|
Hio,
can anybody explain to me how it is done? I just thought about Brood War and how it is done there:
There are three different races and if you start a game you always get the same for each race: 4 worker, 1 main building
Costs: 600(xD) minerals for each race
(hatch lord 4 drones; nexus 4 probes; cc 4 scvs)
That's pretty simple, but from here on I have a dozen questions:
1. The overlord f.e. provides supply. Unlike toss or terra where u build pylons/depots you immediately get a (non mining) unit with which you can scout. I didn't play BW in 98/99, but I think in the beginning that was quite an advantage for zerg because scouting in general wasn't that good?
So, how does balancing the overlord work? First you decide that there is this unit and then you just fix its speed/range of vision/upgrades?
2. Then, is there a perfect overlord? One that is maximized regarding the balancing aspect? (ceteris paribus obv)
3. In general, you could change the starting parameters. Not so much the number of scvs or probes but f.e. the mining speed. So instead of 4 drones with the same mining time as probes/scvs zerg gets 3 drones which mine a bit faster. Obv this would not only affect the early phase of the game, but the whole game as well. That seems extremely complicated to balance, so I assume if you design a game with different races some aspects have to be the same for every race?
4. Or not? Would BW still be that balanced if the mining time for drones is de-/increased? Does that only change some timings which could be patched?
5. Are there certain abilities each player has to have in order to make a RTS game good? Like, the ability (of each race) to take land units and drop them anywhere on the map.
6. If so, what about supply limits? Are they inherent in good RTS games?
Puh I have a lot more questions, but maybe they will be answered with the first (f.e. is it possible to prove that a game including different races is as balanced as possible (by simulating or w/e)).
Sry for my bad english, thx for help (links, explanations...)
 
|
Balancing is almost never done by looking at numbers. They just guess at what might work then play test a lot. Patch what seems to be broken, play test more and repeat.
Getting something balanced and fun at the end relies a lot on luck. If the fundamental ideas are bad then you'll never reach this (i.e. pretty much all modern RTS so far).
Also I think a lot of SCBW's balance comes from the simple fact that mechanics are so important that it doesn't matter if one race is stronger in theory, since humans can never consistently play that well. It also explains why it's so hard to keep modern RTS balanced and fun.
So basically I don't think you can really achieve a balanced game without giving both players the exact same things, but you can add other elements into the game which mean the better player will still win most of the time.
|
StarCraft was a 'lucky punch'.
In SC2 they're trying to emulate as much of the good stuff they made by accident in the original, while also changing stuff slightly so that the game isn't the same.
Also, having 3 completely different races means the game is virtually impossible to balance at all points of a match, so you find the good timing windows(where balance is good), and make maps that will make sure gameplay is based on to those.
|
On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Balancing is almost never done by looking at numbers. They just guess at what might work then play test a lot.
On March 15 2010 21:43 niteReloaded wrote:
StarCraft was a 'lucky punch'.
No and no.
Game design and balance is taken very seriously and a lot of time, effort, thought, and calculations are put into making it happen. People get paid SPECIFICALLY to do these jobs, and it's not easy. Trust me, they take it very seriously and don't just 'guess', nor did they 12 years ago.
And to the OP, there's a LOT that goes into it, and it's really as complicated as it seems! Basically a lot of numbercrunching, theorizing, rehashing, and testing.
|
On March 15 2010 21:46 Mikilatov wrote:No and no.
Actually, that's a pretty big YES. I'm sure that back in '99-2000 the developers did their best to balance the game, but the level and style of play achieved today was virtually unimaginable back then, and so were the maps, the concept of macro was ages behind what it is today, etc etc.
So even though Blizzard did their best, and the first patches fixed obvious flaws, BW is really so neatly balanced today because it was a fucking huge shot in the dark, and because of the Korean map designers and of progamers who spent countless hours solving what at certain points in time seemed imbalances.
|
On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Also I think a lot of SCBW's balance comes from the simple fact that mechanics are so important that it doesn't matter if one race is stronger in theory, since humans can never consistently play that well. It also explains why it's so hard to keep modern RTS balanced and fun.
I agree with this, this is (obviously) one of the reasons why BW has such a high skill ceiling and why it is so complex, the many strategies are composed of different tactics which in turn have key mechanical aspects required, certain micro/control tricks that are imperative to the success of said strategies.
