|
Discussing how to balance a game with so many factors this early is a tricky thing. Right now, there are people at Blizzard discussing what to do, when to do it, and how much of it to do when they do it. Meanwhile, the community is having their own discussion. But there are some important reasons why even having a discussion about balance is inherently tricky.
Let's take a look at why it's hard to discuss balance, so that we can hopefully improve the conversation. I'll number them in order to make it simpler to follow. I hope you enjoy the read and take it into consideration in the ongoing discussion of balance. With each point, I will try to give the typical solution to the problem, and reasons why those solutions are generally failing to help the discussion as well.
1. What to blame
The #1 most important factor that makes balance discussion tricky is actually not the game's newness, but rather, the fact that there is always something else to blame besides the "imbalance", if indeed there is imbalance. If the losing player had done A, B, and C a little bit differently, he would have won; and if the winner had failed to do X, Y, and Z, he would have lost. Ultimately, if we trace the root cause of a player's loss, we'll arrive at some juncture where he could have done things differently, and won. So, there's no "need" to balance, right? Wrong.
Just because there will never be a match-up that's impossible to win, that doesn't mean you should purely blame the players. They didn't scout at the right time, or they failed to put pressure on the right part of the map, or they neglected to protect something vital in a critical moment, etc. but at some point the question becomes how much a player should be asked to do in a given situation.
For example, if a fourth race was introduced, which could technically win in any match-up, but only if the player had over 1,000 Actions Per Minute or the opponent made several critical errors, you could call that balanced. If both player have equal APM and equal "skill", he would lose -- but because technically it was possible to win, then it's purely the player's fault for not being "good enough". If only he had learned to play that race better! Obviously this is a huge exaggeration, but it's to prove that player-blame is a flawed matrix for discussion.
As long as "human error" is visible, we'll always be able to blame the players. How tricky indeed.
Typical solution: Look at trends of highly skilled players, everywhere. A global trend indicates an underlying cause that isn't based on a human error. Regional differences also seem to prove that balance is a matter of strategy and "meta-game", not unfair numbers, so a truly global approach is needed. Only if we see a universal trend should it be taken seriously in balance discussion.
Problem with the solution: StarCraft: Brood War has proven beyond a doubt that it's possible for a game's balance to shift in huge ways with relatively minor shifts in strategy, not actual numbers adjustment. Certain races seem to be "underpowered" in certain matchups for years, and then suddenly become dominant thanks to better thinking. This means that even universal trends are meaningless, because a single innovation could revolutionize it everywhere.
2. Perspective and burden of proof
Another reason why discussing balance is tricky is because every player who has a favorite race can be called biased, and those who select Random or have no favorite race are usually not as familiar with the cutting-edge strategies of the races as somebody who specializes. The probability of a biased perspective means that we should probably "filter" every opinion by assuming every player wants their race to be at least a little bit overpowered, and their other races to be at a slight disadvantage. You can never trust a player to be truly fair.
Related to this is the way the "burden of proof" phenomenon. Almost everybody who defends the balance of their race seems to carry a very "reasonable" manner and tone (assuming they aren't being sarcastic or mocking a "complaint",) suggesting a moderate point of view, greater consideration, more analysis, and a slower judgment -- whereas those who are voicing concerns about balance are carrying the burden of proof. It's always harder to advocate a small change than it is to advocate staying the same.
So, problems must be either mathematically proven (which is impossible thanks to player blame and long term meta-game shifts) or exaggerated, making them difficult to take seriously. Another example, this time in daily life: if somebody were to suggest to you that you should paint the walls of your room a totally different color, they could probably make a bold argument to support their opinion (for example, baby blue instead of white). It may be radical, but if it was an improvement, at least it would be worth the effort of changing it. On the other hand, if the person suggested making the tone a just a single shade different, how could you justify the expense? In this case, would be justifying the work of creating and downloading a balance patch, which automatically triggers huge discussion and reconsideration of the meta-game, and an apparent admission on Blizzard's part that things up until that point have been unfair! Bold changes are easy to argue in favor of, but it's hard to make a bold argument for a small change -- so either way, discussing balance becomes a matter of bias, perspective, and lopsided arguments.
