3 ms·

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 b

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.)

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.)