As some of you know, I am working on making a game. For that purpose, I want to learn more about balance. I think I got some concepts, but clearly, for making a good game, I need to tune my understanding to pro levels.
I want this thread to be an exchange of ideas, and learning about concepts. If there are differences of opinions, then that's fine, but I really see no point arguing over balance here. In fact, at this point of development I am far more concerned about what I need to be able to balance, rather than by what my goal balance should be.
-----
Some topics to start with:
Q1: When is imbalance appropriate?
In AvP (the old ones, I haven't tried the new ones), I liked the concept where the different races were not really balanced in PvP. The predator was stronger than aliens for example, but killing a predator also gave you more points. Likewise, it seems that in GW2 there will be some professions that will be more difficult to play well, although they will all be roughly as effective. Likewise, trinity gameplay places a special important on tank & healer, with dps being less important. Discuss
Q2: Counters: hard vs soft, counter-counters, and all that...
I have a rough idea of what counters are, but I want to learn more about that... What are considered hard or soft counters, with examples? How far can you (and should you) push the counter-counter gameplay? What is a good number of tactics / counter? Discuss.
Q3: Elite content, to do, or not to do?
Part of the fun of elite content is that it provides a challenge for skilled players, but unfortunately that means that other players are left out of the experience. Stuff like consumables can be added to make the content more accessible, but is it worth doing this? Levelling, necessary evil? Discuss.|||Quote:
Q1: When is imbalance appropriate?
Well I guess you should make a difference here between actual balance, and gameplay differences. For example, the AVP example you gave actually shows that despite the imbalance, they managed to balance it by giving different rewards for killing one class over the other. Being the underdog in a class based system can be fun, but you have to ask yourself these questions: If one aspect of my game clearly gives an advantage over another aspect. Is there any reason for the player to make use of the latter? Game play differences should add variety, but if every player starts running around with an AWP sniper rifle, then you've clearly gone too far. Counterstrike is a great example of a game that has been unbalanced numerous times. But ironically, I kind of favor a system where the game becomes balanced simply by playing it. A lot of situations can not be foreseen on paper (emergent gameplay), so the game designer should sometimes simply let his creation loose on a couple of players and see what happens. However, the same rules apply to levels. In a way, level design and game design go hand in hand, they are almost one and the same. When ever I design levels, I always ask myself why players should pick one road over the other. If entire areas of my levels end up never being used, that usually means they are either redundant, or stuff needs to be added to make players want to venture into those areas. A bad example of this is Aztec, a map for Counter Strike. While a good level in itself, it has a vast road surrounding the map that no one ever uses, because it would take too much time during the fast matches to go there, and there's no tactical advantage to do so.
Quote:
Q2: Counters: hard vs soft, counter-counters, and all that...
There's no concrete number, it really depends on your game. If you find your players abusing one mechanic over the other, then some counter clearly needs to be added to make the other mechanic equally attractive. Often these are imbalances that can already be identified on paper. For example, if you have grenades that stun, and grenades that kill, why would anyone want the stun grenades? Well, an example of a soft counter would be to simply make them cheaper/easier to get. A hard counter would be to allow the player to carry more stun grenades, or to increase their effect radius so they affect more enemies.
Quote:
Q3: Elite content, to do, or not to do?
I would say that with most games there is no such thing as elite content. However, there is such a thing as adding options that have a higher risk versus reward. A good example would be placing a rocket launcher somewhere that requires tricky jumping, and puts the player in a position where he is a sitting duck for enemies. I think its good to add elements in your game that reward the more skilled players. But, take it too far and other less experienced players feel alienated. A bad example again is Counter Strike, where experience is always rewarded, making it hard for new players to compete with the pros. A good example is TF2, where experience is also rewarded, but the penalty to bad players is minor, its very forgiving. Mess up in Counter Strike and you have to sit the whole round out again, and your team is severely handicapped. Mess up in TF2 and the enemy gains some ground, but you quickly respawn, with only a minor impact on your team's progress.
