Karmatika
One of Freddy's beloved
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2004
- Messages
- 389
Stolen of a wc3 site that hosts Dota games. its 5v5 with 30-40 hero choices. Well thats not the point of this article tho eventho it makes some examples to dota. Plzzz read all 
, this will make things so much more easy online / future whines.
I'm writing this article in the hopes that some of you will learn something from this about how games work, you will learn through this how better to make your own games, and give suggestions on games of others, and will improve your own gameplay in strategy games based on this.
For background, I'm currently a student at a college called DigiPen Insitutute of Technology located in Redmond, Washington. This school offers two majors, the one it is best known for being Real-Time Interactive Simulation. In short, it is a grueling four-year program that teams students game design, game production, and game programming on a practical level. You can find articles about the school in such large publications as Rolling Stone, USA Today, People magazine, and the Smithsonian. This all said to establish that games aren't just a hobby to me but a profession, and it's my job to know how they work.
That said, this is long, but if you follow me you'll have a full understanding of how strategic theory works, and why I can soundly say that most of the people calling out the need for "balance" are simply ignoring these basic principles of game design and will never be satisfied with any strategy game, and thus should be ignored when considering real balance issues.
If a moderator could sticky this topic for people to read before they post balance complaints, that would be great and might help things here.
Let's take, if you will, the most basic example of a game: rock, paper, scissors (RPS). RPS in itself is a rather dull, boring game; while it has perfect balance, there is no real inherent strategy involved in it, nothing to discuss, nothing worth competing over it for. If you win a game of RPS, it doesn't show any intelligence, skill, or anything. It's a pointless game.
But it's a game, so obviously we have a start, and most importantly to those of you in this forum, it's BALANCED. In fact, it is ridiculously balanced. Let's see what happens when we unbalance it a bit.
We'll add a new option, called glass. This will be a glass of water, which you might even have handy while in vigorous RPS competition. The symbol can just be having your fingertips together. The glass of water can make the paper wet and rust the scissors, but the rock can smash it. So you have Glass beats Paper and Scissors, and loses to Rock.
Wait a second! This isn't fair! Now you have unbalance, because Glass and Rock are twice as likely to win as any of the others! Won't this ruin the game?
The answer is no, and in fact, this creates a new factor that's vital to every game: SKILL. Rock and Glass win 50% of the time each on average, while Scissors and Paper win only 25% of the time. How can this game possibly be fair? I would say to you that it's still PERFECTLY fair! How can it be?
Well, obviously, any new player is going to think "I should always choose Rock; it beats Glass, the other most powerful choice, and thus it has the highest chance of winning." What's the problem with this logic? You're assuming that your opponent is just rolling dice and has no skill! So what does the other player do? The player who has just begun learning the game will say then "Oh, well since all the newbies will be using Rock, my chances of winning with Paper are actually now HIGHER than 25%; I'll use Paper!" This is thinking on the first level of skill.
Then comes along the intermediate player. He thinks "Hm, all of the people I'm playing with are catching on to the Rock, and are using Paper. I need to stop Paper. The choice that has the best odds of winning overall that counts Paper is Glass. I'll use Glass." This is thinking on the second level of skill.
Then you get even more advanced. The next sharp guy thinks "Well, obviously Rock beats Glass! I'll use Rock, and they'll never expect it since only newbies use Rock!" This is the third and highest level of skill.
Looking at this model, we can see some problems that are inherent and need to be fixed:
1) Scissors is a completely pointless choice, since it is identical to Glass except loses to Glass as well. More on this later.
2) The highest level experts can actually end up using the same tactics as newbies, and NOT because the newbies are copying them.
3) The intermediate players, the ones playing Glass, are the ultimate victims. Both the newbies and experts are beating them!
4) Those beginning players who choose Paper usually will get clobbered by the Glass players who are just a step ahead of them. This isn't because Glass is unbalanced; after all, Rock is too. This is because they are countering Rock, not Glass; while they are showing some skill in countering, they're not countering PROPERLY. This is your "whiny newbies" category, people who make a mediocre effort and get frustrated because other non-expert players are beating them. Then they get into the arguement "well the only thing that beats it well is the other cheap newbie tactic (Rock)." Instead of adapting strategically and accepting that going back to Rock is actually a step UP strategically, they refuse to complete the circle and abandon the game or try to rig it in their favor. No strategy game will ever satisfy a person of this mindset.
