described.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Supreme Commander.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          They don't seem too different, based on what the wiki says about them.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Show me a game where it hasn't detracted from the overall game.
        Twilight Imperium, because the asymmetry is the overall game. If every faction played like a vanilla faction, the game would be boring. Deep gameplay-wise, sure, but each rule having a possible exception puts greater emphasis on both the rule and the exception. Hacan can trade without being neighbors, so they can be the perfect middleman for a deal, unless you piss the player off into telling you off at every opportunity. Nekro can't research, and needs to eat opponents' ships to get researches, so people near his fleets will be wary of researching the good stuff in fear that it would get stolen immediately.
        Sure, this does lead to imbalances, the Arborec in particular being low tier because at their worst they're worse than a vanilla faction, but that doesn't mean you can't win as them, or that they're not fun to play as.

        I also want to mention Dune (2019) but i haven't played it, just heard a lot of good things about it and how the asymmetry is the core gameplay of that game.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          never played twilight imperium but it sounds a lot like endless legend and endless space games, that also have a lot of faction asymmetry. the whole "pull" of the asymmetrical faction design, for me, is that you rarely get into mirrored strategic scenarios. each player has their own advantages and weaknesses compared to each other, and strategy comes from pushing your advantages against your opponents' weaknesses and mitigating your weaknesses against your opponents' advantages. this helps combat, economy and diplomacy to "flow" toward some direction instead of constantly getting deadlocked in stalemates that stall the game, because each player has a clear, different objective in any given situation.

          like, for example, roving clans never want to do war with necrophages, while necrophages always want to be picking off weak factions. the result is that the outcome will be clearly sliding towards an eventual truce initiated by the roving clans, even if the players are similarly powerful. and on the flip side, the necrophages are going to suffer playing against the roving clans in peacetime because the roving clans can really frick them over with privateers, trade market bans and bought declarations of war, which pushes them back towards war (or alternatively, the roving clans will use them as their own mercenaries).

          imo the symmetrical alternative is 2 necrophages getting into a forever-war because neither party has any incentive to shift strategies or get out of that situation, because both factions will want to remain in war, because that's where they're both the strongest. so the game kind of refuses to "flow" in a certain direction. i made a shitty image to represent this but idk if it makes any sense.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          never played twilight imperium but it sounds a lot like endless legend and endless space games, that also have a lot of faction asymmetry. the whole "pull" of the asymmetrical faction design, for me, is that you rarely get into mirrored strategic scenarios. each player has their own advantages and weaknesses compared to each other, and strategy comes from pushing your advantages against your opponents' weaknesses and mitigating your weaknesses against your opponents' advantages. this helps combat, economy and diplomacy to "flow" toward some direction instead of constantly getting deadlocked in stalemates that stall the game, because each player has a clear, different objective in any given situation.

          like, for example, roving clans never want to do war with necrophages, while necrophages always want to be picking off weak factions. the result is that the outcome will be clearly sliding towards an eventual truce initiated by the roving clans, even if the players are similarly powerful. and on the flip side, the necrophages are going to suffer playing against the roving clans in peacetime because the roving clans can really frick them over with privateers, trade market bans and bought declarations of war, which pushes them back towards war (or alternatively, the roving clans will use them as their own mercenaries).

          imo the symmetrical alternative is 2 necrophages getting into a forever-war because neither party has any incentive to shift strategies or get out of that situation, because both factions will want to remain in war, because that's where they're both the strongest. so the game kind of refuses to "flow" in a certain direction. i made a shitty image to represent this but idk if it makes any sense.

          Anons, listen to yourselves. You've just proven my point for me.

          Starcraft, Warcraft

          Warcraft, I haven't played, and Starcraft's map is fricking barren. There IS no game.

          >Show me a game where it hasn't detracted from the overall game.
          dominions

          Don't know that one.

          strong core game is not an opposite of asymmetry
          if your core game is deeply developed, then your choices themselves become a source of asymmetrical factions: you just choose them during the game.

