The balance formula thread

[Snipawolf]

I believe it is within my power to say that balance is subjective and that any kind of entity or unit should have guidelines it should follow. A unit's role should never be changed for the sake of balance. A thick, heavy tank should be a thick and heavy tank. Whether it fires fast or slow should have been thought out before the model was ever made. Whether it has long range or short range, whether it moves fast or slow, how quickly the turret rotates... If not specifically, these should at least have been relatively plotted out.

Obviously, these stats are all located in the same file for a quick and easy change to a few or many. A few stats may be changed and some things may need tweaking, as long as the role remains the same. In real life, however, Sherman tank commanders couldn't complain to anyone about Panzers being OP...

As such, any kind of discussion on a balancing equation is, in my opinion, foolish and a waste of time.

[Saktoth]

I dont know if you've been following the development of Starcraft 2, Snipa.

The Thor is a prime example: It started out as a bombardment unit, and now it has anti-air missiles instead of artillery cannons!

Do Nighthawks have hunter-seeker missiles, or do they have nano-repair and defense matrix? Or was that the nomad?

And the pheonix, does it attack ground, or only air? Does it have antigravity, or overload?

And the queen, what happened to that? And is the mothership a unique unit?

And what ever happened to the Starbase, Radar Tower, Munitions Depot, Merc Haven, Mine Drone, Medic, Predator, Cobra and the Nomad? Just to name a few of the units that have been removed from Terrans.

What about harvesting vespene gas- do you need to 'drill down' to replenish your supply periodically?

By all means, Blizz are spending the time to get their game right, but right now, it makes all the changes in CA look tame (and thats saying something).

No matter how good a game designer you are and no matter how much experience you have, things are always going to work differently in application than you intended. You must adapt your design to how it actually plays out.

[Pxtl]

Whoa, I hadn't been following the Starcraft dev cycle.... and that stuff kind of worries me. I'm actually kind of worried, now, hearing you say a bunch of stuff that doesn't sound familiar at all. I just want StarCraft with better macro (and more macro-friendly units) and spiffier graphics.

[Saktoth]

C'mon man they're not just going to do a remake. Blizzard doesnt do 'remakes'. Its going to be a new game.

But really, they have the best players in RTS, if not the best players, playing at the highest level of any game, ever, as a playtester pool. Lets hope thats worth something because, really, playtesting is the only way you're going to find the balance of a game.

[smoth]

Just because someone can drive a fast car and is a champion racer does not an automotive engineer make.

[Saktoth]

Just because someone can drive a fast car and is a champion racer does not an automotive engineer make.

Yet having racecar drivers is pretty important if you're trying to build and test a racecar.

[Snipawolf]

Hmm, so this Thor... What did it look like first, and what does it look like with AA missiles? I'm sure that they'd have changed the model to suit, right? That is a substantial change. Seems to me it is a mech type unit and many changes could be made rather easily, so why not change it to fit another role if its old role is no longer necessary and the new role is?

I'm not talking about changes like this. I mean that a unit should still be similar to what it's role was intended to be. If they will go the whole 9 yards to make sure that the Thor seems like it carries AA missiles instead of cannons that launch missiles, yeah, it's fine. They are changing the role AND the unit. Changing only one of those is not good. It is lazy.

[smoth]

Just because someone can drive a fast car and is a champion racer does not an automotive engineer make.

Yet having racecar drivers is pretty important if you're trying to build and test a racecar.

so what of the engineers. It falls apart there. Testers can only do so much for you.

[Saktoth]

Snipa: If you're arguing that models should reflect the underlying unit i couldnt agree more, but thats visual design rather than balance design and i dont see how its related to the discussion. If you arguing that balance and gameplay should be DICTATED by pre-existing visual design i think you have it backwards. A units role should never be changed for the sake of balance? I cant think of a better reason to change a units role...


Christ smoth, im not claiming racecar drivers can run around a track naked making brum brum noises with their lips and call it a race. Designers and engineers are doing most of the work obviously and you cant just not have them.

But we arent talking about designing a racecar, or the 'engineering' aspects of a game (coding, modelling, etc, which is all important)- but the design. A car is designed to a set of physical parameters to go fast, handle well, and not explode. Its working under a series of physical rules. A game is designed to be 'fun' and 'balanced', whatever that means, and you are designing the physical rules, up to a point. Its a much more subjective experience and it is entertainment rather than engineering. You dont engineer fun. An artist can say his artwork is the best thing ever but if nobody thinks so, nobody understands what the hell it is, and he has no audience he wont get much recognition.

Whats more, the art of game design (especially competative multiplayer game design) is only truly recognised through the act of playing it. A movie or painting can exist independently of the act of watching it, but each game is made up on the spot depending on how a player interacts with it. Your players are an integral part of the process, and how they interact with the game and eachother determines the gameplay itself. Yet even if a game were just a tool, like a car or a spoon, you would still want good quality feedback and testing (and exceptionally experienced and proficient spoon users).

