Risky Design: Plain Sight

Introduction:

All games have design flaws. Some are major, some are minor. Some can be fixed, others can't without changing the game greatly. This is just a reality we all get used to. I doubt any game could have perfect gameplay, pacing, balance, or interface - but all great game designers aim to limit their game's flaw's impact on gameplay as much as they can - so they are barely noticeable.

An example of this would be for example that in many modern games and sports that are objective driven and focus on simultaneous attacking and defending (such as Capture the Flag), once a team has the lead - in some games it may be more effective to defend said lead, rather than attacking and trying to get a larger lead.

This is a flaw, yes, as part of the main idea behind Capture the Flag is balancing your offense and defence - but most games will just allow it - why?

There are very limited ways to actually fix it.

You could separate the offensive and defensive elements so that each team takes turns trying to get each other's flags (kind of how Rugby-styled football games do, or how Counter Strike's CS maps play out), but that's not capture the flag. It would in fact completely remove the balance that we want to achieve.

Another alternative is maybe buffing the losing team slightly so they can break through defences easier - but then you could run into balance issues, and teams being wary to get the first point in fear of a strong counter attack - which, could lead to stalling until the clock is very low and then trying to win.

So, Capture the Flag is flawed - but we all live with it and enjoy it still, because there are few ways in which the game style could be slightly tweaked to fix the issues surrounding it, without completely changing the game type. The problem is also fairly minor, as most teams will continue to pursue the flag even if they have the lead.

Still, there's room for improvement.

Moving On:

The point of this article is to talk about the game "Plain Sight".

Plain Sight is an amazing game developed by Beatnik Games, and the reason I'm writing thisarticle is because Plain Sight takes many features that have very easy to recognise flaws, and actually mashes them together to make for a greatly fun, near-seamless game style.

Before I dive into it, check out Plain Sight here: http://www.plainsightgame.com/

And I greatly recommend you buy it from Steam here: http://store.steampowered.com/app/49900/

Plain Sight uses the following flawed systems:

• "Big Head" mode from Goldeneye.
• Progression through death
• Exponential power growth
• Transparent player actions

"Big Head" Mechanics.

Explanation: In case you haven't played Big Head mode in any games such as Golden Eye, Unreal Tournament, etc. - it is a supplementary game style where, you still pick "Deathmatch", "Capture the Flag" or the like, but in Big Head mode, when you get a kill, your head gets larger so it's easier for people to headshot and kill you.

Pros for Gameplay: A fun silly mod for people to mess around in.

Cons: People can be reluctant to go for a large spree, and will sometimes commit suicide to make their head smaller.

In Plain Sight: Characters get larger and larger as they get kills, and as they do this, they can be targeted and tracked from a wider distance. Also, players who are larger yield more rewards for those that kill them, making them not only an easier kill, but a more sought after one.

Progression Through Death

Explanation: Progression through death is where a player feels that they gain more from relentlessly pursuing a goal and dying over and over, rather than trying to stay alive. Think of it like a player using a character with high area of effect damage running in a group of enemy players over and over to slow their progression, rather than taking them with skill and planning on as the game designers would intend.

Games can reward progression to death, they can punish it heavily, or any measure in between. It depends on the game.

Pros: The only time when death should be rewarded is where death is the objective - which is extremely rare. So, if "Death" is considered the failure condition, there are no pros to rewarding it.

Cons: Again, if death is the failure condition, it is bad to reward it.

In Plain Sight: Plain Sight is the first game I have played where death is the objective. In Plain Sight, you must gain energy by killing opponents (and getting bigger), which, then, when you commit suicide - gives you the fruits of your labour in your past life. Dying with a lot of energy (being a big fat robot), gives you far more points than dying with no energy.

Exponential Power Growth

Explanation: Exponential power growth is the term used to describe when players are rewarded for their achievements in the game, and so they are more effective, and are rewarded more. The cycle repeats until the game is unfair because one player (or team) is completely dominating with overwhelming power due to a couple of early achievements.

Pros: None. You never really want exponential power gain - though, in any game where you level up, it's a given. As a player gets stronger, they'll naturally be more capable when dealing with the same threats. Most games balance this out by making it so that over the scope of a 'round' or 'match', a player will never gain permanent advantages that an 'unlevelled' player cannot overcome with skill. For example, in Monday Night Combat, a non-upgraded player can still kill a completely upgraded one with skill.

Cons: An unbalanced game.

In Plain Sight: In Plain Sight, as a player gets kills and energy, and gets bigger, they also get stronger, they can jump higher, acquire targets at a larger range, their suicide detonation is bigger, etc. That said, they do not gain defence, so while they become a killing machine, it still only takes the regular dash attack to kill them. Also, as a player detonates with more energy, the points they gain is increased greatly. So, detonating after one kill yields next to nothing, while over 10 kills is a real game changer.

Transparent Player Actions:

Explanation: When a game makes player actions transparent, it means you can see and understand what the enemies are doing easily, and there is no real element of surprise.

Pros: Forces players to play in the open, without worrying about flanking, camping, stealth, etc. Depending on the style of the game, this can be good or bad.

Cons: In most games, removes strategic depth. Like it or not, camping, flanking, and sneaking are all valid strategies.

In Plain Sight: Players emit energy trails, that other players can follow to the player. Similarly, when players step on a part of the level, the ground lights up so that other players can see where the action is. The trails and ground light up more as you gain energy - so it's far easier to find more valuable targets.

How These Features All Come Together

So, Plain Sight implements all of these pretty flawed concepts, all in the one game - but it comes out great! Why?

They all cover each other's weaknesses.

The Big Head Mechanic and Exponential Power Gain mechanic work together to make for a very risky game style.

As you get more kills, you get more powerful, more deadly, but - you also get easier to kill.

Progression through Death allows the person to capitalize on the risks they have taken if they wish - or continue on, as the risk builds up higher and higher. As the risk builds, so does their reward if they are successful in committing suicide.

The Transparency of Player Actions is important as it increases the risk. An energy-filled player cannot hide and camp, they can only run and kill.

Conclusion:

The concepts above all work together perfectly to make a game style that is all about risk, greed, and chasing the most valuable players. And I love it.

It's great fun, it's an adrenaline rush whenever you have a long streak going and - I love how the game's gameplay almost seems to mirror its design. Beatnik Games took a gamble on mashing these features together, but it completely paid off.

I think this article is just saying that, well, first off, Plain Sight is designed masterfully - but also, that with enough thinking and creativity, you can find solutions to design problems anywhere, and even mash them together to fix each other.

Who knows? You could create a better Capture the Flag one day!

Lord of the Rings Online vs. World of Warcraft

Introduction:

Well, I finally got some inspiration for a post. I have been playing Lord of the Rings Online recently - well, for the last couple of days, and it was certainly an experience.

It's very similar to WoW in some ways, but in other ways, not as much. The main difference being that WoW is far better with pacing, and that's why I'm writing this post.

My thoughts on Lord of the Rings Online:

I originally had here a full run through of what happened during my playing experience, and how I felt about it - but it ended up as being extremely long, so I'll just make a simple list.

Things that surprised me in a good way:

• It's a free to play game, with solid graphics, and stable gameplay.
• Each character has a very unique play style, and the ones that I tried were all very strong when you got their core abilities.
• A strong crafting system.
• A lot of quests and instances.
• The game gives you a quick taste of power from the start by giving you some Novice items, and a free Rental Mount (that lasts for 24 hours)

Things that surprised me in a bad way:

• A lot of awful quests, with very few fun and rewarding ones.
• In fact, too many quests full stop - leading to a grinding game style.
• Sprawling zones full of lots of little towns, with lots of quests - it's impossible to decide what to do first, or at all. It's overwhelming.
• Too much running, (often) not enough action.
• The game has you completely strapped for cash in the beginning, as your expenses for gaining new class skills gets too high for your level.
• An unstable GUI.
• Many limits on even basic features without using Turbine currency - which can be paid for with real life currency. (Fair enough, the team has to make money, right? Still... it annoyed me a bit)

The main things I want to talk about ais the Pacing. So yes, expect me to be criticising LotRO a lot in this post - but, before I do, I will clarify that when it comes to free MMOs (that are legal - not private servers), Lord of the Rings Online is probably the best I have played. And I don't mean - "No monthly subscription", I mean, free all over - you don't even need to buy a serial key.

It's a great game, so if you don't want to be forced to pay for an MMO - I'd go straight for it.

Pacing Problems:

Lord of the Rings Online has some pacing issues as I described before - mainly that you're often running around aimlessly just trying to complete the crazy number of quests - and most of your quests are based on talking to people across the map. Then when you find them, you find 20 more quests.

It's overwhelming - badly structured, and as you run from place to place - somewhat boring. Towards the end of my recent play time, I spent most of my time with Auto-Run on, just avoiding monsters as I gazed up from MSN and saw I was running into them.

Similarly, every quest you get is often a part of a quest line - so it's hard to just skip one because you may have done 3/6 parts of the line, but you have not yet gotten your final reward. Similarly, it can be kind of infuriating to be finishing off a quest that has had you running around for an hour, and then talk to who you think is the final NPC only to have them send you back to the other side of the map again.

A map of what my time in "The Shire' probably looked like is as so:

Most quests are in red, the particularly annoying quests are in other colours.

Light Blue: You run around as a chicken, you cannot fight or anything - you simply have to run slowly from waypoint to waypoint. You have to do this twice-3x, with no difference really except for the waypoints.

Indigo: You have to talk to the man in the lower left, then the woman in the lower right, then the man in the top right, then the woman in the lower right, then the man in the top right, then go to the top left to find an item. Show it to the man in the top right, show it to the woman in the lower left, go back to the man in the top right, go with him to an instance in the top left, beat the instance, go to the man in the lower left, talk to the woman in the lower right, talk to the man in the top right.

And I'm not joking.

Yellow: You have to carry pies from all over the region to this one woman while avoiding particular hobbits (who steal pies). You usually have to go a long route, through enemy infested territory, and, while you're holding the pie, you can't attack or ride your temporary horse.

Green: Similar to the Pie-Carrying, you have to carry mail all around the region and avoid a different kind of hobbit that steal mail. Again, you cannot fight/ride a mount.

Pink: A crazy quest like Indigo - a lot of talking and running, with a tiny bit of fighting in the middle.

And as said, the Red are all the other quests - which, heavily outnumber the other colours. I think, if I had have truly represented Red, it would have been more of a smog than a bunch of lines.

Now, this would be... somewhat okay... if you could run from one end of the map to the other in about a minute. Well, unfortunately I timed it, and it took me nearly 10. So you can see how I spent about 15-20 hours in the last few days on this game, and only finished this area.

Now, you certainly have the option of doing the good quests - and then leaving the rest, but as a newbie - you cannot make the distinction, and, there are a lot of rewards for finishing a lot of quests in a region - so you feel that it's what you should do, while my friends have had a lot more success just picking and choosing.

It's also a lot hard to compartmentalise the quests when so many have nearly 10, or even more steps in them.

How World of Warcraft does it:

This is where WoW comes in. WoW has similar areas (where you start out as a newbie, get your professions, and leave the Novice level, choosing where you go next)

But, their areas are always (or at least, almost always) far better designed.

Let's take a look at how you'll traverse the starting area of "Durotar".

Your spawn point is the Purple X, then the green is your starting zone - for levels 1-6.

After that, you are asked to go to a little camp just outside the starting zone where you start getting some more quests - after you finish the key ones, (you don't have to finish them all to progress), you're asked to go to Razor Hill (Red), where the Yellow X denotes that you can set your teleporting (Hearth) stone to teleport there - which is useful when you've just finished many quests in the one area.

