You're right, Egalitarian doesn't mean what I think it meant, but you are indeed elitist.

It's not about majority, it's about recognizing good ideas, and sifting through bad ones. Your example, I agree, is a bad one. Some things will become more clear with time, others won't. It is also about acknowledging that there are more valid perspectives than just the "1337". There are things to be gained by putting time into something, and looking closely at it, and things to be gained from new perspectives, that take in the whole thing at once. Not every postulated idea will be correct, that doesn't change the fact that people who are not pros will often observe things that are problems. And confining it to an introverted community will destroy a game with potential.

And honestly, I don't see what you're trying to say with that analogy. What are you comparing what to?

I think Miya has already posed the argument adaquately. Tactics should be balanced around the maximum reasonable potential of those tactics, otherwise known as the "highest level of play." If a tactic is fair in a game between experts, then it is fair assuming near optimal play from both sides, then it is fair in general. If a tactic is not fair in a game between experts, then it is not fair assuming near optimal play from both sides, then it is not fair in general.

Balance cannot be concerned with whether tactics are not "fair" in games between intermediate or beginner players. In those types of games, the balance is there and the counters are readily available, but the players lack the ability to use them. This is the player's fault, not the game's, which is why the game must not change (be rebalanced) to compensate for suboptimal play.  

Just look at any game with seemingly powerful strategies. SSBM Shiek, SC2 Cassandra Deathfist, WC3 Hunt Rush, GW Airspike, the list goes on. These are all strategies that beginner and intermediate players have difficulty countering. But were not rebalanced, nor should they have been. Why? Because at a higher level of play, those strategies are perfectly counterable and actually turn out to be quite tame in comparison to other strategies that inhabit that level of play. In this way it is clear that only an expert has a clear enough understanding of the game to offer insightful balance opinions about what is really powerful, weak, right, or wrong with the game.  

Elitist? Yes. Correct? Absolutely. 

If the game is balanced for the hardcore playerbase, the casual playerbase will be able to play a balanced game. If the game is balanced for the casual playerbase, there is no certainty that it will be playable at the highest level.

You've been reading too much Sirlin imo. The number of complex moves in Demigod is really low. Chaining skills like stuns/grasp/silence, and group bursting are the closest it gets to the very complexcombos in arcade fighting games. The difference in player skill revolves around positioning and map control as much as it does executing those team moves. With this in mind, the game-deciding moves are all just as open to a new player as they are to an experienced one.

The simple moves are powerful anyway, moves like Sedna healing a teammate, UB grasping a target for a hammer slam, and Erebus swarming to stun a fleeing enemy are going to play a giant part in the game and they are both simple and easy to carry out. This is what decides the game, how well the player uses the simple techniques, and they are open to both pro and noob alike.

Stuff like "Do I push left lane of Cataract to draw our opponents to that side, silence and then port back to base while my teammates run up the other lane to backdoor" can have a greater effect on the outcome of the game than, "Do I pounce now or later", but just because it's a more complex tactic doesn't mean a new player can't do it. There's no limitation based on micro, only on strategic thought and teamwork.

Casual players think Rook towers are OP, most of the serious players I've encountered agree they are not. If we catered to the casual crowd's demands for a nerf, Rook would disappear from the game completely for many of the serious players.

Akuma is akin to an exploit in online games, he's god mode. People don't skybox in scrims when playing Source Engine games, you get banned from the server if you do. Doubles are not even close to this kind of situation.

None of the best teams now play doubles (that I know of).

The point of this thread is to try and force people to play the way you and some other people want. That stinks of arrogance.

You say i would enable idiocy, which is wrong. The sole reason im posting here is to stop it. I would enable people to play the way they want tho. Not just the 'scrubs', but your kind of egomaniacs as well. Theres simply no reason to question anyone's rules as long as they do not try to force those onto others.. which is not the case for those no double games, but definitely the case with your kind of 'mine is the only right way to play' types.

So casual players are not playing to win? The fact that someone sets up some rules - rules which bind both sides of a game - does not mean they are not playing to win. It means they are not playing by the original rules. Thats it and nothing more.

You assume that being casual and competitive are exclusive terms which is simply bullshit. The fact that some players have an actual life to live, besides playing demigod 24/7 does not mean that they are less motivated to win a game. It simply means they have less time to waste on the game, which will eventually turn into skill difference obviously, but skill <> motivation.

About balance: The idea that only those born at 13:37 should be allowed to tell which way a game should be going is so utterly stupid that i can't even believe someone had the balls to write that down.

Whether or not doubles are OP is not the issue, because some are and some arent, but they each can be beaten - albeit you will have to sweat blood - if you choose the right tactics. Noone asked GPG/SD to ban doubles, that is none that i can remember. Its the simple question of:

Why shouldn't people be able to play by their own rules without being called names by the elitist pricks.

Why does it hurt some people's ego so much, when the new guy hosts his game with the simple rule that there be no doubles.

I consider myself a decent, maybe even a good player.. but quite frankly: i want to have nothing to do with the kind of elitist scum that keeps posting trash into this thread. Kinda sad tho, that for some people: newbies are a simple kind of domestic animal they 'sadly' need for their game to survive and also for food.

