Why do people feel the need to rebalance games?

[Myg]

Why do you feel the need to rebalance a game?

 

What good does it make towards the reception of the game or the actual game experience itself?

 

I want to hear good, deep, philosophical things here (psychology is relevant as well).

 

I don't see much good in diluting stuff, there has to be a reason for it.

[Jacko]

I feel like a major re-balance would have to be something totally different to what was originally created (like making a version of RA where it wasn't all tanks), usually done via mods (be it rules.ini or standalone)

On a game like tiberian dawn, not only is this difficult to do, but you don't NEED to do it. A couple of minor tweaks here and there and you can get something that plays very similar but with a different flair to it.

 

A major re-balance almost forces you to re-learn the whole game (and find the new weird exploits/OP units) whereas a small tweak mod kinda numbs down the OP things and makes the rock-paper-scissors effect much more obvious and viable. Thats the kind of effect I like to see.

Although if I ever bother to learn a form of programming id make my own complete thing.

[Guest Mechacaseal]

makes the rock-paper-scissors effect much more obvious and viable

Cancer.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3187/postmortem_westwood_studios_.php?print=1

 

4. Balancing process

 

Balance is one of the things that can make or break a RTS game. It’s one of the hardest things to do on the design side of the product since you’re essentially trying to optimize an equation with dozens of independent variables. If you get it wrong, you’ll have a boring game and a horde of disgruntled fans cursing your name forever. When the issue of balancing comes up, you’ll often hear about the “rock-paper-scissors” idea, but I like to think of it more in terms of a chess game. You’ve got a lot of different pieces, each with a unique function and set of strategies that takes a long time to master.

 

Having made several RTS games before, the team knew how to balance a game. We started with two approaches: one scientific and one artistic.

[Jacko]

I wouldn't say TiberianSun best demonstrates that point but what I said was written off the top of my head.

[Guest Mechacaseal]

I wouldn't say TiberianSun best demonstrates that point but what I said was written off the top of my head.

 

Brain Cancer

Brain cancer can have a wide variety of symptoms including seizures, sleepiness, confusion, and behavioral changes. Not all brain tumors are cancerous, and benign tumors can result in similar symptoms.

[Jacko]

Regardless of how derogatory you are being, you're not changing my opinion.

I say what I want to say.

 

Rebalancing and how successful is down to how the person doing it applies it. whenever I "rebalance" things I often focus on ground units, because thats how I play. I nerf the crap out of air units.

[AchromicWhite]

"Using the scientific approach, we started with the relatively simple idea that in a steady state units with an equivalent cost should do equivalent damage to one another. The basic idea is that if I have $1,000 worth of units and you have $1,000 worth of units and they fight, the fight better be really close. From here, we kept adding variables until we had a relatively playable game."

 

Then why the hell are so many units in TS, even units that are not 'special' units, totally suck?

[Jacko]

probably compensation for RA where just spamming tanks was OP as hell, they made tank/titan spamming a retarded tactic

(like wtf are Nod supposed to build other than commandoes, apcs and banshees)

[Guest Mechacaseal]

Yes tiberian sun heavily wanted to eliminate the unit spam rush strategy which made it a more tactical game focusing on hero units getting behind enemy lines. defensive units are designed to be fodder so they dont turn into offensive giant balls of death.

[X3M]

Balancing RTS. (How many times have I joined that discussion?) TLDR? Skip to end summary.

 

 

 

I did some research on balancing. Actually, scrap that, I studied for one of my own projects. And I know that I am not even close to know it all.

It includes steps and knowledge to do it right. The process takes time. A lot of time. Depending on how you spend it.

 

First; a game mechanic is needed with factors.

What will units contain?

Health?

Speed?

Damage?

The acceleration of a projectile?

Warm up and cool down process of an unit?

 

The list can be expanded with a lot of factors. Each factor will have its own effects on the game. Even having just health and damage, can be hard to balance. This because you are only looking at one balance point. The point here is, how complex do you want your game to be.

 

Second; how do the factors interact?