Once you've finished the key quests there - you're asked to go to Orgrimmar (Purple) again, you can set your Hearth Stone.

The key things to note is that all areas are somewhat self contained. The Starting area only ventures out when you've finished it. The Camp deals with the areas outside the starting zone and the Echo Islands. Razor Hill, being the main object of levelling inside the area covers the most ground - but even so, most quests are roundabout in the same area (meaning, you can complete them at the same time). Orgrimmar deals with the North.

Also note that all quests expand out, and then return to the single 'Town' in which you got them. They rarely go between towns - and all of your valid quests in the one area, meaning you can see them all rather than finding new ones everywhere.

I always like to praise WoW on pacing, but this is why - it's so easy to understand, it's well encapsulated - if you know the quests, you can do many of them at once to save on time. As the quests don't roam the country side, and aren't all quest chains 10 long, you can just do a couple, and then go to another area if you want - which is used a lot for speed levelling (example, if you hate the small camp outside the starting zone, you can travel to another starting zone, and finish a few quests there before returning).

Note:

At this point I'd like to recognise that a couple of weeks ago, The Shattering happening in World of Warcraft - and many zones were changed. And, Durotar is even faster, and designed better than the picture shown, if you would believe me.

Conclusion:

In closing, both World of Warcraft and Lord of the Rings Online are great MMOs - but, in order to be more competitive with World of Warcraft, LotRO has to work on its quest pacing and over all progression.

The most important factor with MMOs is getting players to play for long periods of time, so that their characters are strong enough to utilize end-game content, and when it comes down to it, I feel that for most players, LotRO is missing that gripping factor.

To improve, it should:

• Cut down on the number of individual quests in each zone, so players are less bored by the end.
• Shorten some quest chains, and split some up into individual quests so players can pick and choose easier.
• Restrict quests' objectives, so, for the most part quests are all in a small area. If they do move to another area - prohibit them from moving backwards. Players should be able to draw a line from questing hotspot to hotspot.

This means that a player will likely feel like they are progressing faster, and they likely will be - as they won't be wasting time running from on end of the map to the other, and doing boring quests.

To put this into perspective, in 16 hours I can:

• Get a character from 1 to 15 in Lord of the Rings Online, or
• Get a character from 1 to 25 in World of Warcraft.

Which would players likely prefer?

If you've been wondering where I've been...

That explains it,

Been doing lots of work on Pokemon Universe!

I will make a real blog post soon!

Power Creeping and Power Shifting

Introduction:

Well, I haven't posted in a couple of weeks - and I've been feeling guilty. That said, I've got a splitting headache, and I'm a bit angry... so we'll see how this goes.

Anyway, this post is about balancing to a certain level of power - if you have one character who is much better than everyone, do you nerf him? Or buff everyone else?

If you have half of your units being too strong for the other half - what then?

Finding a power level, then rebalancing your units to that power level is called Power Shifting.

What is a Power Creep?

"Power Creep" is the term used to describe one solution to the problem of balancing units - where idea is to buff all units to the best unit's level of power, meaning that the average power of units in the game increases (thus, 'creeping'). The term is usually used in a negative tone - to give the idea that the changes were poorly planned - though a Power Creep isn't necessarily a bad thing.

How should units be balanced?

The thing is, this depends entirely on the game, and the current balance situation.

It can't even be generalised, for example - say you had a roster of 34 characters, where one was generally more powerful than the rest - then you had maybe 5 or 6 under it, that could stand a chance against it. Assume that the rest of the cast are unusable against these 7 characters.

What should you do?

Most people would logically say "Nerf the 7 units, and leave the other 27 as they are", assuming the other 27 are on par with each other - but, this is not always the best solution.

What if the other 27 characters are ridiculously bland, and no fun to play because they have limited options and strategies in battle?

What if the 7 characters up the top of the list are the game's only saving grace, and, the existing metagame and matchups between these characters are amazingly fun to play?