So then, with imbalance established as the first way to create a skill-based game, let's look at the second way: information. When your opponent makes a choice and it changes their options, you can adapt your strategy; this is skill. For this, we'lkl introduce a split in the game.
Before the actual game, players do a game of evens-odds the same way as RPS. If they choose even, they can only use Rock, Paper, or Scissors. If they choose odd, they can only choose Glass, Paper, or Scissors. There's strategy involving the fact that picking odds (1,3,5) is more likely than evens (2,4) but I'll ignore that for now. Think of this like Sentinel or Scourge.
So the possible matchups are:
a) Even vs. even: It's normal RPS. You have to guess based on what you know about your opponent before the game. This is like when you choose a lane; you do it without the knowledge of who else is in that lane and so on; there's luck involved.
b) Odd vs. odd: The logical choice is always Glass, because it beats the other two. This is your sort of "simple counter" strategy, such as in 5.36 how a Void would use Carrion Swarm on Pudge's flies. The choice is obvious.
c) Here's where it comes down. For either side, they have a powerhouse that beats most of the opponents: Glass beats Scissors/Paper, and Rock beats Glass/Scissors. But wait a second, one powerhouse beats another (Rock vs. Glass)! So by default, you would want to be on the even side (having Rock), because there's an imbalance, right? So one should always pick even!
Well, no. You see, in reality, both sides have virtually equal tradeoffs. While the advantage of taking evens is that you may have a perceived (more on this later) advantage in the odds vs. evens, you also risk your opponent, possibly a newbie, also doing this. Then you put yourself into a standard game of RPS with a newbie! You have sacrificed your advantage over him, and you may well lose.
On the other hand, if you play odds, this won't happen. While you may seem to have the less powerful side, you are actually safer, since you never end up on this ground where you have to blindly guess. This is a simple tradeoff, and now you have TWO dimensions of strategy. When you're talking about an RTS game where you have constant information flow, there are almost infinite dimensions of choices, and with every single choice you make, you are making tradeoffs like this, some sacrificing safety for an advantage, others taking safety and risking being at a perceived disadvantage.
However, here's where skill gets involved. When you're on the odds side, you know if he's a newbie he's probably thinking "Rock beats two of his, including his most powerful; Rock is my best bet." In knowing this, you actually know that the newbie's chances are NOT 1/3 of picking Rock, but actually higher; this is strategic weighing. So you actually know that you have a HIGHER chance of winning with Paper. So you being intermediate say "Well he's going to use Rock, so I'll go Paper!"
Aha, but alas this other player isn't a newbie after all. He's thinking "I'm not an idiot, but this guy is. He thinks I'm a newbie, so he'll go Paper. I can own him with Scissors."
Fortunately, you're an expert. You think "Well, he thinks I'm going to predict him and play Paper, so he'll play Scissors. But what a fool! I have Glass which will counter his Scissors, which was already my best option."
So once again, the better player uses the "cheap" option and wins not because he is abusing the game, but because he outthought the opponent. The irony is that a newbie, who simply thinks "Glass beats most of them so I'll play it!" ALSO beats this player who is doing basic counters. So once again, you have the problem of the whiners here who get beat by the same thing both the newbies and experts are winning with, and they claim it's broken. In reality, they are just second-guessing themselves and being outplayed; in neither case is it a balance problem.
Their refusal to advance to the next level is their own cause of loss, because when they come to realize "Well they're using Glass, so I should use Rock" then they say "But newbies use Rock!" and refuse to just on the principle of "being cheap themselves."
This is ridiculous and no strategy game can function if people will not complete the cycle and continue around it. Once more and most importantly is this:
PLAYER MEASURE OF SKILL IS MAGNIFIED BY THE IMBALANCE; SKILLED PLAYERS COMPENSATE FOR THE IMBALANCE AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM SKILLED. WITHOUT IMBALANCE THERE IS NO SKILL.
