Enter Your Reply

This is on the subject of balancing methodologies for sides so play is
fair.

The entire question of piece values, and the endless discussion with not a
breakthrough, had myself wondering if there was not another angle on these
issues, and wondering what the point is.  I am sure part of it has
something to do with determination of strategy and calculating exchanges
(thanks Joe Joyce for this one), but I consider a more pressing issue has
to do with an issue of both fairness and certain mixes of pieces not
breaking the game.  A breaking situation can be excessive draws, or that a
game is considered optimized down one path, reducing its richness.

So, in light of this, would not another approach here be to ask how
players can be assured of a game that is balanced and not broken, in light
of not knowing the value of the pieces.  The unknown could serve as a
strength actually for playing, as players may not know exactly if a mix is
ideal or not.  Maybe the luck element increases some, but perfect
information should be there.

I believe that by addressing this issue now, we can come up with
methodologies that would enable to handle to the fullness of variant
community, right down to new boards and also mutators.  I believe doing
this also can then lend to a pool of experience that can then be used for
determining actual piece values.

Anyone want to list some suggestions here for balancing mechanisms in
light  of not knowing the values of pieces.

I see several possibilities here (please add more):
1. You do a mechanism like the latest CV Pot Luck.  For a tournament,
players would end up selecting pieces they want to use, boards and so on,
and then vote them out or in.
2. Randomized pool.  Tournament director loads up a pool of pieces of
certain types, and then randomly selects which will go in.
3. Auction mechanism.  Players bid on pieces they put up, to determine if
they get in or not.

I will let others decide further on this.