          Example?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Anons, listen to yourselves. You've just proven my point for me.
            i don't think you're wrong about what you said in the op. my point here

            never played twilight imperium but it sounds a lot like endless legend and endless space games, that also have a lot of faction asymmetry. the whole "pull" of the asymmetrical faction design, for me, is that you rarely get into mirrored strategic scenarios. each player has their own advantages and weaknesses compared to each other, and strategy comes from pushing your advantages against your opponents' weaknesses and mitigating your weaknesses against your opponents' advantages. this helps combat, economy and diplomacy to "flow" toward some direction instead of constantly getting deadlocked in stalemates that stall the game, because each player has a clear, different objective in any given situation.

            like, for example, roving clans never want to do war with necrophages, while necrophages always want to be picking off weak factions. the result is that the outcome will be clearly sliding towards an eventual truce initiated by the roving clans, even if the players are similarly powerful. and on the flip side, the necrophages are going to suffer playing against the roving clans in peacetime because the roving clans can really frick them over with privateers, trade market bans and bought declarations of war, which pushes them back towards war (or alternatively, the roving clans will use them as their own mercenaries).

            imo the symmetrical alternative is 2 necrophages getting into a forever-war because neither party has any incentive to shift strategies or get out of that situation, because both factions will want to remain in war, because that's where they're both the strongest. so the game kind of refuses to "flow" in a certain direction. i made a shitty image to represent this but idk if it makes any sense.

            was more about how asymmetric and symmetric faction design *feel* to play with, respectively. even if symmetry has more complexity, nuance and depth, it doesn't automatically make the game more enjoyable. there's no guarantee that those layers of complexity are interesting to engage with either. that said, fun is a matter of opinion, and so is this:

            >This lack of emphasis on a core game has meant the downfall of the genre.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Example?
            in rts like starcraft or supreme commander, you can, for example, focus on air or land (very simplified)
            then you have for your factions two corresponding "subfactions" just because the game's core mechanics distinguish between land and air units.
            you can have such choices for other areas of the core game (collecting resources or raiding the enemy, growing population or hiring mercenaries, taking upgrades for archers or knights) and then, even if you have only one base faction, you will have a "subfaction" for each combination of choices and all these "subfactions" will be asymmetric. expensiveiveness of these choices decides how easy it would be to transition from one "subfaction" to another

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              So, modes within a faction? A faction represents a set of possible tools and their surrounding conditions, not just an immediate focus. Everything you said applies to any faction in a game.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                yes
                i just mean that even with one faction, you have inherent asymmetry, because player who heavily invested in naval has different set of possible tools and their surrounding conditions from player who focused on land armies.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                In that moment, yes. Overall, no.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You've just proven my point for me.
            no, i simply never understood your point in the first place.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Starcraft, Warcraft

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Show me a game where it hasn't detracted from the overall game.
        dominions

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Idk if that's correct, there are factions that are just literally useless in all situations. It's not like LA Lemuria or MA Sceleria which can get coalitioned, shit like EA Fomoria or MA Asphondel are just actual dogshit and only played in meme nation games.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Master of Magic, Age of Wonders and games with a magic system separate from the factions.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I've played AoW3. Shit game.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Identical factions are fine by me. Asymmetric factions provide variety in singleplayer. Symmetrical factions are for spreadsheet nerds.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It also makes the game boring.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Sure, if you don't play it.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    a better example of is shogun 2 TW vs the Warhammer series

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    strong core game is not an opposite of asymmetry
    if your core game is deeply developed, then your choices themselves become a source of asymmetrical factions: you just choose them during the game.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They're not copy-paste, the small bonuses are actually more impactful than they first appear. I would say the same for Civilization 4 where a lot of the unique or leader bonuses are actually more impactful than some of the leader bonuses in V.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      the thing about civ iv is none of the individual leader traits (IIRC) are unique, it's just the combination of leader traits that is, which is a lot better than the mono-traits of civ V

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Show me a symmetrical game that can pull off 1v1 scenarios as satisfying as Netrunner. I'll wait.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *