4 ms·

Interesting. I always assumed that to get the balancing feel right, a game would have to run huge parameterized test-suits to make sure win/lose results to user

by tarcon 5y ago

Interesting. I always assumed that to get the balancing feel right, a game would have to run huge parameterized test-suits to make sure win/lose results to user inputs are in balance.

beckingz 5y ago
Good luck doing this for a huge modern AAA game.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  I've always assumed they did this for games like LoL. Bots already exist, so the foundation for automated play testing is in place. Take the basic AI and add some functionality to track the effectiveness of various skills or loadout across plays. Using A/B/n testing to choose the most effective character strategy would probably highlight overpowered loadouts within a few thousand game-test-hours. They could probably take analytics from real players and do what's outlined above and get a reasonable idea of the impact a change will have.
  - anchpop 5y ago
    The issue with that is that LOL bots are laughably bad, and making them not bad requires a substantial investment. But something like what you describe is possible. OpenAI has a paper where they evaluate chess variants by training AlphaZero on them and seeing which ones generate more balanced games between white vs black, and which ones lead to more dynamic games with fewer stalemates etc.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Stalemate a are great fun; it's "the players agreed to a draw" and "draw by repetition" that are boring
  - wbc 5y ago
    I dont think they used bots to test, just rpc endpoints, at least as of 2016 blog: https://technology.riotgames.com/news/automated-testing-league-legends https://technology.riotgames.com/news/automated-testing-leag...
- kempbellt 5y ago
  This is likely why "Game Tester" is an actual job, or at least used to be. 14 year old me didn't believe it was a real thing... "Early Access" seems to be the more popular route now. People are happy to pay to test a game and feel like they participated in its development. Check out Star Citizen if you want to be amazed and depressed by this truth at the same time. Sometimes it works well. Sometimes it doesn't. Seems largely dependent on how engaged the devs are with their community.

by tarcon 5y ago

Interesting. I always assumed that to get the balancing feel right, a game would have to run huge parameterized test-suits to make sure win/lose results to user inputs are in balance.

beckingz 5y ago

Good luck doing this for a huge modern AAA game.

mywittyname 5y ago
I've always assumed they did this for games like LoL. Bots already exist, so the foundation for automated play testing is in place. Take the basic AI and add some functionality to track the effectiveness of various skills or loadout across plays. Using A/B/n testing to choose the most effective character strategy would probably highlight overpowered loadouts within a few thousand game-test-hours. They could probably take analytics from real players and do what's outlined above and get a reasonable idea of the impact a change will have.
- anchpop 5y ago
  The issue with that is that LOL bots are laughably bad, and making them not bad requires a substantial investment. But something like what you describe is possible. OpenAI has a paper where they evaluate chess variants by training AlphaZero on them and seeing which ones generate more balanced games between white vs black, and which ones lead to more dynamic games with fewer stalemates etc.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Stalemate a are great fun; it's "the players agreed to a draw" and "draw by repetition" that are boring
- wbc 5y ago
  I dont think they used bots to test, just rpc endpoints, at least as of 2016 blog: https://technology.riotgames.com/news/automated-testing-league-legends https://technology.riotgames.com/news/automated-testing-leag...
kempbellt 5y ago
This is likely why "Game Tester" is an actual job, or at least used to be. 14 year old me didn't believe it was a real thing... "Early Access" seems to be the more popular route now. People are happy to pay to test a game and feel like they participated in its development. Check out Star Citizen if you want to be amazed and depressed by this truth at the same time. Sometimes it works well. Sometimes it doesn't. Seems largely dependent on how engaged the devs are with their community.