Typical solution: Trust nobody. Petitions, complaints, and arguments are always biased by personal motivation, or otherwise ignorant. Those who care a lot about a race will skew their opinions, and those who don't care about a race obviously won't be critical and even-handed to begin with. This is quite tricky.
Problem with solution: Even though it's unlikely, it's entirely possible for somebody to recognize and remove their own bias, care a lot about their race, and still make a valid argument for a small change. Dismissing opinions because somebody is passionately arguing for their own race leads to players feeling even less cared for. If you were short-changed a dollar at a store, and raised a complaint to the manager to get your dollar back, they may say the amount was too small to care about. The injustice of this would escalate the complaint until it seemed hysterical, which in turn makes it dismissible! This escalation can go on forever, unfortunately, until the complainer is absolutely livid about a very small (but valid) thing.
3. Too early to tell
Probably the most popular (but not the most important, in my estimation,) impediment to discussing balance is the fact that it's so new. People think that there will be a natural revelation of any problems that might exist in due time, and that discussing balance should only take place once a problem is self-evident, but not acted upon. People who advocate the "wait and see" mentality halt discussion by marginalizing the need for discussion to begin with. They don't trust that people are capable of recognizing actual unfairness or imbalance so quickly, because there's a certain amount of time they think is appropriate before a judgment can be made.
Likewise, players have faith that Blizzard will detect and correct any problems as soon as it's justified. This may be a reasonable belief, but it still makes discussing balance tricky.
Typical solution: Be quiet, play, and wait. Trust that things will be resolved naturally in time, without community discussion or argument.
Problem with solution: Blizzard is not omniscient, they encourage discussion for a reason: the game is supposed to be enjoyable, challenging, fair and rewarding for the players themselves. The game should be easy to learn, but hard to master, meaning that all levels of discussion should be welcome. If nothing else, serious discussion shows Blizzard how seriously players perceive a problem to be, and gives them ideas they may not have considered, or simply direct their attention to a certain area of concern and keep it there.
4. Skill = winning
Yet another reason balance discussion is tricky is thanks to the problem of valuing only the top player's opinions. Low level and average players, it is believed, have no knowledge of what is actually required to be good -- otherwise they would be doing it themselves. Your rank is like credentials, authorizing you to discuss things and be taken seriously. You earn your place at the discussion table.
Unfortunately, the fact is that even people who have never played the game can know a good deal about its balance, and whether or not certain things are fair. Many people who are good at the game don't actually pay attention to the underlying dynamics, but creative minds who understand game design principles, puzzle construction, and general ways of making something that's "easy to play, hard to master" can be much more insightful than those mechanically-oriented athletes whose only concerns are planning and executing their next strategy. Like any pragmatic soldier, they don't question things, they just accept the situation and do their best. If you listen to some well known players discussing the finer points of the game, you may notice a surprising small-mindedness about the game itself.
Highly skilled players often consider every part of the game to be unquestionable, not because they think it's perfect, but because they can't afford to be distracted with hopes and wishes and second-guessing. Even if something were objectively unfair, they are so pragmatic that they simply blame the player for not "working the system" appropriately. It goes back to the example of the 1,000 APM race. Low-level players are concerned with questions of how things should be, while high-level players are concerned with how things simply are. And those high-skilled players who do question things often feel an obligation to protect their reputation and standings by insisting that skill is all that matters.
If skill is nothing more than the ability to win, then nothing would ever be unfair. Those people who pick the 1,000 APM fourth race and lose constantly, despite being better players, would still be labeled as unskilled (otherwise they would win!) and never reach the discussion table.
Typical solution: Be extra careful to only listen to proven veterans. Even diamond-level players are growing daily, as divisions are created without end, so their opinions are becoming less and less relevant. Only famous, remarkable and otherwise respected players' opinions matter, because they are the ones who are truly skilled -- and therefore truly knowledgeable about game balance.
