What to balance a game around

SSKnecabo

So since this forum is all about comp vs pub in most cases according the balancing I'd like to hear some general opinions about what a game should be balanced around. Go ahead and bring up examples of other games of any genre, say what they are balanced around, why that might be good and why not.

Please keep this objectively and keep in mind this is not about AAPG but rather other games.

SoldierBob

If its not about AAPG you should post it in off topic

SSKnecabo

Mods can feel free to move this topic any day if they think it's posted in the wrong section.

Saccho

Balance is a really complicated topic though.

Let's break down balance questions in a game like Starcraft 2.

• Player versus player balance (matchmaking): accomplished with skill assessment ("MMR") and leagues
• Unit versus unit combat balance: each unit is particularly strong versus another and weak versus another
• Economy balance: Units can be high-vespene or high-mineral and affect economy balance. A high-vespene composition introduces a new kind of vulnerability. "Gold" mineral patches are usually high risk, high reward.
• Map balance: This is normally addressed through map symmetries, but some maps are felt to favor one race over another.
• Race balance: Each race feels unique, but must be balanced against each of the others.
• Timing balance: Heavily tied in to map and race balance issues. Is one race dominant in the early stages? How does growing or shrinking a map change that? (Example: 6-pool can be devastating on a tiny map, but is weak on a huge one.)

What about in something like CS? The concepts essentially carry over, actually...

• Player versus player balance (matchmaking): accomplished with skill assessment and ranks
• Unit versus unit combat balance: SMGs win at short range, rifles win at medium range, snipers win at long range
• Economy balance: Weaker weapons cost less, winners get more money, losing streaks get rewarded with more money for balance reasons
• Map balance: There's asymmetry here and much more emphasis is on map dynamics. Both games place a lot of emphasis on area control and scouting / awareness of opponent movement.
• Race balance: CT versus T weapons: AK is a one-hit kill, but lacks accuracy and doesn't get the M4A1's silencer
• Timing balance: This is essentially map design under a different name.

Let's go to a third example and see if those concepts still hold -- what about League?

• Player versus player balance (matchmaking): accomplished with skill assessment and ranks
• Unit versus unit combat balance: Various Hero classes have different roles and pros/cons
• Economy balance: Gold is used to improve Heroes. Lane control, effective last hitting, jungle control, staying ahead in the kill count... it all ties in to who's ahead here
• Map balance: Symmetrical maps put the emphasis on the interaction between the different Hero abilities and that variety
• Timing balance: Hero abilities evolve over time; some are stronger mid-game, some are stronger late-game. Dynamics shift. Timing also plays a role in things like Dragon control; enough time needs to elapse between respawns to allow for changes in map control to have occurred.

I think you could look at nearly any aspect of a game and find a "balance" consideration in there somewhere if you looked hard enough. Weapons, map layouts, sounds, graphics, how teams are selected, how players join servers, times for events... it's all there.


A big idea, though, is that asymmetry can create fun by introducing variety. In SC2, the asymmetry is in race design and extra variety is introduced through the Fog of War and guessing at your opponent's moves. In CS, the asymmetry is in the attacker/defender relationship: different weapons, different sides of the map, and then the added round-to-round variation introduced by the economy system.

I wish there were a good way to bring in that variety to AA. I think it's also something one of the Devs mentioned in a podcast long ago (ie, that more round-to-round meta would be a great addition). Right now, AA introduces asymmetry intentionally through map design and unintentionally (or at least outside of the game's control) through how players choose teams ... but it doesn't really change over the course of a match. In SC2, there are "key timings" and different races hit them at different times to create shifting dynamics. In CS, each round plays differently due to the economy system. Look at LoL and how champions unlock items and abilities over the course of a match to shift how the map plays. AA doesn't really have any of that kind of dynamic right now.

SSKnecabo

I failed wording my initial post correctly I guess. It was more about if a game is balanced around pub or comp players and if you think it's good. For example CS:GO is a way more competitive game than AA:PG thus I think it's good they balance it around the comp scene mostly. So I was rather referring to the changes that come with patches.
One example for such a change would be the car spot at A long on Dust2. There was a certain position that a CT could sit in while hardly being spotted so they changed the wall behind that spot to make it more visible. A change that 90% of the AA:PG community would go crazy at (quick reminder of the bush topic).

So this was basically what I was looking for since I'm only familiar with CS:GO and LoL really.

Keebler750

I really like the idea of understanding why we think we need "balance" and what asymmetry could do for the game. Also, are there any changes we could make to the present game to utilize the idea of asymmetry more effectively?

I've said this before but when Deltathunder's "Maximaz Securidat" came out it was so heavily defense sided that it seemed assault would never get anywhere. What happened was VERY interesting.

Just when everyone was ready to give up and leave, people suddenly started communicating and working together in a do-or-die fashion. I want to see more of that! It was amazing!


EDIT - Oh, I see I misunderstood the thread. I blame BCPull......

