4 ms·

Isn't shuffling in the ranks a sign of balance? Lets say the game is unbalanced such that Mario wins 100% of the time, and Luigi wins against everyone except Ma

Isn't shuffling in the ranks a sign of balance? Lets say the game is unbalanced such that Mario wins 100% of the time, and Luigi wins against everyone except Mario. Then I would expect the ranking to list Mario as #1 and Luigi as #2. They would never change positions because there is no question about if Luigi should rank higher than Mario or lower than some other character.

georgeecollins 12y ago
Yes - exactly. It's also a sign that the game has enough depth that not all strategies are known immediately. An unbalanced game where everyone knew A was better than B and that never changed would be a dull PvP game. This is an interesting article, and I agree that balance isn't always as important as people think, but I don't think is well thought through in terms of game design.
jjaredsimpson 12y ago
That's assumes perfect information and perfect play. As new strats and counters are discovered the relative power of characters shifts over time. Balance doesn't have to do with changes in perceptions of character strength. A game is usually said to be balanced if there is a large selection of characters that are considered viable for tournament play.
- swagasaurus-rex 12y ago
  I think this distinction is important. Balance is about the diversity of choices players can make. In nature, there are balancing mechanisms, but there is no balance. If one organism learns how to overwhelm another, it often spells the extinction of the weaker organism. In games, however, if one character is unviable, then the game is said to be unbalanced, which naturally leads to discontent with the portion of the player base that likes that character. Balance is a battle against the natural entropy that generates tier lists or food chains, because it is a human preference, not a trend or a law of nature.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jpdus 12y ago
Normally one would expect the rankings to be more or less constant without any balancing, this is exactly the point of the article. The shuffling indicates that new tactics/play styles are found and widely adopted (as well as preferences are shifting) over time. With rebalancing, the shuffling should be more or less random (or at least you would see a higher "volatility"). Without rebalancing most characters which were judged as strong stay strong but players perception for some characters changes with tactics etc.. It would be interesting to not just see the overall standings but some kind of "consensus" rating (which characters are rated similar and for which characters ratings are mixed). By the way, your point also shows that SSBM has an extensive gameplay and is (if intended or not) well designed for competitive play - otherwise ratings should be more stable.
1123581321 12y ago
Because game staff have limited time and ability, more balanced games reduce and standardize options to make them easier to manage. Smash is balanced in that win rates are similar enough to allow some mobility but not enough that the developers eliminated many of the later-discovered capabilities.

georgeecollins 12y ago

Yes - exactly. It's also a sign that the game has enough depth that not all strategies are known immediately. An unbalanced game where everyone knew A was better than B and that never changed would be a dull PvP game. This is an interesting article, and I agree that balance isn't always as important as people think, but I don't think is well thought through in terms of game design.

jjaredsimpson 12y ago

That's assumes perfect information and perfect play. As new strats and counters are discovered the relative power of characters shifts over time. Balance doesn't have to do with changes in perceptions of character strength. A game is usually said to be balanced if there is a large selection of characters that are considered viable for tournament play.

swagasaurus-rex 12y ago
I think this distinction is important. Balance is about the diversity of choices players can make. In nature, there are balancing mechanisms, but there is no balance. If one organism learns how to overwhelm another, it often spells the extinction of the weaker organism. In games, however, if one character is unviable, then the game is said to be unbalanced, which naturally leads to discontent with the portion of the player base that likes that character. Balance is a battle against the natural entropy that generates tier lists or food chains, because it is a human preference, not a trend or a law of nature.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

jpdus 12y ago

Normally one would expect the rankings to be more or less constant without any balancing, this is exactly the point of the article. The shuffling indicates that new tactics/play styles are found and widely adopted (as well as preferences are shifting) over time. With rebalancing, the shuffling should be more or less random (or at least you would see a higher "volatility"). Without rebalancing most characters which were judged as strong stay strong but players perception for some characters changes with tactics etc.. It would be interesting to not just see the overall standings but some kind of "consensus" rating (which characters are rated similar and for which characters ratings are mixed). By the way, your point also shows that SSBM has an extensive gameplay and is (if intended or not) well designed for competitive play - otherwise ratings should be more stable.

1123581321 12y ago

Because game staff have limited time and ability, more balanced games reduce and standardize options to make them easier to manage. Smash is balanced in that win rates are similar enough to allow some mobility but not enough that the developers eliminated many of the later-discovered capabilities.