Theoretical understanding has its value but it is coupled and dependent on mechanical prowess, which tunes down seemingly imbalanced theoretical concepts and assures that the most prepared/fastest player has a good chance to come on top of most situations.
|
I dont think the developers at blizzard ever imagined that 1 marine > 1 lurker when they made the game
|
On March 15 2010 22:16 Pulimuli wrote:
I dont think the developers at blizzard ever imagined that 1 marine > 1 lurker when they made the game
Really? Micro tricks sound like the first thing people would figure out. It's extremely obvious that you can dodge lurker spines (the sort of thing you notice during the campaign), and that if you care enough, you can do it over and over.
It reminded me of every ranged unit from Age of Empires.
|
On March 15 2010 21:46 Mikilatov wrote:
And to the OP, there's a LOT that goes into it, and it's really as complicated as it seems! Basically a lot of numbercrunching, theorizing, rehashing, and testing.
Could you please go a bit more into detail here? 
On March 15 2010 22:08 minus_human wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Also I think a lot of SCBW's balance comes from the simple fact that mechanics are so important that it doesn't matter if one race is stronger in theory, since humans can never consistently play that well. It also explains why it's so hard to keep modern RTS balanced and fun.
I agree with this, this is (obviously) one of the reasons why BW has such a high skill ceiling and why it is so complex, the many strategies are composed of different tactics which in turn have key mechanical aspects required, certain micro/control tricks that are imperative to the success of said strategies. Theoretical understanding has its value but it is coupled and dependent on mechanical prowess, which tunes down seemingly imbalanced theoretical concepts and assures that the most prepared/fastest player has a good chance to come on top of most situations.
Hm. So if you design a race which is perfectly balanced in theory but is very hard to handle would you say the game is balanced (giving the better player the possibility to win) or not?
F.e. auto-healing of medics or terran in general. I think (and I'm not alone with this I guess) terran is the hardest race to play. Is BW balanced then? You would say "yes, you just have to be faster" I assume. What if auto-healing is disabled? More/less/unaltered balance?
Imho the mechanical aspect of the game is one that has nothing to do with balance in general. (If you look at chess, afaik the human being doesn't have a chance against modern computer power, getting a draw at best. I guess that will also be the case for RTS games soon: ( f.e. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=106560 )
I'd define balance as this: if two players of the exact same skill level play with two different races against each other, the chance of winning for each of them will be 50% in the long run. Since they have both the same mechanics, they don't matter. IMHO map design (number of chokes/ramps/high grounds, open fields..) is just a parameter like any other
|
On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Balancing is almost never done by looking at numbers. They just guess at what might work then play test a lot. Patch what seems to be broken, play test more and repeat.
Sorry but i have to disagree.
If you give a look to the Twitter session with SC2 developer you will see that they explain how it works:
" We crunch numbers as well as play internally. In many cases in the beta we are shipping patches with only a few days of testing. That is not something we will be able to do once we launch the game, but in beta we can still be a little more aggresive with our patches."
|
On March 15 2010 21:46 Mikilatov wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Balancing is almost never done by looking at numbers. They just guess at what might work then play test a lot. No and no. Game design and balance is taken very seriously and a lot of time, effort, thought, and calculations are put into making it happen. People get paid SPECIFICALLY to do these jobs, and it's not easy. Trust me, they take it very seriously and don't just 'guess', nor did they 12 years ago. And to the OP, there's a LOT that goes into it, and it's really as complicated as it seems! Basically a lot of numbercrunching, theorizing, rehashing, and testing.
I'm sure they invested a lot of time into balancing, that was not my point.
My point is that their balancing was pretty much useless coz the balance turned out to work out a whole different way than they intended. Just take a glance at BroodWar strategy section.
+ Show Spoiler +Zealots are countered by firebats and bunkers
Oh and also, don't ever use "No and no." when commenting on someone's opinion when you follow it up with your own opinion.(as opposed to facts/numbers) It's a clear indicator of closed minded, narcissistic people, and you draw the same reaction from the person you're responding to.
|
I think that's 600 minerals ^_^
|
On March 15 2010 23:46 LuDwig- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Balancing is almost never done by looking at numbers. They just guess at what might work then play test a lot. Patch what seems to be broken, play test more and repeat.