, this will make things so much more easy online / future whines.I'm writing this article in the hopes that some of you will learn something from this about how games work, you will learn through this how better to make your own games, and give suggestions on games of others, and will improve your own gameplay in strategy games based on this.
For background, I'm currently a student at a college called DigiPen Insitutute of Technology located in Redmond, Washington. This school offers two majors, the one it is best known for being Real-Time Interactive Simulation. In short, it is a grueling four-year program that teams students game design, game production, and game programming on a practical level. You can find articles about the school in such large publications as Rolling Stone, USA Today, People magazine, and the Smithsonian. This all said to establish that games aren't just a hobby to me but a profession, and it's my job to know how they work.
That said, this is long, but if you follow me you'll have a full understanding of how strategic theory works, and why I can soundly say that most of the people calling out the need for "balance" are simply ignoring these basic principles of game design and will never be satisfied with any strategy game, and thus should be ignored when considering real balance issues.
If a moderator could sticky this topic for people to read before they post balance complaints, that would be great and might help things here.
Let's take, if you will, the most basic example of a game: rock, paper, scissors (RPS). RPS in itself is a rather dull, boring game; while it has perfect balance, there is no real inherent strategy involved in it, nothing to discuss, nothing worth competing over it for. If you win a game of RPS, it doesn't show any intelligence, skill, or anything. It's a pointless game.
But it's a game, so obviously we have a start, and most importantly to those of you in this forum, it's BALANCED. In fact, it is ridiculously balanced. Let's see what happens when we unbalance it a bit.
We'll add a new option, called glass. This will be a glass of water, which you might even have handy while in vigorous RPS competition. The symbol can just be having your fingertips together. The glass of water can make the paper wet and rust the scissors, but the rock can smash it. So you have Glass beats Paper and Scissors, and loses to Rock.
Wait a second! This isn't fair! Now you have unbalance, because Glass and Rock are twice as likely to win as any of the others! Won't this ruin the game?
The answer is no, and in fact, this creates a new factor that's vital to every game: SKILL. Rock and Glass win 50% of the time each on average, while Scissors and Paper win only 25% of the time. How can this game possibly be fair? I would say to you that it's still PERFECTLY fair! How can it be?
Well, obviously, any new player is going to think "I should always choose Rock; it beats Glass, the other most powerful choice, and thus it has the highest chance of winning." What's the problem with this logic? You're assuming that your opponent is just rolling dice and has no skill! So what does the other player do? The player who has just begun learning the game will say then "Oh, well since all the newbies will be using Rock, my chances of winning with Paper are actually now HIGHER than 25%; I'll use Paper!" This is thinking on the first level of skill.
Then comes along the intermediate player. He thinks "Hm, all of the people I'm playing with are catching on to the Rock, and are using Paper. I need to stop Paper. The choice that has the best odds of winning overall that counts Paper is Glass. I'll use Glass." This is thinking on the second level of skill.
Then you get even more advanced. The next sharp guy thinks "Well, obviously Rock beats Glass! I'll use Rock, and they'll never expect it since only newbies use Rock!" This is the third and highest level of skill.
Looking at this model, we can see some problems that are inherent and need to be fixed:
1) Scissors is a completely pointless choice, since it is identical to Glass except loses to Glass as well. More on this later.
2) The highest level experts can actually end up using the same tactics as newbies, and NOT because the newbies are copying them.
3) The intermediate players, the ones playing Glass, are the ultimate victims. Both the newbies and experts are beating them!
4) Those beginning players who choose Paper usually will get clobbered by the Glass players who are just a step ahead of them. This isn't because Glass is unbalanced; after all, Rock is too. This is because they are countering Rock, not Glass; while they are showing some skill in countering, they're not countering PROPERLY. This is your "whiny newbies" category, people who make a mediocre effort and get frustrated because other non-expert players are beating them. Then they get into the arguement "well the only thing that beats it well is the other cheap newbie tactic (Rock)." Instead of adapting strategically and accepting that going back to Rock is actually a step UP strategically, they refuse to complete the circle and abandon the game or try to rig it in their favor. No strategy game will ever satisfy a person of this mindset.