Problem with solution: In order to become respected, famous, or remarkable in the eyes of the community, players are often expected to be well-mannered, gracious, and humble. If they begin to express concern ("whine"), their reputation is attacked and their opinions are dismissed. Only those who display an ability to transcend questions of balance, are considered qualified to discuss balance! Those veterans who prefer to "tell it like it is" and forgo politeness are seen as bullies, cynics or biased. Who is really qualified to point out a balance issue?
Conclusion:
Ultimately, with all these tricky factors considered, the best solution is for both Blizzard and the community to aim for a more open-minded, creative, and unhesitating discussion of possibilities in balance, not a more stifled, narrow or elitist one. If we recognize that it's impossible to perfectly balance a game by doing math (as Brood War has clearly proven with its meta-game shifts) but that certain things should be easier or more difficult in order to have the right feeling, we have many options for dealing with a single "problem". This also means that there is no reason to demand proof (because you will never get it, thanks to player-blame) or credentials (which only indicate the ability to win, not necessarily the ability to perceive issues/create solutions for actual game balance itself,) or wait for some day when everything will be obvious (since that day will never come if we don't bother to discuss things).
Hopefully this explains why balance discussions are so hard to have, and what we can do to avoid making it worse than is necessary.
|
very well written and insightful, kudos
|
That was a great read. I especially like your explanation of how we can't trust each "player" because they each have a bias towards their race; in essence skewing any statement of balance made by said player.
It's hard to judge the motivation of a player who proposes a balance change. If they are not simply motivated by keeping the game as balanced as possible (which is very rare) then it is difficult to take their proposals seriously.
Personally, I think it's a matter of "flavor of the month" syndrome. Tactics will change and power of race will tip in the favor of different races as time goes on. It's important to wait it out before making a crucial balance change.
Imagine, if race X was thought to be overpowered against race Y, and race X was nerfed in response. However, after the nerf, race Y discovers a new tactic that dominates race X and would have still been valid pre-nerf. Thus, now race X is at a disadvantage and Blizzard may be forced to nerf race Y or buff race X. Seems like a cyclical trend would ensue. And the constant shifting of game mechanics means no concrete game strategy and thus a less enjoyable game in general.
|
On September 05 2010 23:27 Wolfpox wrote:
For example, if a fourth race was introduced, which could technically win in any match-up, but only if the player had over 1,000 Actions Per Minute or the opponent made several critical errors, you could call that balanced.
No you couldn't. You're seriously overthinking this. Somehow people have forgotten what the word imbalanced means. It means there's a lack of balance, that's it. This balance is in all cases completely quantifiable. Win or lose has absolutely nothing to do with balance.
If something takes significantly more effort to block than it does to execute, then it's imbalanced.
If something regularly does more damage than other race alternatives for smaller investment, then it's imbalanced.
You do make some good points though, and it's important that people from both sides learn to be more objective when discussing balance. I recall a statement from Day9 that has really changed how I act on forums. To paraphrase: you don't get anything from being right in an argument. Separate your ego from your discussions. Instead of relying on assumptions based on previous knowledge you should consider the argument from your opponent's point of view for a moment.
It's also important for people to be able to separate play from discussion. Thankfully TL cracks down on most pointless arguments and ad hominems, but there are other logical fallacies we each need to be careful to avoid ourselves.
One of my peeves is that people make claims that if you complain about or discuss balance then you're a bad player who will never get better. This is completely false; Gameplay and discussion are completely separate entities. I'm critical of my own play and always find things I can improve, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore perceived imbalances when I'm having a discussion.
|
Well written - and a good read. Its the hardest thing to handle in the game because of all the options/decisions that are made ever second.
|
So judging by this article people who play random are the Gods of understanding balance since we don't favor any race and have experience in every matchup.
Honestly I didn't read all of it, but thats how I feel as a random player :3, now I'm going to read the whole thing and edit this post.