Sorry but i have to disagree. If you give a look to the Twitter session with SC2 developer you will see that they explain how it works: " We crunch numbers as well as play internally. In many cases in the beta we are shipping patches with only a few days of testing. That is not something we will be able to do once we launch the game, but in beta we can still be a little more aggresive with our patches."
Well okay, they frequently use numbers for an initial guess of what to change, but the real balancing comes from play testing, always. It depends on your definition of balancing, but I wouldn't call simply deciding on a change the most vital part of the process.
edit: actually it makes more sense to call the whole design process balancing, I guess what I really meant was "it's not the most important part".
On March 15 2010 21:46 Mikilatov wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Balancing is almost never done by looking at numbers. They just guess at what might work then play test a lot. No and no. Game design and balance is taken very seriously and a lot of time, effort, thought, and calculations are put into making it happen. People get paid SPECIFICALLY to do these jobs, and it's not easy. Trust me, they take it very seriously and don't just 'guess', nor did they 12 years ago. And to the OP, there's a LOT that goes into it, and it's really as complicated as it seems! Basically a lot of numbercrunching, theorizing, rehashing, and testing.
You can make logical guesses based on facts and information, obviously I didn't mean you just throw random numbers out there.
|
For the original question about balancing Zerg... Zerg is balanced by limited larva (used for overlords, workers, every building, and fighting units, and their fighting units are reliably either larva or gas intensive), and by the high cost and build time for new hatcheries to produce new larva.
It's more complicated than that, of course, but that's ~why they get to be so efficient in other ways. (Crazy-good speedlings, supply depots that scout and detect, super easy unit composition switches.)
|
On March 15 2010 23:47 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 21:46 Mikilatov wrote:On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Balancing is almost never done by looking at numbers. They just guess at what might work then play test a lot. On March 15 2010 21:43 niteReloaded wrote:
StarCraft was a 'lucky punch'. No and no. Game design and balance is taken very seriously and a lot of time, effort, thought, and calculations are put into making it happen. People get paid SPECIFICALLY to do these jobs, and it's not easy. Trust me, they take it very seriously and don't just 'guess', nor did they 12 years ago. And to the OP, there's a LOT that goes into it, and it's really as complicated as it seems! Basically a lot of numbercrunching, theorizing, rehashing, and testing. I'm sure they invested a lot of time into balancing, that was not my point. My point is that their balancing was pretty much useless coz the balance turned out to work out a whole different way than they intended. Just take a glance at BroodWar strategy section. + Show Spoiler +Zealots are countered by firebats and bunkers Oh and also, don't ever use "No and no." when commenting on someone's opinion when you follow it up with your own opinion.(as opposed to facts/numbers) It's a clear indicator of closed minded, narcissistic people, and you draw the same reaction from the person you're responding to.
Totally agree with this. The game being played today is drastically different from what the designers and developers envisioned.
However, the later patches obviously contributed towards the fine balance. Also, even SC isn't exactly "balanced". There is an additional variable to the game -- custom maps. As we've observed in the past, the maps can offset the inherent imbalances of the game, and favour any race of the designers' choosing.
|
On March 15 2010 21:19 Djin)ftw( wrote:
Hio,
can anybody explain to me how it is done? I just thought about Brood War and how it is done there:
There are three different races and if you start a game you always get the same for each race: 4 worker, 1 main building
Costs: 600(xD) minerals for each race
(hatch lord 4 drones; nexus 4 probes; cc 4 scvs)
That's pretty simple, but from here on I have a dozen questions:
1. The overlord f.e. provides supply. Unlike toss or terra where u build pylons/depots you immediately get a (non mining) unit with which you can scout. I didn't play BW in 98/99, but I think in the beginning that was quite an advantage for zerg because scouting in general wasn't that good?
So, how does balancing the overlord work? First you decide that there is this unit and then you just fix its speed/range of vision/upgrades?
2. Then, is there a perfect overlord? One that is maximized regarding the balancing aspect? (ceteris paribus obv)
3. In general, you could change the starting parameters. Not so much the number of scvs or probes but f.e. the mining speed. So instead of 4 drones with the same mining time as probes/scvs zerg gets 3 drones which mine a bit faster. Obv this would not only affect the early phase of the game, but the whole game as well. That seems extremely complicated to balance, so I assume if you design a game with different races some aspects have to be the same for every race?