Nerfing them would be a mistake - you're taking away all the fun.

So what's the secret?

Always have fun in mind when choosing what power level you're going to balance to.

There's no use nerfing all your characters to a boring, pathetic level - and similarly you shouldn't be buffing all of your characters to such a height that the game loses strategic depth in favour of button-mashing, camping to punish, sheer luck, etc.

With each game individually - you must think of which characters have the balance of reliability, power, and fun - then move characters up and down to their level. Hopefully, you'll have a good group of characters at this level who are balanced with each other - but, other times, you have to form the group unit by unit.

Speed is Opportunity.

Speed is Opportunity

If I were to ask you what's the most important stat in your favourite game, I'd get a range of answers depending on the game, and the playstyle of the person at hand.

But, chances are, after a bit of investigating, maths, and some analysis of the competitive format of the game - I'm 95% sure that with any given game, the correct answer would be "Speed".

Why Speed?

Because Speed is Opportunity.

Let's take the most common forms of speed, "Movement Speed" (mobility), and "Attack Speed".

Movement Speed

In every game, Movement Speed, and general mobility are extremely important.

Mobility is Control.

In an RTS, if you outmaneuver your opponent, it's often called Flanking.

In a Fighting game, it's Spacing.

In an FPS, it's Zoning. (Or gaining weapon advantage, flanking, spacing, etc.)

Whatever the tactic is called in each game, your ability to utilise the geometry of the playing area, and use the distance between you and your opponent is a domination tactic. It's controlling. It's fighting on your own terms.

Now, usually I resent people quoting Sun Tzu with regards to video games (it's overdone), I love his work otherwise - but really, the best way to express myself is through his quote:

"And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him."

Which is precisely what I'm getting at.

Superior Mobility offers:

• Control over the terms of the encounter.
• Control over your enemy's options.
• Greater ability to scout the enemy's strategy.
• Superior options and opportunity to counter the enemy's attacks.

Attack Speed

Attack Speed is less important as mobility in most games, but don't get me wrong - it sure helps.

When you think about it, in most games, no-one is attacking without pause. Guns reload, characters guard, and attention is given to other priorities - so, nobody is really attacking at their highest speed, they are choosing to attack at designated times. With a higher attack speed, it's far easier to slot your attack into these times.

So, when you think about it, a character whose standard attack speed is a single attack in 0.2 seconds, will be able to shield until the time is right, and be shielded again after 0.2 seconds - giving his opponent a small window to attack him - in which case the opponent will usually have to attack through a hitbox.

Contrasted to a character who has an attack that takes an entire second to deploy - its opponent will have a much larger window to seize the opportunity to attack.

In this very simple case, it's obvious to see that the 0.2 second attack is superior, and, if these characters were to fight each other, the first could likely read the opponent's attack, and hit it 3-4 times in this window - which in most games means that the opponent's attack would be interrupted.

Think of it this way - every attack animation has foreswing, and backswing.

Foreswing is the lead-up to the attack, whether it be the charging of a strong attack, or the time between the input of the command, and the attack's full potential being reached.

Backswing is often the recoil from the attack. The sword going back into the sheath, the gun being prepared for the next shot.

The addition of these is what gives you the speed, or time of the attack. For example, the speed of an attack that has 0.5s Fore and Backswing, is the same as one that has 0.25 Fore, and 0.75 Back.

A lower Foreswing is mainly important for preventing your opponent from guarding against your attacks - if the punch comes out in less than 0.2 seconds, the opponent will generally have to input the guard command before they know that you've punched. In the same light, a move with a large foreswing (such as 0.8 seconds) can often be recognised, and shielded before the attack is even close to hitting.

A low Backswing is important to prevent the attack from being punished.

The act of punishing an attack is where an attack is blocked, or dodged, and the opponent seeks to attack back before the original attacker can regain control of their character. This is heavily aided by mobility, but simply having an attack with a lower Foreswing than the opponent's Backswing will do the trick.

