Talk:Game balance

orphaned line with no section

Just a suggestion on the "miniature wargame" section, but could you go into more detail? Y'know, giving examples of what constitutes "fair" and "unfair" in that case, kinda thing. Yar Kramer

OR

The "Principles" and "Factors" sections, aside from having been written mostly about character classes, seem to be mostly original research. Percy Snoodle 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that. We probably ought to give it an overhaul and, uh, come up with sources for most of this, really. —Yar Kramer 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

—For the "Principles" section: it isn't original research, although it could have been worded better to show how the principles were universal claims about all games. All games, including computer-based, soccer, chess, etc. are based upon those principles, even if it wasn't clearly explained. Maybe the author should have also explained how the concept of a "class" or "role" is universal to any sort of game. I think we are dealing with a specialized subject that has yet to be fully explored in what is considered traditional literature or educational settings. Consequently, we have a much more difficult task of referencing "authoritative" sources for the more specific claims in this section, i.e. some of the best places to find this information is actually on gamer forums. Gdoghomes 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Maybe I ought to make some sort of article on it and get it published ... ;) —Yar Kramer 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

-Just to let you know, Sirlin.net has articles that cover game balance. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 20:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

—Indeed, the "principles" described do not decribe a "balanced game" but rather "balanced options in a game" - in fact they convey two specific points in very specific scenarios: "reap what you sow" to role playing (even in an FPS) while "offence/defence" clearly in a scenario of a first person shooter, comparing two "weapons". These are just *facets* of balancing (computer) games, not principles. In fact defining only these things as principles is VERY diminutive of creating a balanced game (perhaps that's why we see so many unbanlanced game? ;) Red! 11:32, 12 July 2007 (EST)

Agreed - I've removed the sections as this concern hasn't been addressed in nearly a year. Percy Snoodle 08:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft

Terran are the best race at the highest level. -Iopq 22:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Balance is a more relative concept than the article implies

Quake (1996) was a simple and balanced deathmatch. Who gets the Rocket Launcher gets a winning streak until everybody can rush him and chip his health down enough with the starting shotgun. The (balanced) game is about having some luck when spawning and getting to the Rocket Launcher first, and keeping it. The carnage that ensues after someone dominates the Rocket Launcher is just the aftermath.

In the end, all games are balanced upon start-up, up to some point in time at least, when they transform in another game or stage which is an aftermath. Even a MMOG that allows level 30 characters to murder hordes of level 1 players is balanced: those MMOGs were balanced when the world was initialized. And even if some players paid to start at level 30 in said MMO, your (balanced) game as a level 1 player is to avoid those avatars.

So maybe the discussion should be about sustaining the game balance, and for how long. Starcraft does not sustain the balance for too long, and this is a good thing, or else the game would only end due to player exhaustion (the player skill being the only factor in the equation, it can loop for players that play at nearly the same skill level). If the protoss is allowed 6 full carriers with whatever rag-tag escort you'd have (a good economy-player can achieve this), and the player controlling this isn't like 10 times slower to click than the opponent, then he has the "rocket launcher" in his hands. Getting to this stage is rarer, more complex, and more dramatic than getting the RL in Quake, though.

The balance must break at some point, or else the game becomes boring. Spawning units affects the starting balance. Subtracting health from the opponent affects the balance. Changing the game rules mid-game affects the balance. The game is not just the static rules in the executable. The game is what happens, with actual players in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.54.12.28 (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see this argument a lot, and it's quite hard to track down the fallacy, but it is there, in the statement "all games are balanced upon start-up"; you see (talking about multi-player here), it ignores the probabliity of events. For example, if, in a hypothetical Quake-like deathmatch, one player starts off much closer to a non-randomly spawned rocket launcher, then they have a much greater chance of getting the rocket launcher; this means that on start-up, one player, assuming perfect play, has a 100% chance of getting the rocket launcher, while the other cannot. Now, let's discuss a hypothetical RTS, with two species: one species has stronger soldiers which train faster and cheaper than the other species'. While, on start-up, both teams have the same physical resources, once again assuming perfect play, one player is guaranteed to have a larger army full of stronger units. Balance is actually a rather more absolute concept than most people realise, though it's oftentimes quite difficult to take every variable into account and calculate it.