Come on now don't single out random players, I feel that I have as deep an understanding as those who choose one race. Oh well it was a good read and I have to agree with just about all of it.
|
On September 06 2010 01:00 Monokeros wrote:So judging by this article people who play random are the Gods of understanding balance since we don't favor any race and have experience in every matchup. Honestly I didn't read all of it, but thats how I feel as a random player :3, now I'm going to read the whole thing and edit this post. Come on now don't single out random players, I feel that I have as deep an understanding as plenty of others  such hate.
Actually he didn't say that... I think he said that randoms, although more objective, will never have the same in-depth experience and knowledge about a specific race, or a specific matchup, as players who focus only on one main race. I think that was what is said.
|
On September 06 2010 01:05 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 01:00 Monokeros wrote:So judging by this article people who play random are the Gods of understanding balance since we don't favor any race and have experience in every matchup. Honestly I didn't read all of it, but thats how I feel as a random player :3, now I'm going to read the whole thing and edit this post. Come on now don't single out random players, I feel that I have as deep an understanding as plenty of others such hate. Actually he didn't say that... I think he said that randoms, although more objective, will never have the same in-depth experience and knowledge about a specific race, or a specific matchup, as players who focus only on one main race. I think that was what is said.
Well I consider myself an exception despite facts clearly disproving my beliefs, I don't know about others though so for the sake of argument he is correct 
|
I agree with most of the points here except on one:
and those who select Random or have no favorite race are never as familiar with the cutting-edge strategies of the races as somebody who specializes.
I feel the exact opposite. If the random player is playing at a top level, they will see builds from both sides of the fight in every game they play, so if anything new and cutting edge just was devised, then the random player would expirience it right away. On the flipside, if that new strategy was for Zergs, and a different Zerg player was playing at a top level and just playing his games and doing fine, it might take longer for him to learn about the strategy since he never played a Protoss vs Zerg game (for example)
|
I think chill would be proud, article was great 
Also:
Problem with solution: In order to become respected, famous, or remarkable in the eyes of the community, players are often expected to be well-mannered, gracious, and humble. If they begin to express concern ("whine"), their reputation is attacked and their opinions are dismissed. Only those who display an ability to transcend questions of balance, are considered qualified to discuss balance! Those veterans who prefer to "tell it like it is" and forgo politeness are seen as bullies, cynics or biased. Who is really qualified to point out a balance issue?
I swear you're pointing out the way people see idra exactly in this paragraph 8D. Well said, good read.
|
100% correct good sir, thank you for taking the time to do this.
Your ideas are well thought out excellently explained. I hereby promote thee from Drone to Overmind.
|
Very well written article. Bravo.
|
Congratulations. I especially agree with the notion that people who don't play the game can still know the game. In athletic sports we never see coaches and commentators tearing each other down about who plays more of the sport, why should it be the same for e-sports?
People shouldn't be saying "I have no problem with this", but rather "I haven't seen people in replays have problems with this". It's not personal skill that matters, but larger trends. If there's only one person in the world who can hold off a rush, does that make it balanced?
|
On September 06 2010 01:00 Monokeros wrote:
So judging by this article people who play random are the Gods of understanding balance since we don't favor any race and have experience in every matchup.
Honestly I didn't read all of it, but thats how I feel as a random player :3, now I'm going to read the whole thing and edit this post.
Come on now don't single out random players, I feel that I have as deep an understanding as those who choose one race. Oh well it was a good read and I have to agree with just about all of it.
I play random, but i lean toward zerg and toss and away from terran a bit. Most random players have a favorite race (i think), but enjoy playing all 3.
|
What I think is perfect balance
1. When two players have same level of knowledge and skill (APM) for each respective race they play, they would come to a draw using any different type of match up (XvX)
2. All units are viable in competition. There are no tech path utterly shut down by presence of one unit. No one is forced to a strategy.
3. No race should be mechanically more diffcult to execute than the other.
|
On September 06 2010 02:44 Drfluffy wrote:
What I think is perfect balance
1. When two players have same level of knowledge and skill (APM) for each respective race they play, they would come to a draw using any different type of match up (XvX)
2. All units are viable in competition. There are no tech path utterly shut down by presence of one unit. No one is forced to a strategy.