A familiar one with every one is the damage and armor workings. Before damage is subtracted from health, we substract armor from the damage?

OR

Are we going to use a table of contents? Where an armor is not a number, but a column in a table that says how much damage is reduced?

This depends on the combat mechanic. It can be natural (first one) or mechanical (second one)

 

Now then, for the other factors. We need speed and range for example. This is for micro. Or in other words, the playability of the game.

Where in Dune 2, you just place your tanks and fight it out. In C&C3, you can twist your tank in a direction, move backwards. And shoot while moving backwards. Or do a drive by shooting. AND, you can do this in a certain formation or with way points ( or both ).

This also includes extra options for your units. Where Dune 2 had only 4 options. Some other games have, ehm..... lets'see. Ah yes, Warzone 2100 has 3 options for firing on other units plus 3 options for when an unit may retreat. You decide on before hand, then you don't have to do this manually during a battle.

 

Ok, now lets combine 1 and 2 into 2.5.

Range effects on combat.

Even when we ignore the Speed effects of splash effects etc. Fact remains, that those units with more range will have their first strike. This is very important in a long range battle. But we aren't there yet. Collision size in combination with melee units; can't place more than a certain number around an enemy.

Question there. Will that enemy be able to crush? Move? Or is trapped? All important decisions to make.

If you add those options, each is a factor that increases complexity and thus making balancing harder.

 

The third part:

Resources.

Not only how much difference you have in resources. Tiberian? Minerals with Vespene Gas? Gold/Wood/Oil? Food/Wood/Gold/Stone?

Also, the rate of income is important. As said before, tiberian is sort of balanced on having $1000. This is very close to the truth. I believe it is a number based on X * 700.

 

I once calculated the effects of resource income speed. I discovered that certain units are strong with a low income while combat is already commencing. They kinda fodder the enemy to death. Now, with the income slowly being increased at the start of every game, I saw that the balance slowly shifted to the more powerful unit.

Even though the costs of the more powerful unit was a tad higher that the formula indicated. I soon reached a point where it would win.

Depending on the game mechanics. Health/damage ratio. And many other factors. This (1 and 2 and 3)  together will make balancing very, very hard.

 

 

 

Summary balance points:

- Combat Mechanic.

- Playability.

- Resource management.

 

When one point shifts, the other 2 shift as well.

 

PS spoiler tags don't work.

PS 2. The need for balance is to have a feel of fairness to the game.

[cn2mc]

I very much would like to see bugs and issues like South advantage and harvesting logic fixed, I also proposed and endorse the (hopefully temporary) fix for the West disadvantage for Nod that makes the cargo plane quicker... But those are just to put players on an equal footing, not actual balance changes - messing with unit values, I wouldn't accept.

 

X3M, the first set of factors you listed can be basically summed up as damage*time in both cases, how much damage does a unit deal over a time period, and how much can it take. I'm sure that's what the quote from WW referred to.

[Jacko]

could that be expanded in a simplifed model to dmg*time/cost to say measure the unit efficicency, or is that going too far.

It would be like comparing Mammoth and Medium tanks.

[cn2mc]

Probably, I kinda missed the cost bit intentionally, because I'm pretty sure that all of the other factors like armor, cooldown, speed, ROT, etc. can be attributed to the damage and time variables. Cost is just... cost. Well, I do like to factor in the service depot when comparing mediums to mammoths.

[Jacko]

I guess the whole point is you can't simplify it into one formula because there are so many different permutations and variables to take into account

Like spending $800 on 5 grens or 2 hummers or a medium tank and putting them vs bikes. Or something, youd get different results all the time.

[cn2mc]

Yes, that's why the WW guy added 'in a steady state', which basically means engaging without micro, and I think that is an absolutely mindless notion coming from a game designer with several titles under his belt. All units need micro effort to be effective, bikes are the classic example of micro-intensive units, they deal a lot of damage but can take very little and only their speed and the player's effort makes them effective. But still, we must not forget that in vanilla TS basically all units (besides only disc-throwers, I think) always hit their targets full on, so you can't kite tanks, distract artillery or whatever with a quick unit... Man, was I disappointed with TS!