4. Or not? Would BW still be that balanced if the mining time for drones is de-/increased? Does that only change some timings which could be patched?
5. Are there certain abilities each player has to have in order to make a RTS game good? Like, the ability (of each race) to take land units and drop them anywhere on the map.
6. If so, what about supply limits? Are they inherent in good RTS games?
Puh I have a lot more questions, but maybe they will be answered with the first (f.e. is it possible to prove that a game including different races is as balanced as possible (by simulating or w/e)).
Sry for my bad english, thx for help (links, explanations...)
A lot of your questions center around considering a single aspect of the game to balance. However, this does not work in practice. Each unit is not individually examined and balanced.
The thing you actually want to balance is a matchup. There is some work you can do by just looking at a race, but the game is not balanced unless the matchups are balanced.
A great example of looking too closely with the microscope is your examination of the overlord. All of your questions are valid concerns. However, it turns out that having an initial overlord does not cause imbalance in the matchups (except in some cases for maps where there is extremely short air distance, and extremely long ground distance).
There is a huge amount of mathematical analysis you can do with any RTS, no matter how simple. And I'd bet a fair amount that someone at Blizzard has done every bit of it. But balancing a matchup is not something that humans are capable of doing 'on paper'. Theorycrafting and so on is a good tool to use, but often there are subtleties that people miss on paper which occur in the game.
The best way to balance a matchup is using the following scheme:
In XvY does X or Y almost always win?
If so, at what point does X or Y almost always win?
What are the timings (for both X and Y) that cause this to happen?
Identify those timings -> come up with a possible solution. Start back at the beginning.
There are other concerns too like having matchups degenerate into a rush towards a very specific tech that determines the winner of the game. You can use almost the same analysis and try to fix those timings as well.
-----
Another thing to mention is that you don't create a game by first creating a mathematical system. Game designers generally take concepts and ideas and try to turn them into something enjoyable to do. So balance was not a consideration when Overlords were first invented. It was just a cool idea. Balancing a system needs to come after the crucial elements of the system are already in place. Otherwise, you'll just end up balancing your system into a hole or making a game that is not fun to play.
|
I like to think of BW in the same was as the Earth. One very lucky creation that had all the right elements to it and it just formed/evolved into near-perfection.
|
On March 15 2010 23:47 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 21:46 Mikilatov wrote:On March 15 2010 21:39 Nytefish wrote:
Balancing is almost never done by looking at numbers. They just guess at what might work then play test a lot. On March 15 2010 21:43 niteReloaded wrote:
StarCraft was a 'lucky punch'. No and no. Game design and balance is taken very seriously and a lot of time, effort, thought, and calculations are put into making it happen. People get paid SPECIFICALLY to do these jobs, and it's not easy. Trust me, they take it very seriously and don't just 'guess', nor did they 12 years ago. And to the OP, there's a LOT that goes into it, and it's really as complicated as it seems! Basically a lot of numbercrunching, theorizing, rehashing, and testing. I'm sure they invested a lot of time into balancing, that was not my point. My point is that their balancing was pretty much useless coz the balance turned out to work out a whole different way than they intended. Just take a glance at BroodWar strategy section. + Show Spoiler +Zealots are countered by firebats and bunkers Oh and also, don't ever use "No and no." when commenting on someone's opinion when you follow it up with your own opinion.(as opposed to facts/numbers) It's a clear indicator of closed minded, narcissistic people, and you draw the same reaction from the person you're responding to.
The 'no and no' was in reference to the fact that there were two posts. I wasn't trying to be a dick, I just disagreed with both of them.
And what you're referring to is a game design concept called 'emergence'. It happens when multiple elements of a game's design, although seperate, are combined to create something new, or used in a way other than originally intended. Often times this is intentional, but also oftentimes not. An example would be offensive cannons.
The game wasn't an accident. They carefully made it and continued to put care into it post release (patches) and it was simply one of the most well-balanced RTS games out there. The same was true with WC3 and will be true with SC2. It's not like they're getting lucky each time they make an RTS while no other companies are. It's because of the work/effort they put into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