3. No race should be mechanically more diffcult to execute than the other.
By this criteria SC2 is more balanced then SC1.
#1-Equally untrue in either.
#2-SC1 had many unviable units, while SC2 has a very very few amount (carrier/ms)
#3-The skill differential between SC1 toss compared to the other two races is greater then skill discrepancies in SC2.
I'm pretty sure SC2 isn't more balanced then SC1....
Balance in a competitive game comes down to two things. One is every race needs to be "competitive", that every race needs to be dynamic and fun.
|
well, actually pretty nice post, though i only read it half way through.
the sad thing indeed is, that there is the need for such a post. i thought this should be clear to everybody.
(no offense, really great read)
|
Thanks for the good read. One thought I had that I could add between what to blame and burden of proof is the Subjective Balance.
The 1000-apm race would go into this category. Is it fair to say that players who simply can pull it off will always win and players who don't pull it off lose? Even if the win-rate for the race is 50% we can't call that fair. (and it doesn't fit the easy2learn,hard2master ideal).
The next set of ideas I'd like to throw in is racial imbalance.
And I don't just mean imbalance between races, I also mean in a race itself.
Terran building can be built anywhere and lift off.
You can't balance that very easily at all. How do you enumerate how helpful this is. (Related to your "how players have to prove it mathematically or exaggerate change"). Zerg buildings can ONLY be built on creep. That's pretty limiting, but the buildings heal slowly by themselves. But what if it's a defense structure that desperately need repairs? Nothing you can do. Oh, but Terran can fix their buildings in a jiffy, the catch is it costs money, nothing they repair is free. And what about Protoss shields?
Terran buildings burn down too! So in scenarios where both players are out of resources, Zerg player could have the upper hand (some could say) because they only need to bring T buildings to red health (it burns down rest the way) while Terran has to make sure to kill every building or else it will regenerate.
Broodlings instantly become "overpowered" when both players are out of resources and only have 10 food of units, trying desperately to kill each other's buildings.
Is it fair that in a base race, Terran buildings can always float off, and be immune to ground units (if it flies far enough, that is)?
-----
Let's say for this example that Terran buildings have the highest upper-hand, compared to P and Z. Then we could say that T has an advantage overall. But it's not like we can compare Orbital Command to Chronoboost to Queens, can we? Or what about units? Marines are SUPER weak in lower numbers. Do Terran buildings make up for this?
These differences that are unable to be balanced completely is what makes the game exciting. In other games like Age of Empires, each faction has the same stuff, except they may have slightly altered stats of their units, or that each faction may have a single specialty unit/building, unique to their race.
The "balanced" racial imbalances between Protoss, Zerg and Terran was revolutionary, defining the genre as it is. But we can't balance it in a way that makes everything perfect. Then it becomes Age of Empires...And we all hate that game, right?
EDIT:
If we scream that unit X is overpowered, remember that Unit X is part of Race Xavier and that Unit X is balanced by Race Xavier's unique buildings, their unique traits and other units. Unit X could be extremely weak when attack and thus need a boost (one could say). But Race Xavier's Unit Y is very overpowered. Thusly X and Y and somewhat balanced because of each other. If we boost X, then Y needs to be nerfed.
In other words.
Units, buildings, and all things you can have in a game as a race is balanced by what you have available, the map, what the enemy has available, and what you can do/what your opponent can do (skill). And all of them are TIED to each other. Change one thing that we claim is imbalanced and all the sudden imbalances pop up everywhere. We have to widen our scope the everything that's in our game.
For example.
Since these ties between stuff aren't exaggerated as Unit X or Y, i'll change the game a little in this example.
In a mock game of T v P.
