Balance is a big topic - and each game will require different balance strategies, but there are a few simple principles that are common to all games. These mainly pertain to winning conditions, and equal opportunity for all parties able to win. Also, David E. Kelley.
#1: All parties that can win a match, should have equal ability to win a match.
This one is blatantly obvious - whether you have two teams in an FPS, two armies in an RTS, or four players in a Fighting game, all should have the ability to win from out the outset of the match. It should be up to each party to make the choices, and use their skills to win or lose the match. The maps, levels, and other match settings should benefit each party equally - such as in the RTS, one player shouldn't start with a huge wood supply, while the other has all the rock.
Basic game settings and maps shouldn't determine the outcome of a match to any degree.
#2: Basic initial player choices should for the most part hold little significance to the outcome of the match.
In simple Player1 vs. Player 2 games, their choice in unit should not be significant to the outcome of the game. For example, in an RTS, one player should not be immediately in a losing position because they chose the Elves while the other chose the Orcs. In a Fighting game, a player shouldn't be disadvantaged because they chose Johnny Cage and the other chose Bridget.
Players should be able to choose any character, army, etc. that they want, and be able to win the game.
That said, in games where there are teams of players, the situation is a little different. For example, if Team A's players all choose pistols, while Team B's players choose a variety of Sniper Rifles, Pistols, Machine Guns, and Assault Rifles - the team that chooses their units to more actively reflect the nature of the game should win.
#3: Ensure that there are no dominating strategies that ensure that one party will win the match.
This is a mixture of the above points. You must make sure that with the mechanics of the game, the designs of different levels, and the features of different characters can't all mis together to make a perfect strategy that dominates the game.
A common problem in some games is where defensive options are so strong - that offensive strategies would be punished heavily. This creates a campy style of game where strong defensive characters are kings.
To guard against this one, you have to ensure that the game's mechanics are designed with equally viable offensive and defensive strategies and counter-strategies, while ensuring that your game modes and maps don't favour a particular play style.
Similarly, you need to design maps with your unit's capabilities in mind, a good example being Team Fortress 2, where there are "Magic numbers" that denote important figures such as a Sentry Gun's range.
Unit Balancing Strategies:
These ensure your game in itself is balanced - but doesn't say much about the individual units. We'll go to those next.
One point I'd like to make is that every designer has their own criteria that say that a unit is balanced.
I have read some criteria that simply say that "If something is beatable, it is balanced" - and others that say something like "Each unit should have to exert as much force to kill itself, to kill an opponent".
I absolutely cannot stand the "If it's beatable, it's balanced" argument - as it pretty much validates any unit with a health bar that can reach zero. It's a very ignorant justification.
The other seems to be somewhat useful - particularly if you relate it to hit-counting, but I prefer my own definition.
What Criteria does a Unit have to fit to be Balanced?
Considering each player has equal skill, and the circumstances don't favor any unit:
- A balanced unit must have a variety of other units and simple strategies that can reliably defeat it.
- Corollary to the point above, if a unit is heavily specialised such that few units have innate ability to effectively nullify it, its specific counters must be extremely reliable, and commonly employable.
- The unit's absolute power must accurately reflect the effort required to use it.
I think they're pretty self-explanatory.
The second point is basically saying that if you have a unit that is supposed to be hard to kill for many units, the ones that can kill it should be readily available, and very potent.
A good example would be Stealth units in Real Time Strategies - if you don't have an anti-Stealth unit, your groups of units can easily be ripped up without being able to fight back - but, with an Anti-Stealth unit, the invisible unit is visible - and can be attacked to exploit their often-low defenses.
My favourite thing about these criteria, however, is their versatility. While they are often meant to check for units being too powerful, with some quick word changes, they can be used to evaluate if a unit is underpowered, like so:
Considering each player has equal skill, and the circumstances don't favor any unit:
- A balanced unit must have a variety of features and simple strategies that can be used to reliably defeat other units.
- If a unit is heavily countered such that many units have innate ability to effectively nullify it, its specific features must be extremely reliable, and commonly usable.
- The effort required to use the unit must be accurately reflected in its absolute power.
Now you have some good criteria to ensure that none of your units are rendered redundant during play.
Anyway, I'm ready to tie this one off, so I just want to make a note that I will hopefully be doing more articles very soon, and perhaps even some 3-minute-pitch videos.
I want to write about
- Balance Through Common Traits and Mutual Exclusivity.
- Sloth (game idea).
- Shapeshifter game idea.
- A Trick of the Light game idea.
At the very least.
I swear I had some others... I'll need to remember them.
No comments:
Post a Comment