A good starting point in trying to come up with a way to balance something is trying to think how would RL do it.
How does RL limit the size of a group of shady characters going somewhere away from civilization hoping to find loot, adventure and an opportunity to kill stuff?
-loot the group can hope to find will be limited and will have to be split
-there is logistic factor involved, providing a small group with ammo, weapons and other supplies, is much less of a challenge than providing same things to a small army
-unless there are some very specific plot or character related reasons involved, group members will have much reason to distrust each other, get pissed off at each other, fight for leadership, or silently murderize competition and abscond with loot. They may also just leave at the least convenient moment. To sum it up, companins are generally not reliable
-large groups, especially containing not very stealthy members, are not very stealthy
-slow members will slow the group down, weak members will force others to do more heavy lifting and so on
If you were going to visit an abandoned temple of doom somewhere, or maybe a half-glassed ancient military base, hoping to get your grubby little fingers on the phat lewt residing within, you don't want to take other people with you. You only do so, because they may help you out somehow, but it's definitely not because you think the more the merrier, just because you don't think you can make it alone.
Of course, if you design a game as a single-character game from the beginning to the end, it should be balanced differently than a game designed for a party.
Malraz Alizar said:
PorkaMorka said:
It is retarded to try and balance it so one guy is equally as effective as 8 guys.
What about balancing it so a dumb guy is as effective as a smart guy? Say, by giving the dumb guy other advantages, such as increased strength or agility? Or what about balancing it so a fistfighter is just as effective as a gunfighter? Are you genuinely suggesting that the potential for making interesting, mechanically-significant decisions in character creation is all just so much retarded artifice?
Balancing in terms of power *is* "retarded artifice", unless you're making a competitive, free-for-all multiplayer game.
Balancing should be done entirely from the point of providing gameplay opportunities and from the point of basic build viability. Our kung-fu mastah would be essentially dead meat at the distances he can't cover before the other guy can shoot him in normal combat, but his skill might come useful and profitable in certain scenarios marksman's skills won't - non-lethal combat (even in PA setting, most communities will be more forthcoming if you end a brawl by beating people unconscious, than shooting them dead), fighting for profit, fighting without having your firearm at hand or where firearms would be unusable, stealthy combat, lack of ammo (then again, melee weapons might work better here). It shouldn't fill the same niche as marksmanship, despite being technically also a combat skill. As a matter of fact, no two skills ever should make each other redundant.
Also, you shouldn't expect gun gladiators. Guns are pretty unexciting compared to melee, guns are dangerous to you and your spectators, ammo is expensive.
Shemar said:
AI controlled companions? I'll pass. That is usually a deal breaker for me. Balance or no balance.
So, in other words, Fallout sucks balls?