So, a High Attack Speed:

• Gives you the ability to punish attacks.
• Gives your opponents little chance to punish yours.

So, what are you getting at?

You know the slow and heavy, but powerful units in games?

Time and analysis has shown that across many games, across many genres - they rank lower than faster units on average.

This is poor balance, carried by the widely-spread, flawed notion that "Slow but Powerful is equal to Fast but Weaker".

Due to the Control afforded by Mobility, and the Opportunities afforded by Attack Speed, this will likely never be true unless paired with higher resistance to all consequences of being attacked (such as flinching) and, at least some attacks that break the mold.

It seems that many developers are starting to see this, and that's great - but, they are still falling into the biggest trap, which, is continuing to give the units slow Movement Speed to compliment their slow Attack Speed.

To be blunt, this can rarely work, and is unnecessary.

To start with, have all your units start with the same movement speed, and then alter them individually as needed.

Summing Up:

• Movement Speed gives one the ability to control the terms of engagement.
• Attack Speed gives the opportunity to attack with less chance of being countered.
• A larger Foreswing increases the chance of an attack being guarded.
• A larger Backswing increases the chance of an attack being punished.
• "Slow but Powerful" vs. "Faster but Weaker" is a false balance notion.
• If a unit is slow in attacking, they will usually need to be compensated with Resistance to attack.
• All units should start at the same Movement Speed, and they should be altered after a lot of testing and analysing.
• If a unit has a slow Movement Speed, they will usually have fewer options against faster opponents.
• Units with slower Movement Speed often have a lower skill ceiling, and lose the competitive edge in skilled play due to the previous point.

Random Chance and Luck-Based Gaming

Introduction:

My friends and I were playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl which, ever since the 2nd week of me playing Melee, I have always played without items.

At parties though, items will go on on occasion - but, after a few matches, I want to turn them off - due to the fact that when items are on, there is no real point to playing because you have limited control over the way the game is being played, and you have limited ability to judge what might be coming your way.

Basically, the game is less about skill, more about luck.

In this point I'll like to highlight why sure, a little luck tosses it up - but when it comes down to it, skill is the main ingredient in fun.

A Little Luck is a Little Good

Don't get me wrong - a lot of outcomes in each match are due to at least a little luck - even if nobody gets a critical hit, or rolls a random class.

An enemy rounding a corner, a little weighted spray - or the fact that you thought that your enemy would make one move - then he didn't think of this move at all and went for another? There's a fair amount of luck.

That said, skill will still weigh in a lot on these issues - complimenting them. If you position yourself well and are aware of enemy locations, you will be able to effectively battle the enemy around the corner. With better aim, you have a better chance of your spray hitting the opponents. With good knowledge of the game, you can use moves that, regardless of what the enemy is thinking, have a good deal of success.

So, in every well balanced game, there'll be a bit of luck - but skill will still affect the outcome of a match over luck entirely.

So, why on earth would you want to add more?

Why Skill Reigns Supreme

Skill is important in games, especially in ones where you compete against other players.

Many players get satisfaction from exacting a task with proficiency, and showing off just how much they have learned about the game and how to play it - even against computer opponents.

It builds the player's self esteem, and gives them the feeling that they are having fun.

Many designers have analysed this feeling - one in particular being Raph Koster, the author of "A Theory of Fun for Game Design", who argues that the experience of fun is derived nearly entirely from the experience of learning, and trying to perfect facets of a game's gameplay.

I don't agree entirely - but I absolutely believe that learning and gaining skill is extremely rewarding to players, and as such is a main element of the experience of 'fun'.

Repeat the mantra, learning is rewarding, and rewards are fun.

You Did What?

Another aspect of luck is the negative side, where players feel cheated if they are beaten through luck-based occurrences, which is fair enough.

One second, you're beating some guy down with a well timed sequence of moves, and, the next, he gets a lucky critical and you're down. Despite the skill difference, or how well you executed the attack, the luck trumped your skill in determining the outcome of the encounter.