As for your second argument, the idea that balance changes as a game progresses, all you have done there is changed the definition of 'balance'. Balance is about the equality of starting positions/teams/weapons/etc. assuming a blank slate. Once a game is underway, balance is no longer relevant. To put it another way, balance is a game design concept, not a gameplay concept. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

references

Added a refrences tag, this looks like 100% original rsearch --Jestix (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nerf

Please consider the large number of articles that link to nerf, these may deserve a look. I fixed Nerf (computer games). I am leaving the others in to see if this bold redirect sticks before I invest a lot more effort.

Added a Nerf subsection so that redirects can point directly here.

Broke the sentences down for less-painful reading and cite-checking in edit mode.

Fact-flagged the "connotatively neutral" bit about gimp.sinneed (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Game Balance is...

A key goal of game design.

Players must be able to compete, either as groups or as teams, either against one another, or against the world/computer. The conflict must be sufficiently rewarding that players want to play. sinneed (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits I made

I have gone through the article and broken the sentences down on individual lines so they are not such a mash in the edit window. Wikipedia does not "care" if the whitespace between sentences is a space or a newline.

I added the unrefereced flag to each section, so we can hopefully see progress.

I did soften some of the most extreme PoV and the broadest statements to something that I might lightheartedly hope might be verifiable.sinneed (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you did that? I wouldn't refer to a regular paragraph as a "mash"...if you can read a book, you can probably edit an article without splitting it up into sentences. If you have trouble reading it, you might want to copy it into an external app. Also, multiple unreferenced flags are unnecessary and contribute to clutter; we already know it's unreferenced because it has no references.--_ZXCVBNM 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't break the paragraphs. Wikipedia treats the newline and space characters identically. It has nothing to with paragraphs, or reading paragraphs. Don't worry, I'll put it back. The flags were there to track progress.sinneed (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, whatever, I just changed it because I thought somebody typed it that way. You might also want to enable "wikiED" under the Gadgets tab in preferences. It helps eliminate clutter by changing the color of different text, for example references or links.--_ZXCVBNM 21:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It is an excellent tool, and many people don't know about it. Always good to share knowledge.sinneed (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

imba also means "VERY GOOD"

Don't forget that in common usage, imba is used to imply that something or someone is very good. Example (from Company of Heroes), "Knights Cross Holders are totally imba infantry. I used them to capture a strategic point while it was being pounded by artillery". This is the figurative sense in which the term is used. Might be worthwhile mentioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.157.173 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrible

Power-based balance has been proven to be an inferior model because:

• It is open to far too much free interpretation, making it subjective.
• It is inconsistent. A game not being balanced in the used definition doesn't automatically make the game bad: see chess, where white has an inherent advantage over black, but which is still a very popular and well-designed game, to say the least.
• It is incomplete. A game being balanced in the used definition doesn't give any guarantees for the game being enjoyable for longer periods of time. For example, tic tac toe favors neither side, but it's a game that has been solved and is so simple that it's simply not worth playing. Another example would be throwing a coin and deciding the winner on the outcome.
• It is non-sensical. If all options are equal, then it doesn't matter which option the player takes. In other words, acting completely randomly would have to yield the same results as acting in a specific manner. That's NOT something an enoyable game should do.