[Snipawolf]

I am saying that a unit's role should dictate balance and visual design. Let's go back to the tank. Let us say it is too slow. Should we increase it's speed or decrease the speed of other vehicles? Maybe this vehicle itself isn't too slow, maybe some of the other ones are too fast. If it is SUPPOSED to be slow, why change how it is supposed to be? The reason I am arguing this is because an equation makes everything change for one small error. If the tank's speed were increased, then, inversely, it's damages and armor would go down (according to most of the equations some people have made.)

I'm really not sure if I'm in the current argument or not. I am stating several general opinions and several reasons why I believe a balance based on an equation would be messed up. I believe I am just commenting on the thread itself.

[smoth]

A game is designed to a set of parameters to fun, play well, and not crash. Its working under a series of ideas. A car is designed to be 'fun' and 'reliable', whatever that means, and you are designing the with reguards to a role, up to a point, sportscar, suv. Its a much more subjective experience and it is entertainment rather than engineering. You dont engineer fun. An artist can say his artwork is the best thing ever but if nobody thinks so, nobody understands what the hell it is, and he has no audience he wont get much recognition.

ha ha ha fixed

[Eman]

Inequality. That's a good word. Take chess - about as "sterile" a game as you can find. Never are both sides of the board equal. Even if positions are the same, tempo is not. Chess also demonstrates how any inequality has a relative value; doubled pawns can be a weakness or a strength - depending. Two bishops vs. two knights. Etc...

Ok, so take chess, trade clean turns for "real time", add RPS in design, add unpredictable outcomes (like movement AI, inaccuracy, and map related "noise" in the system), and then add the "hidden" resource as it applies to RTS games (attention) and then try to picture and understand inequality.

I don't think that math based analysis is truly impossible in RTS games. Still, for sci method based analysis to work, you have to be able to accurately account for all variables. You know, ensure the experiment is replicable. Establish controls and such. This does not mean that mathy concepts have no practical use - using the term DPS as a way to describe part of a dynamic can be a useful tool. On the other hand, trying to weigh value by DPS alone is ... its just silly. If you are willing to take the time, mathematical modeling can and will provide insight into systems. That said, modeling is just that - modeling.

Once, I heard someone describe systems analysis as the art of finding an inconsistency in a system, driving a wedge into it, and using that wedge to rip the system apart. I have to admit, it can be fun. It is a lot harder to build a system that is even relatively immune.

On the other hand, building a game is not a matter of only balance. Frankly, competitive people do not like balanced games - they want games where their superior qualities as a person (you know, skillz) will let them stroke their egos and flex their mental muscle. Story and feeling players want an immersive experience where they can escape from their lives (and kick ass, and stroke their egos). Art people want breathtaking graphics, a story to match and give depth to the art, escape from their lives, and the ass kicking/ego stroking thing too.

One request; please stop mistaking the words balance and design for synonyms.

@"I use my egotism as an attack on the banality of people who don't understand me" Guy - I feel for you. You are a sensitive artist. No one understands you. Your conceptual vocabulary, brain meats, and humility are just toooo big. Yeah, your right, very little serious is said here. Usually it gets scoffed at or answered with silence. Very perceptive of you to notice that.

Look, everything else aside, your "variables" fail to thoroughly describe the level of interaction in even just the genre of OTA based RTS games. Saying that I prefer SA to BA does not change that (I do). Coming up with a slightly improved recipe for chocolate cookies does not make you a cook or even lend much value to anecdotes about how you stumbled on your creation.

Go invent something.

[Tired]

Lots of commenting, no questions. Thanks for reaffirming my faith in the worthy minds of Spring. Post hoc; ergo proctologist to you too, Raptor. <3

A homogeneous unit, Sak, is a very smart gay unit, like your baby Einstein pedobear.

[Hoi]

Pedobear ftw.

[JohannesH]

Lots of commenting, no questions. Thanks for reaffirming my faith in the worthy minds of Spring. Post hoc; ergo proctologist to you too, Raptor. <3

A homogeneous unit, Sak, is a very smart gay unit, like your baby Einstein pedobear.

Tired, do you think that any unit which fits to the formula is (equally) useful?

That was not a question?

I would actually like to see a mod where each player would be able to create their own set of units, according to a formula... I don't know if that would make for good gameplay, but it'd be interesting to see how the balance would work out. Cause obviously a units' value is not only determined by its raw stats, but the stats of your units, and your opponents' units...

[Tired]

Yes and no, Johannes. Given some constraints, what you want is entirely possible.

[Lolsquad_Steven]

If we take away core and everyone play arm it'll be balanced no matter what.

[Tired]

Not when f00bs (and I'm not naming any Stevens) build Junos and Hammers.

[BlueTemplar]

They changed Thor? At least I hope they won't nerf the Mega-Tron...

[Jazcash]

Take away the Core capture bots and everything will be balanced.