Text:BLOX RANT 3

This file was autogenerated from a book on Warlords.

Book Metadata

Title: BLOX RANT #3

Author: Bloxhead7

Book Content

BLOXY RANTS #3

Player Bias-

WARNING: This game covers some controversial opinions which could result in people being upset. That's okay. I'm ranting. Just remember these are opinions. Don't burn me at the stake for it.
Now my last two games were somewhat targetted. They were results of an event, or a series of events. The first book about how game seasons work and how they should be done was much less targetted than my second book which talked about the mechanization of games, which was
heavily aimed at thou UK_Countryball. Now this book is about player bias. Just like all my rants, I don't talk about peoples 'feelings' or 'emotions' on one another directly cause that's lame and honestly boring to read and to write. This is about a type of bias that is in nearly every game...
Player bias.

Now I don't mean the "ooo X is fighting Y and I like Y more so as a host I'll make sure Y wins." That rarely happens very blatantly, and I don't need to make a rant about why that's bad. If you wanna know how to do that correctly, here it is. Don't.
My player bias is when a player goes up against an AI, how smart, how real, and how lively should the AI be? There are really three ways to look at this. You could either use Hosted Implemented Bias, or HIB, put in something only players can use, or just have a completely human-like
AI fighting the player. I call these methods the HIB Method, the Player Exlusivity Method, and the Absolute Equality Method. Each has their place in the roleplay world, and each works better in certain games than other. Let's do a rundown of each stating how to do them well.
HIB Method:
-Most common balancing method
-Fun for host and player
-Commonly seen in afterlife and development games

This method is simple. for the sake of truness to the game I'm going to be using examples from my
games. Knoria is an easy example of HIB. Constantly I think of stuff the AI could do that would make it much harder for the player. This can be okay in the right scenario, like the ending Mosttech fight of Turn 3&4 with TCK. TCK had the benefit of numbers and skill, so I used what I believe 
any top tier general would do to fight that battle to give a more finale and realist vibe to the end of the battle. On turn 4 of dylan, he was in a fight where I could have easily used an option that was somewhat obvious, but felt unfair to dylan. Hence I made the fight easy. This is a very
oversimplified version of something everyone does. We use dynamic ideals as hosts to make certain battles easier or harder. Now the hardest we can get is using our full brain power, and any less than that is bias towards the player. Now it's easy to push this off as being fair
in a game, and that's really what it is. You want games to be fun. The host can experience the player grow and find new ways to win, especially in freeroam afterlife or developmental games.
Player Exclusivity Method:
-Gives player benefits
-Lets everyone understand what they're getting into
-Defines the boundries of a game's play style

This method is probably the least seen simply because it's pros are
somewhat situational. This game works well in the ever growing civil war games, and is an option (a mighty recommended one) in country-loria games. In Japanese Civil War (JCW), the players have a decision tree open to them. These give them more troops, more variety of playstyle, and the 
ability to peace in and out with certain nations. This gives players a decisive advantage over AI. That way the AI can play to it's honest level, while the player still has fun. Now JCW promotes player's exploring the decision trees and allowing them to experiment more than really
have to dig to win, unless of course they've taken a route with the purpose of being hard. Now these are harder to make, and prove less rewarding to the host as they now require to balance a fair and fun AI with player(s) that have much more options and the ability to change much
more frequently, such a thing requires work and dedication. However, such an experience can provide massively rewarding to the player where using the HIB or Absolute Equality method would make the game unfun for the player, or make the player feel like he's being
babysitted or cheated against by the all-knowing game host. As such, the Player Exclusivity method can be rewarding in these situations. Some games, like Fidese or Belloria, almost require this method, even without host directorate. Without it it would be so much harder to host as well as
provide the player with a much more limited amount of options.
Absolute Equality Method:
-Easy for the host
-Lays out the game for the player
-Great for games with no bias or player favoritism