I propose we change this page to reflect a much stronger theory, that of skill-based balance. This model goes from the assumption that balance comes from rewarding inequality in skill, in other words, that players playing more skillfully should win from players playing less skillfully. An imbalance in this model is everything that contradicts that definition in some way, including a situation where it doesn't matter who's the better player. That also means terms like overpowered have no special meaning: in every individual case, they have to be shown to violate balance before they can actually be considered an imbalance. 83.163.190.111 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• The subjectivity of power-based balance is the most frequent misconception I read about. It fails to take into account that the majority of games are based in objective rules, and therefore any outcome can be calculated mathematically, and therefore equality in power can be calculated mathematically. It frequently isn't, but that's not the point; the point is that power balance is actually inherently objective, even if people frequently view it subjectively.
• The first move advantage in chess is a hotly disputed advantage, and many speculate it may be primarily psychological in nature; regardless, you are correct, games with small imbalances can still be fun. The first-move advantage, at its higher estimates, is deemed to be around a five-percent advantage to white.
• No-one ever claimed that perfectly balanced games are inherently fun. Also, the problems with luck-based balance are touched on in the article.
• This is the biggest misconception about balance, and one that I myself struggled with for a long time; the idea that if all features are viable, then it doesn't matter which one you use. The thing is, all features don't have to be viable all the time. For example, in StarCraft: Brood War, widely considered to be the most balanced game of all time, just because you will want to create a worker occasionally, that doesn't mean building nothing but workers is a viable strategy. Yes, all features/units/weapons/whatever should be usable, but they must also have their place, and this is why your choices still matter in a perfectly balanced game. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I reread this discussion, and wish to add one more point: skill-based balance relies on power-based balance. There is no difference between the two models. The only way to ensure that the player with more skill wins is to make sure that all races/weapons/whatever are ultimately equal. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balance (game design). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312033347/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090309/newheiser-a.shtml to http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090309/newheiser-a.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 13:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Balance (game design) → Game balance – Seems like a cut and dry example of WP:NATURAL being an appropriate term whereas the current name is disambiguated paranthetically. This was its original title in 2012 and was moved without any rationale. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:NATURAL. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Special:WhatLinksHere/Game_balance which shows a strong level of editor preference already for that. -- Netoholic @ 12:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Revamp" section

I feel like the "Revamp" section could use a revamp. "Rework" is a much more common version of the term, for one, and the description is vague.

A rework usually involves completely disassembling an aspect of the game (item or weapon, playable character, enemy, map/level) and redoing it, usually keeping original major aspects of it but essentially starting over. It's often done because the aspect is so unmanageable -- in either balance, design, or unoptimized/outdated code -- that it would be easier and simpler to destroy it and try again.

Just my two cents. I don't know where one would find a good cite for this. Ethanicus (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Degree of difficulty

There was some stuff deleted from Degree of difficulty before it was "merged" to here. I thought it was interesting, but maybe suffered from too many first-party sources. (Though the current content lacks even those...) I'll just re-post it here:

In video gaming, "difficulty" often does not refer to how difficult a game is in general, but rather to a setting of the game, often chosen by the player in the menu or at the beginning of the game. Sometimes, the difficulty is set for the entirety of the game, sometimes it can be changed during the game. In many video games, difficulty modes run on a general scale of:

• Very easy (sometimes known as "beginner", "novice", "basic", etc.)
• Easy
• Normal (sometimes known as "medium", "intermediate", etc.)
• Hard
• Very hard (sometimes known as "hardcore", "nightmare", "extreme", "impossible", etc.)

Many video games use varieties of these as game modes. For instance, the Call of Duty franchise ranks its games on a scale of "Recruit", "Regular", "Hardened", and "Veteran", to stay with the military setting of the games. Similar to this, the 2010 top-down zombie shooter Dead Nation's difficulty levels are called "Braindead", "Normal", "Grim", "Morbid" and "Undead". Some games reward or punish players for their choice of difficulty. For instance, 2007 indie platformer I Wanna Be the Guy was created to be extremely hard to finish, and to illustrate this it uses the difficulty scale "Medium", "Hard", "Very Hard", and "Impossible", with no "Easy" mode or equivalent. If the player chooses "Medium", they will have a pink ribbon in their hair throughout the entire game as a sort of punishment for this. In games from the Kingdom Hearts series, unlockable post-game levels and bosses are often unlocked differently per difficulty level, with the easier difficulties usually making it harder to unlock these and vice versa, and these games often contain certain content that can only be unlocked by beating the highest difficulty level, usually called "Proud Mode" or "Critical Mode".

SharkD  ☎  03:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Review for Tone

Adding a tag to review for tone; This page has a lot of familiar and interpretive tone (including but not limited to unneeded use of "basically" and "generally"), as well as some grammatical issues. It also seems to have some original research issues, despite what appear to be attempts to fix in the past Piogre (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

GAWP

Note GAWP could be mentioned here - Gaming With A Purpose - see my paper for some idea of this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378150137_Le_Grand_Jeu_and_the_potential_of_money_games_for_exploring_economic_possibilities 91.154.169.156 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)