EPTRight, it’s my 2000th post. So, in what seems to be TL tradition I thought I’d mark it with a blog post. In this case, my first blog post. I thought I’d use this as a way to clarify some thoughts I have had in the last few months regarding balance and design: specifically to detail the basis for my own approach to issues of balance and design. This is not intended as some sort of manifesto. Rather, a way of scribbling down my thoughts in an attempt to organise them, and to share them on TL for comment and feedback.
My academic background is that of a BA in Philosophy and a MA in Sociology. A few years ago, during my MA study at University, I came across the following article by Hayek. I actually sought it out, as in the Sociology department Hayek was regarded as, virtually, the enemy due to his adherence to free market economics. I was not encouraged to read him. However, thankfully, my founding discipline being Philosophy I had been taught to read widely and to read original sources whenever possible. So, I did a little reading on the man and came across this seminal article called The Use of Knowledge within Society.
Hayek’s argument is that the dispersed and fragmented nature of knowledge (specifically the knowledge of an individual’s circumstance that shapes his goals) within a market system means that no central authority is able to amass that knowledge. This is because no individual has all of the knowledge that is possessed by the collective. Secondly, prices (however imperfectly) co-ordinate the wants of individuals within the market system and over time regulate the supply and demand of resources throughout a market system. This is because prices signal the wants of individuals to one another across the complex web of individual interactions that make up a modern market economy. This means that no central body (i.e. government) is able to set prices as effectively as the market due to the difficulty of gathering information regarding the circumstances of individuals within the system, and the inherent lag between the gathering of information and the formulation and enaction of a plan based on that information. It also means that individuals require a stable framework of rules within which to plan and act. Individual planning and action is badly affected if “the rules of the game” are changed too radically and/or too often. If individual planning and action is badly affected, individual interactions are badly affected and the operation of the market is less than what it could be.
I don’t intend to argue about free market economics or the specifics of Hayek’s thesis here. My own political leanings are usually Left Wing but they also tend to be Libertarian (as to whether it sits in a free market system based on private property I am not yet sure). I also tend to be Conservative, i.e. Burkean Conservative (interestingly, the Conservative strain in Sociology is rarely seen, at least in my experience – apart from Robert Nisbet - as it is usually hijacked by the Liberal and Radical elements of the discipline), and Pluralist. Anyway, I enjoy these contrasting positions as there can be a lot of tension arising from these places which leads to a fair amount of fruitful thinking. However, for the purposes of this blog, I want to concentrate on the fragmented and dispersed nature of knowledge within complex systems composed of many individuals.
Now, I am not stating that the complexity of Starcraft 2 is directly comparable to the complexity of a market system. It is not. It is a rich and deep and complex game, though. More than we realise or give it credit for. It is composed of 3 distinct races made up of multiple units and abilities and is played across the strings of Economy, Tech and Army between competing players. Every game everyone plays can be seen as akin to a musical piece where the units and abilities used are as notes played across these strings. Therefore, I believe Hayek’s insight is meaningful to Starcraft and I am going to apply it to the game as I think it particularly relevant regarding game balance, and flowing to and from that understanding, game design. I came to this realisation slowly over the last couple of months when I understood that it was what I had been unconsciously reaching towards in discussion on TL in the couple of months preceding. Your mind works even when you aren’t thinking.
Discussion - Balance
The Metagame can be seen as a stable framework of game knowledge at a given moment in time. Every player contributes to that store of knowledge and partakes of it. When a major balance issue arises in the Metagame it is often seen as insurmountable. Solutions usually involve changing the rules of the game. One current example is the use of 4M in TvZ. Much of recent discussion on Zerg response to this Terran strategy had been based on the requirement of 3/3 to combat Terran, and therefore, necessarily, a means of unlocking 3/3 upgrades not at Hive but at some other Zerg tech structure (i.e. re-writing the rules of the game). Other discussion was based on the OP nature of the Widow Mine. However, the development of actual Zerg play over the last few months shows a slow and incremental approach to dealing with this problem culminating in DRG vs Innovation where both of these were proved to be wholly or partially wrong. Here, the overall strategy (and indeed the one groped towards by numerous Zerg players in the recent past) was to delay the transition to Hive and 3/3 and instead to preserve the Zerg 4th (and 5th) and to prevent or delay the Terran 4th. Indeed, looking back, it had to be as this was a rule of the game that could not be negotiated. Once that was actually realised, it became a means of how to secure that strategy through an array of tactical ploys. Now, I am not claiming that 4M is solved – it remains a potent strategy (in much the same way that 1/1/1 remained a potent strategy against Protoss in WOL – despite the long Protoss project of finding a solution to the problem leading to MC vs Puma on XNC and culminating in Sase vs Thorzain on Shakuras Plateau). But, I doubt it will be regarded as insurmountable. It is beatable.