A newbie for me is a potential friend and an eventual opponent. Am i not competitive enough because i do not try to bite through the throat of every other player I see? I guess this makes me a noob in the eyes of those 1337 people and so be it.. i will proudly wear that title as it is worth a lot more right now, than to be called a pro.

There is some truth in this argument, even though i see it as a natural progression of games. The community is always adding/changing rules, to balance or to even the playing field. If the majority starts to play by these, that means that there is a demand for it, - and in this case, that would mean that doubles are indeed a problem.  If it is only a few people use, then theres no issue whatsoever and it is merely the desires of some select players that are manifesting in this way.

Theres plenty of games with different settings anyway, you just do not see them mentioned in the game title, but have to check for them when you enter a game. So in this sense, we could argue that any game with non default settings is a similar, if not even bigger offense against the community as the no doubles.

I bet if everyone with custom game settings - that is: non default settings - would tag their games, the majority would turn out to be custom. Lol.. even the ESL rules are custom in that they forbid the use of favor items for example.. at least that was the last version i saw.

So we are - again - back to the issue of why rules made by some people are acceptable, and rules by others are not.

As for your assassin only argument.. While i havent seen such a game yet, randoms only i did see already. As long as the house rules are limited to certain minor aspects of the game (and quite frankly: limiting the use of doubles is hardly a big issue, especially considering that they are a rare choice to begin with) then they are nothing but a little bit of variety.

Randoms only is something you could be worried about, as that is far from being minor and based on other games, THAT ACTUALLY has a chance to become a global phenomenon over time.

Additionally: if you are that good, then playing with slightly different rules will in fact only help you, as you are more likely be able to adept to those than the 'casual' player with less experience. The people usually crying about non-standard (that is rules they are not used to) rules are the ones who base their gameplay around specific tricks that can only happen in specific scenarios. They are crying because it is the knowledge of these tricks that give them an edge and not necessarily their actual skill.. so when it comes to adaptation and skill, they might actually lose.

These combinations im talking about are not only doubles. They can be any demigod/skill/item combo you can come up with if it is the cornerstone of the strategy you are using. The moment your strategy revolves around a combination of things and not general planning and teamwork, you are prone to be hit by rule limitations.

So am i against house rules? No .. definitely not. For me, they add variation to the game. I'm especially at peace with them as im not forced to play by them. I can just host my own game with the rules I like, when those hosted by others are not to my liking.

Hats off tho for being the first person in this thread on the pro-doubles party who actually provided a sensible argument.

Aye, the other two articles are much better, but they aren't as popular among hardcore gamers.

This is a fair statement, however it doesn't take into consideration a few elements about how Higher Level balance works. For example, in World of Warcraft, the melee and armour dependant class called the Warrior is balanced as you've described - for the higher levels - however because they are very dependant on their armour, until they reach the higher levels of Gear they're actually weaker than their fellow classes of a same level. Balancing for the higher end is a great way to ensure an even hand - there really is no way of arguing this - however if you take into consideration the tricks the higher level players use that casual players may not and balance certain elements of the game around this, you may cause an imbalance at lower skill levels. The idea of balance is to provide an even playing field and you need to be careful that by leveling a higher skilled playing filled you're not unbalancing a lower skill playing field. It's been the debate of mutliplayer games since they've existed, and Demigod is no different. This isn't an attack on the debate in this thread - I've said my peace - just a point I haven't seen covered yet.

absoutly /signed @WickedBear

Quite honestly I was going to reply to your post, but after reading it I see you really aren't capable of rational arguement and/or thought. You can't even make one single actual factual statement, even about your own words. Heres an example:

Yes, a question that imposed a fact. I guess you're too uneducated to realize what a leading question is. Not to mention it didn't even have a freaking question mark.

You can continue making up facts all you want in this thread, doesn't make you correct. Sad really I made better arguements in middleschool papers.

@wickedbear

i very much agree with you that you can find a counter to any combo/double, therefore no double per default is overpowered. but some influence the gameplay in away not enjoyed by a good chunk of people. this is ofcourse map specific. think noone cares about 2 regs in a team on mandala, while it might be seen as a nuissance on cataract or prison.

there is a huge difference between the pro player wanting to play a match of demigod (considering any demigod) and the casual who wants to play a match as tb or whatever. so they want to find an even matchup for there choice not chose to matchup even.

if someone in your game asks for no doubles, just kindly tell him that its your game and you allow doubles. problem solved. he can then leave or adjust to it. if he starts bitching there is a kick option.

no doubles is an optional rule which is used in some casual games. i doubt its much of an issue in pro games nor is it enforced in any pantheon/skirmish games. therefore i dont understand this whole fuzz you all make about it. its a personal preference for custom games only.

The only doubles I won't usually allow in my games are double Erebus or Oak if the other is already in the game (i.e., three or more minion generals). Not because the combination is necessarily OP (it's generally inferior when both go full minions) but because 48+ of their minions plus however many of our minions slows the game down too much, not to mention the cluster fuck it usually devolves into.

Also, you either balance the game for the highest level or cater to the casual player. There is almost never an in between.

that's a funny one... reason