If your game does not reward the more experienced players, then it simply doesn't matter if you're good at the game or not. But if it rewards them too much, it becomes a really hardcore game. From what I've seen so far, GW2 seems to be going in the softcore direction. Hardcore GW2 players will probably not be rewaded much more than inexperienced players, but for the more experienced players there are some challenges left for them. I think though that the elite content is really black and white in MMO's and RPG's. It's often just a really hard boss or dungeon. Perhaps its better to look at different genres and see how they handle elite content. Does a game like Counterstrike or TF2 have elite content? Well, yes and no, it depends of what the goal is of your elite content. Is the goal to add replayability to your game for longtime players, or is your goal to reward players that are good at your game because they've been playing it for a long time?|||Seems to me, you need to get your game to the point you can offer it as a beta for people to try out. You're so close to it you'll need actual gamers to tell you where and how it needs balance, and what it might be missing.|||Quote:
Game play differences should add variety (...)
Good points.
Quote:
Well, an example of a soft counter would be to simply make them cheaper/easier to get. A hard counter would be to allow the player to carry more stun grenades, or to increase their effect radius so they affect more enemies.
Not sure what soft/hard counter means. I use the term "counter" here to indicate what the other player can do against what you're doing. Kinda like mesmers love to do.
I thought soft meant balance that makes it slightly harder for you to do your job, whereas hard counter really messes you up.
Like daze would be a hard counter to casters, whereas enchant removal or energy denial would be soft counters (well, depending on how much energy denial you take).
Note: good point about cost vs increased ammo etc.
Quote:
However, there is such a thing as adding options that have a higher risk versus reward.
Yes yes, I love those.
Quote:
If your game does not reward the more experienced players, then it simply doesn't matter if you're good at the game or not. But if it rewards them too much, it becomes a really hardcore game.
I think I have devised a good way to deal with this, but... should there still be content that is made only for the elites?
Quote:
Seems to me, you need to get your game to the point you can offer it as a beta for people to try out. You're so close to it you'll need actual gamers to tell you where and how it needs balance, and what it might be missing.
I definitely will have a beta phase, open beta and all, when I get to that point. And I will do my best to work with beta tester input to fine-tune it. But I have a lot of work to do before then.
My concern at this point is to make sure that when I do go into beta, that the game can be balanced relatively easily. If the stuff I need to balance is hard-coded, then I am in deep trouble.|||Quote:
I think I have devised a good way to deal with this, but... should there still be content that is made only for the elites?
I don't really like content that is made exclusively for just a small group of players. Ideally, I think all the content should be for all players, but some of it might be end-game content. There's quite a difference between end-game content and elite content. They can be one and the same of course, but the idea is radically different.
For example, Terraria has end game content that's also elite content: The lowest layers of the world with all the lava, also have the hardest enemies and the best rewards. Anyone can get to it, but its usually something you do after getting decent equipment, and it takes very long to dig that deep.
Guild Wars 1 has a lot of elite content, and while most players will probably try something like Slavers Exile or Urgoz Warren late in the game, its not that specifically endgame content; Not all players will get to actually play these elite dungeons after completing everything else. Some players will never play these dungeons at all, because they don't have a decent team to try it with.
Thats why I'm stressing the difference in intention.
Regarding soft and hard counters, I mean the difference in how severely you try to change the game in order to balance one mechanic with another. The more game mechanics your game has, the more imbalances are introduced. But imbalances are also what makes the game fun. For example, in Fall Out 3 there are plenty of weapons that are pretty much worthless when compared to other weapons of their type. But this is soft-balanced by placing the stronger weapons in more obscure places. This does not entirely eliminate the chance of the player walking straight up to it and getting the weapon early in the game (for example, I got the missile launcher right at the start of the game). Thats why its called a soft balance, because there's still a slight feeling of satisfaction when the player feels a bit of unbalance in his favor. If all weapons were balanced, then what a boring game it would be. The same can be said about TF2's heavy and his awesome minigun. It's probably one of the strongest weapons in the game, but this is soft balanced by giving the weapon a slow spin up time, and hard balanced by making the heavy a really big slow target.|||Everything that Rob said. I can try to add to it:
Quote:
Q1: When is imbalance appropriate?