The Terran has a single spell made to cripple Protoss (EMP). But Protoss has no equivalent. Still the game could go either way. If the game goes "normal" where the tide of battle goes back and forth until the Protoss person wins. Did they win because their Colossus regained it's shield and came back right after escaping with 3 hp? Or was it because that the Terran bunker burned down after being hit by one volley of blink stalkers that blinked away right afterwards. Blink must surely be OP. We can't say that Terran have anything to catch up or counter it. Well, they have that EMP. does EMP balance blink and shield regen? Not exactly.
So when we all screamed how EMP > feedback. Remember everything else. In the EMP vs Feedback argument, EMP doesn't kill but incapacitates spellcasters. Something vital in battle while feedback may not get every single spellcaster. But in other situations (let's say super long game, no more resources). Feedback enemy units may be instrumental, as feedback does damage and EMP doesn't. Can we balance to two? No. Because EMP is related with everything Terran has available, the player's skill level, what the opponent has available and the map.
The tricky aspect of balance...
|
On September 05 2010 23:27 Wolfpox wrote:
4. Skill = winning
Yet another reason balance discussion is tricky is thanks to the problem of valuing only the top player's opinions. Low level and average players, it is believed, have no knowledge of what is actually required to be good -- otherwise they would be doing it themselves. Your rank is like credentials, authorizing you to discuss things and be taken seriously. You earn your place at the discussion table.
Unfortunately, the fact is that even people who have never played the game can know a good deal about its balance, and whether or not certain things are fair. Many people who are good at the game don't actually pay attention to the underlying dynamics, but creative minds who understand game design principles, puzzle construction, and general ways of making something that's "easy to play, hard to master" can be much more insightful than those mechanically-oriented athletes whose only concerns are planning and executing their next strategy.
I really disagree with this. Players who aren't good really don't know anything about balance. Go back to beta when storm was nerfed. How many protoss players said storm was going to be useless and terrible? Almost all of them whined constantly. Flash forward to today. Storm is amazing PvT and PvZ, with many people now saying storm is imba late game.
This was completely due to players being worse then than they are now.
Players who are bad really don't understand the game. When I watch top players, I often don't understand how their build orders work or what they're doing, and I'm 1300 diamond with 60 apm average. I'm obviously not winning based solely on blindly executing things well with sick micro/macro, I'm a thinking player who relies more on that, but I still don't comprehend HuK's play entirely. Do you really think that a 700 player understands HuK's play more than he or I do? I doubt it.
|
Hey well thank you all for the positive feedback! I hope that more people read this and get the message.
Players who aren't good really don't know anything about balance.
Being good is a matter of execution, as well as understanding. Many people understand what they should be doing, but they simply don't have the technical skill, concentration or practice to do it. Airplane design engineers don't need to be pilots to know how to fly. The skills required to execute something are different than the mental capacity to understanding how it works, or should work.
Go back to beta when storm was nerfed. How many protoss players said storm was going to be useless and terrible? Almost all of them whined constantly. Flash forward to today. Storm is amazing PvT and PvZ, with many people now saying storm is imba late game.
This was completely due to players being worse then than they are now.
Some people complained, a few overreacted, but from what I remember the general reaction was that it was reasonable, and perfectly understood how it would change the gameplay, saying that it would be more like "sniping" a group than doing a wide area of effect.
The "balanced" racial imbalances between Protoss, Zerg and Terran was revolutionary, defining the genre as it is. But we can't balance it in a way that makes everything perfect. Then it becomes Age of Empires...And we all hate that game, right?
I agree, there's no clear or obvious way to balance things without making them similar. Jumping up and down cliffs is sometimes invaluable, but other times it's useless. Being able to corrupt a building for 30 seconds to stop production could be the key factor that wins you a game, but it could also be a waste of time. The "imbalanced balance" is certainly another factor.
In the end I think it comes down to the "feel" of a race or a situation, since math will never do justice to creativity. When we think of balance we sometimes think of things being "equal", but there's nothing equal about these three races -- the only thing we can trust is that the sum total of their options will "feel" right when put against each other. I think this is what makes discussing balance to exciting and fun, and why balance should be a more open-minded topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