That's bad - it's as if you might as well have just played Paper, Scissors, Rock with the opponent. And everyone hates Paper, Scissors, Rock.

Something that I see a lot of designers do is have little occurrences that can determine the outcome of an encounter - and justify it with the fact that it's only a 1%, 2% or 5% chance - but all this does is have no effect on most encounters (so why even include it), but make the ones that it does affect completely based on chance and rage-inducing for the player on the receiving end.

Do not do this.

As explained - it's useless (it doesn't achieve anything) and bad game design at the same time.

No-one even notices if you don't include staples of random events (crits, etc.) in your game. The only time I've heard someone say "That's odd there aren't any critical hits", is immediately before "and I love it!".

If you want to include random chance in your game, do not use "Low Chance vs. High Payoff" chance.

To ensure that your game is balanced and fun, use "Moderate Chance vs. Moderate Payoff" or "High Chance vs. Low Payoff" chance.

Triggers

To define Moderate and High Chance, I need to define Triggers.

A Trigger is simply an event, that can cause a random event. It's the event that causes the proverbial die to be rolled. For example if every time you shoot a bullet from your weapon, it can critical hit for 3x damage, shooting your weapon is that event's trigger.

A trigger's Trigger Occurrence Rate is how many times this event will happen in an encounter (or in a given time period) - and will affect the random chance co-efficients you use.

For example, if you shoot 10 bullets per second, and they have a 10% chance to crit, that's effectively one crit per second.

If you want this one crit per second, and your weapon fires on the half-second, you would give it a 50% chance to occur. It's as simple as that.

For this reason, it's hard for me to define what I would consider Moderate and High Chances.

I simply do not know the Trigger Occurence Rate for the games that this post applies to, as each game has its own balance, pace, and encounters.

That said, I generally aim to have my lower limits of occurence at 12.5% or 16.6% (1/8 and 1/6), as any lower and unless your triggers are occuring rapidly, there is a rather low chance of the event occuring and it falls in the reals of "not useful but really annoying" features.

Anyway, "Moderate Chance vs. Moderate Payoff" and "High Chance vs. Low Payoff" chances offer the following advantages:

• You can more easily judge their effect on game balance.
• Players will more easily judge their effect on encounters, and will adjust their strategies in turn.
• Something that has a higher chance of happening appears to be far more useful to players than low chance occurrences.
• Something that has a higher chance of happening is actually far more useful to players than low chance occurrences.

The first advantage is actually really important - as I too have falled for the "Low Risk v. High Payoff" trap before, and, I'm in the middle of rectifying it for Pokemon Universe.

In PU, a few Pokemon have some abilities that have a tiny chance of activating, but, could win a match. Put them all together (each Pokemon had a few of them each), and I realised that these could decide matches more than team layout and skill a lot of the time.

The scary thing is, I put them in the game a while ago and it took me this long to realise how bad it really was.

As a designer, it's so easy to say "Oh, it'll only have 5% of the time, that won't affect anything," and "That makes it just a filler", but - the amount of grief it could give your players is tremendous, and could make the difference between having a game with a skilled design and a possible competitive future - and a casual party game that isn't even fun at parties.

Higher activation chances increase the transparency of a feature's effect on game balance - making it more enjoyable for both you to work on and players to play.

Conclusion

So remember:

• Games with few random parameters usually have enough luck in them as it is.
• Skill should always trump luck in deciding the outcome of an encounter.
• Gaining skill and learning is a rewarding experience for players.
• Low Chance, High Reward feature often don't happen enough to affect balance, but when they do happen, annoy players greatly.
• Use "Moderate Chance vs. Moderate Payoff" and "High Chance vs. Low Payoff" chances.
• These chances are easier to factor in your balance.
• These chances are easier for players to factor into their strategies.
• These chances increase the transparency of your luck system, increasing the quality of the game.

And that's why I think you should turn items off in Brawl.

Simple Balance Rules.

Introduction:

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.