Never. But note that that doesn't mean that everything has to be equally strong. And not just because of gameplay differences (which is what Rob points out), but because there need to be bad moves. Should every weapon in an FPS be equally useful on average, but each have certain benefits in certain situations? Yeah, that is probably a good idea. It makes sense for a shotgun to be more efficient up close than at a range of 200 meters, but it makes little sense to have guns that no one ever wants to use.
But then look at a game such as GW1, where there are 1000+ skills and some of them are rather bad. Why is not every skill equally good? Because part of skill is to not pick bad moves. Buildmaking is, in GW1, a move just like the moves you make when you actually play, and it should be rewarded if you do it well. (Of course, it's sort of clumsy in GW1 since we have PvXWiki and such, which is why GW2 will be more streamlined)
So yeah, something that appears as imbalance just because players made a wrong move is ok. Then again, they must be able to rectify that, which is why for example overpowered classes in an MMO is a bad thing: it takes quite a while to build a character, so you can't correct your "bad move" easily. Bad moves should be punished, but they shouldn't haunt you forever.
Quote:
Q2: Counters: hard vs soft, counter-counters, and all that...
"Hard counter" generally refers to something which prevents (or very nearly prevents) the thing it counters, "soft counter" generally refers to something which makes it harder to pull off the thing it counters, but still possible. Perhaps through luck, perhaps through skill, perhaps through additional expense of resources.
I don't know what a "counter-counter" is, but I assume it's a counter to someone else's attempt to counter you.
Generally, a system of well balanced soft counters is the best. This means that you'd offer a way to respond to every strategy/move of the opponent, yet a way to overcome/buy your way past any such counter.
Spoiler
Sins of a Solar Empire, a space strategy game which is mostly well-balanced, and also very fun. If you haven't played it, do so!
It has an intricate system of counters, all of which are "soft", but also have varying degree of efficency. The following diagram displays some, but not all, of them... And this is only unit-based counters, not strategies to counter other strategies etc.
Quote:
Q3: Elite content, to do, or not to do?
Depends on the game. And it depends on what you mean by "elite content". In the new CoD games, prestige mode is "elite content", I guess. It means that you level up to max level, and then sacrifice said level to enter "prestige mode". Though this means that you must once again go through the entire process of unlocking everything (this works differently depending on which game it is, I think), it does give the feeling of being "elite" or "hardcore" to those who want it.
That's why it depends on the game. If it's a game with an audience that craves the feeling of being "hardcore", then by all means, give 'em what they want. If not, then there's little point to it.
EDIT: Oh, yeah: there's a huge difference in what you should think about, between games where you play against things (either people or AI players) with the same resources or on the same scale as you, and games where you play against cannon fodder. For example, in chess you're on the same scope as your opponent, but in Duke Nukem, everything you see is there only to die.a few seconds later. In the latter case, having ridiculously overpowered weapons is ok, since the balance to consider is more the overall difficulty of challenges.|||Quote:
There's quite a difference between end-game content and elite content.
I tend to favor elite content. Optimally, a good game should have high replay value, and quickly offer a good challenge to the players who seek it.
Endgame is too "getting ready to play" for my taste.
Quote:
Regarding soft and hard counters, I mean the difference in how severely you try to change the game in order to balance one mechanic with another.
I think by that definition, everything should be soft. Optimally, it should be easy for you to modify the game when it comes to balance. Damage skills are easy to tweak, but shadowsteps bypasses so many counters (snare etc) making it harder to balance. Likewise, primary attributes are harder to change and tweak because they have a passive effect across the board.
imo, ANet should have made it possible to snare / counter shadowsteps in the code, so that they'd have an additional way to balance it.
Quote:
The more game mechanics your game has, the more imbalances are introduced. But imbalances are also what makes the game fun.
Hmmmm, I thought that more game mechanics would give you more ways to balance the game?
Quote:
Never. But note that that doesn't mean that everything has to be equally strong.
I think what needs to be avoided is frustration. It's frustrating to be faced with an unsolvable challenge. That means avoiding cases where you simply cannot adapt your gameplay to win.
Quote:
there need to be bad moves.