This means that our fellow players provide solutions to problems within the game individually and through their interaction with one another. This is obvious. Yet, I think, it needs to be stated because sometimes we do not realise that while we as individuals are working out a problem (or a new play style – that is, coming up with a new problem), so are our fellow players. A community of players can be regarded, in this sense, as an organic and collective body who by their individual actions and without knowing it advance the collective knowledge state of their race (and the game). Importantly, whenever a player thinks a problem is unsolvable, he is wrong. However good that player may be he is mistaken because no single player has all the knowledge possessed by the collective. This applies even, perhaps even especially, to Pro players because of the illusion (and complacence) of expertise. It also applies to Blizzard. This is for two reasons: one, the aforementioned reason of the illusion of expertise. Two, the time delay between which Blizzard gathers data regarding the Metagame, devises a solution and puts it into play. In some cases, in doing so, the solution is either not necessary or interferes with the realisation of a solution devised by players. One example is the 1/1/1 in WOL where, arguably, the Immortal buff did little to “solve” the problem. A solution was already being reached, and, in any case, maps had more to do with the problem than a buff to a unit that arguably then resulted in a greater effect in PvZ than in PvT. In other words, changing the rules of the game was not required and had unintended consequences.
This realisation has been the basis of my arguments that solutions to problems that the Metagame throws up must be left in the hands of the players. Blizzard must not change the rules of the game in order to fix an issue because players are already doing so (even if the process can, at times, be slow and incremental), and because in changing the rules of the game, Blizzard retards, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful aspects of this game. I believe solutions either guided or provided by maps are acceptable. This is because these do not change the rules within which players interact with one another (and does not adversely affect other problems and solutions constantly being traded one with the other in the Metagame). However, this is not to say, that Blizzard must never intervene. Rather, that patience is required and a slow hand when it comes to playing a relatively even game.
Discussion - Design
This assumes that the game is designed sufficiently well so that players have the necessary tools to pose problems and provide solutions to and with one another. There are many arguments that Starcraft 2 is not designed well enough to do so. I disagree. I do so on the basis of a certain amount of faith, and on the basis of a certain amount of evidence having followed the game for three years and come to increasingly appreciate the richness and variety provided by the game over that time.
I also do so on the realisation that I have been wrong regarding many of my opinions on balance and design. For instance, when I first started playing SC2 and joined TL, I thought Protoss was underpowered. Protoss units, once strong and expensive, were just expensive. I thought this was because of Warpgate. I was wrong. Once I began to think about the unit production mechanisms in SC2, I thought Protoss was weak because it lacked a mid-game splash unit and that the lack was a design ceiling which would hinder successful Protoss play styles and was the core reason for not being able to beat the 1/1/1 or the ZvP Roach max. I was wrong. I later thought that the overall production mechanism of the game was an issue and that this would be crippling for the game. I was wrong. Now, this is not to say that I still don’t think the game has problems. From a Protoss specific point of view, I wish the Stalker was a little better (so much of our successful midgame engagements are reliant on that melee unit, the Zealot). From an overall game point of view, I wish there were less overly hard counters in the game leading to an over reliance on the right unit compositions to win engagements. My point is that none of these (or other design “flaws”) may be as restrictive to the development of a race or the game as I once thought. This is because my individual point of view is unable to see, indeed to know, what is collectively possible with the racial and game tools provided in Starcraft 2. Out of all the individual interactions in Starcraft 2 comes something collective that is usually not planned and cannot usually be foreseen.
Not only does this mean that balance decisions must be made lightly, but design decisions within the context of a finished game must also be made lightly. Hence, interventions in the game of the type delivered by Valve and Riot are not suitable for SC2 because doing so periodically changes the rules of the game and affects the incremental and collective knowledge gathering and knowledge sharing aspect of SC2 as possible solutions to problems in the Metagame are effectively aborted or stillborn. Moreover, an overly interventionist game company removes incentives from players to come up with solutions to problems. That said, there may well indeed be times when substantial design changes are required. If so, these should be implemented all at once - ideally via a new expansion or a mega patch. This is because partial and gradual implementation of design changes means constantly re-arranging the rules of the game and this affects the stability of the framework within which players can devise problems and come up with solutions to problems. An analogy is that of a major renovation to one’s house. It is better that one move out while all of the work is done and then move back into a complete new house, rather than stay in the house and work be done piecemeal while one’s life is disrupted by all of the work going on.
Close
Right. That was my 2000th post. I hope you enjoyed reading it.
NB. I am aware that the notion of the dispersed and fragmented nature of knowledge within complex systems of individuals interacting with one another is not a new one. Adam Smith noted this in the 18th Century and JS Mill in the 19th Century. However, I came across the idea for the first time in Hayek’s article, and I have not seen it articulated better elsewhere.