Saccho

cK^KILL@ wrote: »

I failed wording my initial post correctly I guess. It was more about if a game is balanced around pub or comp players and if you think it's good. For example CS:GO is a way more competitive game than AA:PG thus I think it's good they balance it around the comp scene mostly. So I was rather referring to the changes that come with patches.
One example for such a change would be the car spot at A long on Dust2. There was a certain position that a CT could sit in while hardly being spotted so they changed the wall behind that spot to make it more visible. A change that 90% of the AA:PG community would go crazy at (quick reminder of the bush topic).

So this was basically what I was looking for since I'm only familiar with CS:GO and LoL really.

First, the harsh truth: AAPG doesn't really have a mature competitive scene. The two most recent ESL AA events had 20 NA teams and 21 EU teams. Even with 10 players in each roster (I'd be very surprised by that), that's under 500 players. 500 players is about 1% of unique logins ... from the last two weeks. 500 players is < 0.1% of all-time logins. It's just not very significant.


Next up: does CSGO balance around competition?

One way to address that is by looking at recent patches. Let's walk through them. I'll call out the big changes and whether they're "pub-focused" or "comp balance".

• June 10: Overwatch improvements (pub), bug fixes (n/a), GOTV improvements (both)
• June 3: Bug fixes (n/a)
• May 29: Lots of a/c measures (pub), matchmaking improvements (pub), bug fixes (n/a)
• May 26: Operation Bloodhound (pub). XP ranks (pub), campaigns (pub), new Mission types (pub), Casual changes (pub)

I think it's clear that the biggest changes in CS are focused on improving the general experience for everyone. Big feature pushes like the Overwatch improvements or the Campaigns have very little impact on the pro players.

Where CS looks to the pros is on subtler fixes:

• Season: "–Fixed every “white on white” corner to improve visibility (Thanks Shahzam)"
• Cache: "–Deleted a problematic glass pane in mid (thanks RoF Anders)"
• Train: (lots of changes) "-Train (Thanks c0tton and adreN!)"

When it comes to weapon balance, yes, the Devs watch the Majors and talk to the players. But they also look at things like round win data (http://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/2015/01/11288/) across all levels of play, or weapon purchase stats (http://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/2014/06/9780/).

You'll note those charts say "data collected from High Skill Group players in Competitive Matchmaking". In other posts, that means Skills 15-18 (LE +), the top 5%. However, they also collect and look at the data across the board.

So to wrap up:

• The AA devs listen to individual feedback on specific map issues, same as the CS devs, when there's reasoning provided; the timescale on seeing changes happen is just longer
• Both groups balance around overall play stats; the CS devs have the added luxury of using a MM system to look at the "high skill group" data where imbalances can become apparent more readily
• I don't think the CS devs design specifically "around competition" as much as is sometimes suggested. I think there's still enormous emphasis inside the studio on the experience of the majority of players.

SSKnecabo

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that AA:PG should balance around comp, especially with how comp is right now. I was just comparing it to CS:GO and I still feel like CS:GO is balanced around comp. Those ranks and operations and w/e are not about the gameplay itself and cheap tries to attract new and keep older players. However the weapons and maps usually are balanced for top tier players (that also being high ranked players not just pros). Also as you said statistics matter alot (same for LoL for example with champion winrates).
In general the comparison of CS:GO and AA:PG is hard in this case because CS:GO already is a really competitive game while AA:PG feels really arcade.

With you bringing up game stats I really wonder what's possible with all the new detailed stats that we'll have. Maybe that'll help determining some issues.

.shhfiftyfive-

it's not a comp vs pub situation. its a good vs no thanks situation... organized competitions are a side effect of a good competitive pub game. hand holding is not a part of that.
-
most competitive games are using the exact same rules and settings in competition as used in the public settings. the only exception of note is CoD4, which is years old, and CoD was never built to support a good competitive scene except that one year, and that was completely unintentional. people need to stop looking at CoD4 as the model, to split pub and comp settings (or even standard and hardcore pub settings) and basically divide your game into 2 audiences who want completely separate things.... CoD4 is the exception to the rule, and Activision actively tried to kill that competitive support for every title they released thereafter, ever since, because they didn't want anyone to have a solid game around that would prevent you from buying annual sequels.... their business model depends on being non-competitive, and just hype/pre-order/annual sales.
-
all actual competitive PC titles (that do not revolve around an annual sequel business model)... they are dominated by the younger audience (that this game wants to attract), and they are basically running pub settings... pub settings = comp settings. no divide... see any good RTS, or MOBA, or card game, CSGO, AA2, etc...
-
we know this game isn't an annual sequel profit grab type game. so i see no reason to divide the community as such. if you want to draw in a crowd for this game, you have to make it competitive.
-
as for targeting a young audience. that audience will come if the game is competitive. proof of that is all the other comp games on pc. they are interested in comp, not hand holding. the biggest problem this game has is hand holding.

=IK=Doba=

I'm guessing the hand holding features are intended to balance the game between the good players and the bad.. hoping to close the gap?? Otherwise I fail to see a need for any of it.

That said, I don't think the idea is working!!.. if it's making it a little easier on the bad players it's making it even more easier on the good players.

The problem were seeing right now is its making it so easy that people are bored and are leaving. We need to be challenged to keep the interest level high.