The Absolute Equality Method ensures that the player recieves a fair game without any sort of bonuses
being played for them. Tactics is an easy example of this. The stats you see are exactly what you get. If you make a bad decision or are faced with an easy scenario, you don't get any insurance about it. Same goes if you are snowballing down into win in some sort of game, you can 
continue snowballing unapposed. This is very similar to 95% of games we play normally out of warlords, and it perhaps provides one of the more "authentic" playthroughs of a game. Of course, this comes at a heavy cost, especially for warlords hosts. No
longer can you craft any sort of intricate story or help players suffering. Everything is solely the same as the stats. Another problem is if a game is broken, any part of the game incorporated like this is and will be broken until updated, which may take a whole season depending on the sort of game.
To quickly sumarize, use this in stratedgy games or parts of games you want to be more linear and understandable. Make sure its balanced beforehand, and make sure it still keeps the enjoyable game aspect of warlords.
Specific Player Bias:

Now what is the so called "Bad Player Bias?" Well it's exactly what I spoke about in the beginning of the book. Blatant bias towards a specific player in a game. Now this is almost impossibe to be used effectively. ALMOST, not completely
impossible. Now, if you are doing a single player stratedgy game, and a player is having a snowball round. Your money is on the line, and you don't want a smart play to be gone so easily. You now punish the player for outsmarting the system, and directly slow them down. This
is bad for numerous reasons, we all know why. I don't need to explain this. Imagine if you're playing a game, winning, and get punished for doing so. It breaks the integrity of warlords games, and the host will surely get some sort of retaliation. However, its usually not very public...
Unless... it's multiplayer. Now these usually are with the HIB Method. Let's say XMan and Yboy are in a 1v1 fight in Knascactidom. XMan is winning, but the host doesn't like how XMan is winning, as he personally wanted Yboy to win. He now makes winning for XMan much harder,
in some scenarios nearly impossible, to the point where Yboy really didn't have to even try to beat XMan, because the host would do it for him. This player bias, especially when the stakes are high, is heavily looked down, and cause major controversy. I'll be one to say that
I don't like when my games are targetted by controversy. That means someone doesn't like how my game turned out. This gets worse if its not controversy between players, but controversy from player to host. It gives a game a bad reputation, and can sometime cause its
downfall. Reputable hosts can overcome this, but rarely can a game come back from a major defeat. So the question I pose is how come Specific Player Bias is so common?
Bias A'Plenty: 

How come so often is someone complaining another person got an easy win in a game. Have we really established our own version of hackusations when our brains can't push us through the game, or is the small and usually very visable
plague of Specific Player Bias actually much deeper and more intricate than we thought? Now I'm a flawed person, but I don't think I've ever purposefully benefitted one person over another in any of my games. Hence, I feel like I can sorta say how to fix it?!??! Maybe or maybe not,
these rants seem to be taken pretty well so that's nice. To begin with, we need to first stop it at it's source. The hosts. If you as a host ever know you tend to heavily benefit, or even lightly benefit players in fights due to non-game variables, stop. Don't be tempted, the urge
is very strong, stop. However, I can promise that I won't stop every host that has small Specific Player Bias from using said urges to their greed just by saying "resist it." So next, we must look at the victim. If you ever experience a clear case of Specific Player Bias, make
sure to establish it first. You can't win arguments like these without facts. Even if the host isn't on your side, if you can get your opponent on your side, the host may as well be a dead horse ready to be kicked. Convince them, show signs of cheats over skill, and try to persuade them. 
However, if the first two don't work, you can at least say you tried. That's good for this third and final resort, server agreement. IF this is a minor deal, just give a minor outcry, take some screenshots, and end it there. If it reaccurs in the game, continue taking screenshots and
stating verbal dissapointment, until the server is on your side. It's happened before, chiselling away and slowly pulling the server with you does work. In that case, that should work. But let's be honest, no one on this server would do that much work for something so
miniscule, and it'd be easier to quit the game if the bias was game exclusive. If it wasn't, thats when you just might as well chissel away and ect.
Conclusion:

Now THIS was a long one, wasn't it? We talked about so much, me and I, and maybe you enjoyed, maybe not, thats not why Im here. Player Bias is something that's in every (non-linear/strategy) game, and I feel like I 

should make a book about one of the key aspects of our Warlordian society. Overall, with the great power of hosting comes many choices, and this book was maybe making some reflect, maybe making some hate me more, maybe somehow giving me more respect, or just a read on your
Sunday night. Whatever it is, remember that games are always more important that politics on warlords. Until then, that's it!