Yes of course. Bad skills, we can disagree, but at least bad skill combinations. And certainly bad moves. This is all part of player skill, and I see balancing here being more about providing a smooth learning curve rather than equating players across skill levels. A better player should win, but an improving player should see his success rate increase.
Quote:
PvXWiki and such
I see it as doing essentially the same as a book on chess. The more you learn...
Quote:
So yeah, something that appears as imbalance just because players made a wrong move is ok. Then again, they must be able to rectify that, which is why for example overpowered classes in an MMO is a bad thing
Fully agree.
Quote:
"Hard counter" generally refers to something which prevents (or very nearly prevents) the thing it counters, "soft counter" generally refers to something which makes it harder to pull off the thing it counters, but still possible. Perhaps through luck, perhaps through skill, perhaps through additional expense of resources.
That's what I thought.
Quote:
I don't know what a "counter-counter" is, but I assume it's a counter to someone else's attempt to counter you.
Yes. Cond / hex removal would be one example. Interrupting someone who attempts to blind you would be another.
In the case of the interrupt, what is interesting is that the same move can be a counter, or a counter-counter.
Quote:
Generally, a system of well balanced soft counters is the best.
Quote:
If it's a game with an audience that craves the feeling of being "hardcore", then by all means, give 'em what they want. If not, then there's little point to it.
This is more theorycrafting than anything, as by definition my game will scale very well to the challenge level (and hardcoreness / exclusivity) people want. No spoilers, but that's one way I think I can make a difference drawing from my psych background.
Quote:
In the latter case, having ridiculously overpowered weapons is ok, since the balance to consider is more the overall difficulty of challenges.
This has to do with how powerful you want players to feel. The only case of having different power levels for different players in PvP that I know worked well was AvP. I think some strategy games let you play with weaker starting armies and position, but set your "winning" conditions lower to compensate... kinda like how in FA the Kurzicks are on the losing side (they are almost guaranteed to eventually lose), yet will win if they defend for a given amount of time.|||Quote:
Yes of course. Bad skills, we can disagree, but at least bad skill combinations. And certainly bad moves. This is all part of player skill, and I see balancing here being more about providing a smooth learning curve rather than equating players across skill levels. A better player should win, but an improving player should see his success rate increase.
Yeah. What I mean is, it depends on what you allow to be part of player skill. Is buildmaking part of it? Then it should be possible to mess up (somehow). Though, that "messing up" might be as simple as picking the wrong weapon for a certain map in an FPS.
EDIT: It's difficult to do a smooth (or any) learning curve if you let players play against each other. Then, the difficulty is set by the opponent/s...
Quote:
Yes. Cond / hex removal would be one example. Interrupting someone who attempts to blind you would be another.
In the case of the interrupt, what is interesting is that the same move can be a counter, or a counter-counter.
Again yes. One way of building a structure of counters are RPS circles (example -> swordsmen beat spearmen, who beat cavalry, who beat swordsmen. Archers beat (or damage) stationary/slow troops, but are destroyed by troops that move in close quickly, so they need to be protected, which means that you have to stand still and get hit by enemy archers. etc.)
C'mon, let's see that game soon
|||Quote:It's difficult to do a smooth (or any) learning curve if you let players play against each other. Then, the difficulty is set by the opponent/s...
Winning / losing, yes, maybe.
But if you setup for example a map that the further into enemy territory you get, the more difficult it gets... then how far you can take the fight is an indication of skill.
A noob could win against an average player in his territory (with assistance of allied NPCs) but not in the middle. An expert would win against an average player in his foe's territory (despite the assistance of opponent NPCs).
Same idea with ladders, provided the ladder works as intended.
Quote:
C'mon, let's see that game soon
Wow, impatient crowd.
For all you know, it could be about ponies and unicorns.
update: shots now correctly hits foes and walls.|||What kind of game is it? Are you building it 100% yourself?
RE: Balance. My best friend always talks about "If [he] were to make an MMO." One time he said "If I ever made an MMO, it wouldn't have any buffs." At first, I freaked, since I've been conditioned to have buffs. But then I realized he'd just balance the mobs without buffs. That's when I realized that buffs are, essentially, pointless. Buffs, buffs, buffs.
No comments:
Post a Comment