6 ms·

Definition: What Is Balance? A multiplayer game is balanced if a reasonably large number of options available to the player are viable--especially, but not limi

by nocman 11y ago

Definition: What Is Balance? A multiplayer game is balanced if a reasonably large number of options available to the player are viable--especially, but not limited to, during high-level play by expert players. Interesting. I think of 'balance' in multiplayer games as a different thing altogether. I am usually thinking of the match itself, rather than the design of the game. In that sense, a game is "balanced" if the overall skill level on each side is reasonably close to the overall skill level on the opposing side. Games where one team is just too much better than the other are boring. "Balanced" games -- where you really don't know who will win until the game is over -- are usually the most fun.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
eropple 11y ago
I have a beef with the article's definition of "balance", but you are describing balanced matchmaking, rather than game design. Important, and a hugely difficult problem, but a different thing.
- nocman 11y ago
  See my most recent reply to infogulch. I thought it was obvious from my response that I did know that I was talking about a different thing. In fact I was intentionally pointing out that I was thinking of a different thing. My point was that when I hear the term "balance" in regard to gaming, I'm thinking about the relative equality of skill of the teams, not things that relate to the game design itself.
  - anonymoushn 11y ago
    In that case we need some new term to differentiate the games of "Starcraft II" and "Starcraft II, but without Terran and Zerg as viable options for competitive play."
infogulch 11y ago
I think you're confusing "game" and "match", where "game" means the rules defining how players interact, and "match" means one instance of a game being played by a specific group of players. "game" and "match" can sometimes be used interchangeably (e.g. "that was a good game" can mean a single match), but a discussion on "game balance" typically refers to the rules themselves being fair. What you described, grouping players into opposing teams of roughly equal skill, is called matchmaking, and it's a different problem from game balance. In fact, in a competitive match where game balance is arguably the most important, matchmaking is not a big problem since it's solved by a bracket of some sort.
- nocman 11y ago
  I think you didn't read my post very carefully. I'm not confusing those terms at all. I said: "I am usually thinking of the match itself, rather than the design of the game". By which I mean pretty much exactly what you said. "Game" can mean either a single match, or the actual thing that you are playing. My point was that the term "balance" isn't limited to the dynamics of the game (those that exist regardless of the players skills in using them), but that it is often used to refer to the equality of the teams -- and that when I hear the term "balance" in regard to gaming I am more likely to think of the team equality than the other possibility.
  - derefr 11y ago
    Where do you go, that you hear so many complaints about unbalanced matchmaking? Tournaments and ladder systems almost automatically cause match "balance" in the way you're speaking of. Some games go further and introduce handicaps, so weaker players can play stronger players with the result not being predictable. In either case, nobody is really thinking about balance; it's just built into the social systems around the game. The only time one might hear complaints about match "balance" is in non-competitive "casual" play. (This is actually a large part of what Nintendo's game design is about. The Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc. series are all about letting people with unbalanced skill—family members, say—play casually against one-another while still having fun.)

by nocman 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

eropple 11y ago

I have a beef with the article's definition of "balance", but you are describing balanced matchmaking, rather than game design. Important, and a hugely difficult problem, but a different thing.

nocman 11y ago
See my most recent reply to infogulch. I thought it was obvious from my response that I did know that I was talking about a different thing. In fact I was intentionally pointing out that I was thinking of a different thing. My point was that when I hear the term "balance" in regard to gaming, I'm thinking about the relative equality of skill of the teams, not things that relate to the game design itself.
- anonymoushn 11y ago
  In that case we need some new term to differentiate the games of "Starcraft II" and "Starcraft II, but without Terran and Zerg as viable options for competitive play."

infogulch 11y ago

I think you're confusing "game" and "match", where "game" means the rules defining how players interact, and "match" means one instance of a game being played by a specific group of players. "game" and "match" can sometimes be used interchangeably (e.g. "that was a good game" can mean a single match), but a discussion on "game balance" typically refers to the rules themselves being fair. What you described, grouping players into opposing teams of roughly equal skill, is called matchmaking, and it's a different problem from game balance. In fact, in a competitive match where game balance is arguably the most important, matchmaking is not a big problem since it's solved by a bracket of some sort.

nocman 11y ago
I think you didn't read my post very carefully. I'm not confusing those terms at all. I said: "I am usually thinking of the match itself, rather than the design of the game". By which I mean pretty much exactly what you said. "Game" can mean either a single match, or the actual thing that you are playing. My point was that the term "balance" isn't limited to the dynamics of the game (those that exist regardless of the players skills in using them), but that it is often used to refer to the equality of the teams -- and that when I hear the term "balance" in regard to gaming I am more likely to think of the team equality than the other possibility.
- derefr 11y ago
  Where do you go, that you hear so many complaints about unbalanced matchmaking? Tournaments and ladder systems almost automatically cause match "balance" in the way you're speaking of. Some games go further and introduce handicaps, so weaker players can play stronger players with the result not being predictable. In either case, nobody is really thinking about balance; it's just built into the social systems around the game. The only time one might hear complaints about match "balance" is in non-competitive "casual" play. (This is actually a large part of what Nintendo's game design is about. The Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc. series are all about letting people with unbalanced skill—family members, say—play casually against one-another while still having fun.)