Take csgo, at least for me, I'm not a huge fan, coming from AA series I don't get the guns at all.. I mean the bullets go no where near where I tell them to go..lol.. even though I have a good aim..But it's a challenge so Ive been playing it.

Keebler750

The good players and the bad, Doba?! Everyone talks about new players and learning curves. Do you really expect a new player to come in, get hosed by your incredible skills, and stick around?

I'd like to see "AAPG Training" mode and just regular AAPG, none of this split the community stuff.

=IK=Doba=

We all started somewhere... when I came into AA it was my firt FPS game, you think I owned?.. Ya my own team mates lol

There are methods of developing skills, training, low honor servers.. having the game make it easy for you isn't the way to go, in the long run you will be left with bad players only because the skilled will leave.

It's already starting to show

frankof

=IK=Doba= wrote: »

.. if it's making it a little easier on the bad players it's making it even more easier on the good players..

And there lies the problem with a lot of the "DEV*S FIX X ISSUE!!!" posts.
Player ducking to fast? nerf speed!
Getting shot in the head? bullet spread!
Missing a headshot? better accuracy! (aka fix the hitboxes!!)
it really doesn't mater, what ever you do the better players will come out on top, unless you go "random", it will even the playing field, but will get boring really fast.

.shhfiftyfive-

the point is, the target audience for this game (teens/young adults) and the average gamer on steam have played FPS games before. and even if this is their first FPS, this age group is known to be competitive and they want a challenge...
-
those previous games people have played before this one may have been different but, the concept that you carry and shoot a weapon and, move around a map and try to kill people and avoid being killed... that concept is pretty easy to grasp... and the tutorial should cover everything. so NOBODY needs excessive hand holding.
-
-
-
some hand holding features that have been removed over the period of the beta are:
- default revive limit set to 1 instead of 2,
- 24 full-auto zoom optics per server,
- grenade fuse display,
- player count display,
- nade radius super strong = free kills,
-
-
-
things off the top of my head that should still be removed:
- auto reload,
- revive on headshot,
- 10 zoom optics per server, (should be limit 4/24)
- 48-96 fogs per server,
- 3d spotting for teammates through walls,
- bushes of invisibility,
- red dot on mini map for enemy shooter,
- reload + sprint/slide,
- excessively redundant floating 3d hud, (3d + 2d + voip + text + audio prompts + ???)
- excessively long round timers that leads to TDM,
-
-
-
also, how about we get a real medic role??
for example:
let's say you can still bandage yourself if you get shot in arms, legs, hands, and feet. but if it is a body shot you will need a teammate/medic to stop the bleeding (which should be at a slower rate since you must get assistance instead of instantly fixing it yourself..)
-
but i guess that might be a problem since i think the arms are considered upper body? else why else would a shot from m24 to the hand/arm count as a 1 shot kill?

-=[USA]=-rubberboot-ACI-

also, how about we get a real medic role??
for example:
let's say you can still bandage yourself if you get shot in arms, legs, hands, and feet. but if it is a body shot you will need a teammate/medic to stop the bleeding (which should be at a slower rate since you must get assistance instead of instantly fixing it yourself..)
-
but i guess that might be a problem since i think the arms are considered upper body? else why else would a shot from m24 to the hand/arm count as a 1 shot kill?

the issue with the medic role in this game is that it doesn't really fit, not like it did in AA2. as a player, I want the ability to heal myself (which I don't see as a stretch from a real life situation - I am not going to let myself bleed to death looking for a medic). Where I see the Medic role shining is in the revive aspect - its here to stay so might as well get a system that works and dials down the "whack-a-mole" feeling. Having 1 -2 medics per team doesn't work because the medic has to go to the downed player (and with the timer, it is stupid to do so as you will just get shot by a body camper) and really, it turns the medic role into a VIP role.

One of the things AA3 did right, was the medpak. I don't mean the mini game involved with it (although I did like that part of it too... to each their own), but the fact that the medpak was finite. You used what you had, then that was it, you screwed up the mini game and wasted the kit. Where I can see it helping is that it is a selectable item instead of one of the other items (frag/flash/smoke/fog) and is finite quantity. Only some people will sacrifice their nade for a medpak, helping to reduce a few of your other points in your post (# of fog, nades, etc). At the most, you can carry 2 medpaks instead of the other selectables (want to carry flashes, then it is only 1 medkit).

I just want to see a system that works more refined than we have now.

.shhfiftyfive-

well, according to the devs, they're making 2 game modes, and one doesn't have revives.
-
so in that absence, we need to find out a way to incorporate a medic role that doesn't involve reviving someone who is incapacitated...
-
another idea i had was for the "no revive" servers: you'd get a chance to heal a friend if he has somewhere from 1-24 health, you heal them back up to 25. just like a revive. minus the incap.

Sr.Gatilho

Balance pub vs comp?make a better game,we have to be brutally honest and say this is not a very good game,that's why it's always the same players or teams.

.dcG-Colts^

balance pub vs comp makes absolutely no sense at all. sorry.

SoldierBob

a 'balanced game', that fits better don't you think?