So then, with imbalance established as the first way to create a skill-based game, let's look at the second way: information. When your opponent makes a choice and it changes their options, you can adapt your strategy; this is skill. For this, we'lkl introduce a split in the game.
Before the actual game, players do a game of evens-odds the same way as RPS. If they choose even, they can only use Rock, Paper, or Scissors. If they choose odd, they can only choose Glass, Paper, or Scissors. There's strategy involving the fact that picking odds (1,3,5) is more likely than evens (2,4) but I'll ignore that for now. Think of this like Sentinel or Scourge.
So the possible matchups are:
a) Even vs. even: It's normal RPS. You have to guess based on what you know about your opponent before the game. This is like when you choose a lane; you do it without the knowledge of who else is in that lane and so on; there's luck involved.
b) Odd vs. odd: The logical choice is always Glass, because it beats the other two. This is your sort of "simple counter" strategy, such as in 5.36 how a Void would use Carrion Swarm on Pudge's flies. The choice is obvious.
c) Here's where it comes down. For either side, they have a powerhouse that beats most of the opponents: Glass beats Scissors/Paper, and Rock beats Glass/Scissors. But wait a second, one powerhouse beats another (Rock vs. Glass)! So by default, you would want to be on the even side (having Rock), because there's an imbalance, right? So one should always pick even!
Well, no. You see, in reality, both sides have virtually equal tradeoffs. While the advantage of taking evens is that you may have a perceived (more on this later) advantage in the odds vs. evens, you also risk your opponent, possibly a newbie, also doing this. Then you put yourself into a standard game of RPS with a newbie! You have sacrificed your advantage over him, and you may well lose.
On the other hand, if you play odds, this won't happen. While you may seem to have the less powerful side, you are actually safer, since you never end up on this ground where you have to blindly guess. This is a simple tradeoff, and now you have TWO dimensions of strategy. When you're talking about an RTS game where you have constant information flow, there are almost infinite dimensions of choices, and with every single choice you make, you are making tradeoffs like this, some sacrificing safety for an advantage, others taking safety and risking being at a perceived disadvantage.
However, here's where skill gets involved. When you're on the odds side, you know if he's a newbie he's probably thinking "Rock beats two of his, including his most powerful; Rock is my best bet." In knowing this, you actually know that the newbie's chances are NOT 1/3 of picking Rock, but actually higher; this is strategic weighing. So you actually know that you have a HIGHER chance of winning with Paper. So you being intermediate say "Well he's going to use Rock, so I'll go Paper!"
Aha, but alas this other player isn't a newbie after all. He's thinking "I'm not an idiot, but this guy is. He thinks I'm a newbie, so he'll go Paper. I can own him with Scissors."
Fortunately, you're an expert. You think "Well, he thinks I'm going to predict him and play Paper, so he'll play Scissors. But what a fool! I have Glass which will counter his Scissors, which was already my best option."
So once again, the better player uses the "cheap" option and wins not because he is abusing the game, but because he outthought the opponent. The irony is that a newbie, who simply thinks "Glass beats most of them so I'll play it!" ALSO beats this player who is doing basic counters. So once again, you have the problem of the whiners here who get beat by the same thing both the newbies and experts are winning with, and they claim it's broken. In reality, they are just second-guessing themselves and being outplayed; in neither case is it a balance problem.
Their refusal to advance to the next level is their own cause of loss, because when they come to realize "Well they're using Glass, so I should use Rock" then they say "But newbies use Rock!" and refuse to just on the principle of "being cheap themselves."
This is ridiculous and no strategy game can function if people will not complete the cycle and continue around it. Once more and most importantly is this:
PLAYER MEASURE OF SKILL IS MAGNIFIED BY THE IMBALANCE; SKILLED PLAYERS COMPENSATE FOR THE IMBALANCE AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM SKILLED. WITHOUT IMBALANCE THERE IS NO SKILL.
although not in the game from the start - and its not really possible to outthink every possible event in such a complex world - you could argue that its just more imbalance, and as such should make it even more skillbased, but in reality thats very hard to prove 