[Jacko]

I found Tiberian Sun a bit disappointing as well.

Dreary, slow and lacking in intensity.

Maybe because I found playing defensive to be too powerful.

[Guest Mechacaseal]

I found Tiberian Sun a bit disappointing as well.

Dreary, slow and lacking in intensity.

Maybe because I found playing defensive to be too powerful.

 

Jacko... Slow? SLOW? Look at the average game time of my videos. Most ranging from 6 to 15 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIw5O5QN4H9MuhD7zopdOSg/videos?sort=p&view=0&shelf_id=6

 

The hell you talking about. Maybe you are delusional about the situation cause theres not 500 light tanks on the battlefield being spammed out nonstop on small shit maps. The way Tiberian Sun works is you get to max tech within 3 minutes which is about the same time it takes for ra1. the literal ONLY difference is you send out a few tactical strikes rather than giant spam balls. Those tactical strikes usually only take about 5 minutes to determine who wins. The only long lasting matches are when both players decide to practice and not go for the kill.

 

You simply do not know how to play the game and thus say ignorant un true things. Ive seen plenty of newbs waste hours per match cause they literally do not understand the gameplay style and refuse to play the way they are supposed to.

 

2:27 long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SNZtBOkXSc

3:39 long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GaHva8g47E

3:50 long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3SeNlO2H0Y

[Jacko]

I was talking about singleplayer as well but say what you like.

I'm sticking with what I said.

[X3M]

Well, I only named some familiar factors. It was an example list.

So ehm, everything that has to do with the damage?

 

All factors that can have influence on damage:

- durability unit (a whole set of health and armor effects), this is based on the average durability of all units

- ammount of damage, (biggest factor when the cooldown of a weapon is very high. V2-launcher as example)

- overkill

- system of the combat mechanic (armor can be substracted, table usage, or other effects, there is even one mechanic where damage is reduced until it hits the armor ammount)

- cooldown or ROF (i prefer cooldown, while most folks here prefer ROF, ROF is often used in a wrong way though)

- warm up (obelisk of light)

- range

- projectile speed

- projectile accelaration

- homing ability

- projectile path (artillery, don't think in just C&C games, in Warzone2100 you actually can shoot over mountains with certain units)

- splash (also includes in line of projectile path like the sonic tank)

- splash durability (flame artillery from generals)

- poison effect (in warcraft 3, units can get poison and take damage over time. This is one of the most useless weapons in my opinion, but remember the fire on C&C structures?)

 

So I think you understand why I only named a few factors

 

The first few games where limited in factors. This because it was to much program work. It should have been possible to add micro to TS. And there is some more than usual. Although people think of these as tricks. The MRLS was supposed to be an micro unit. However the range is simply TOOOOO SHORT!!!

(I love you Nyerguds!)

However, in overall, TS itself was indeed a bit of a disappointment to me as well. Not necessary on speed, but the lack of micro.

[cn2mc]

Hell, TS basically downgraded C&C for all I care. Gameplay-wise, you don't have weapon inaccuracy, terrain height is more of a bug-inducing nuisance than a feature, air can't shoot air at all (even though it was the first C&C to actually let you target air, figures...) Should I go on with the awful limitations and oddities of TS? Very nice ideas in this game, but most of them very poorly executed. It had this wonderful promising engine that could do wonders... and it sucked. Because they didn't have the time to make it do those wonders. But hold on, there's more! As mods have domonstrated, graphics can be phenomenal in TS, nothing yet came close to it in '99, it was better than TA, better than AOE, better than BW... And the graphics still sucked, half-sprite, half-voxel, half-shoebox, dull buildings, little detal, uniform terrain... Again, no time, probably. Story-wise it was contrived as hell (shot quite well though), and even at 13 I didn't really feel the need to identify with B-movie stars like Biehn or Zagarino. As camp as C&C and RA were, this just seemed over the top, and it also 'broke canon' by not letting you be The guy. Overall, it seems as though they invested more in telling the story than in making the game play well. I also believe Klepacki did a bad choice in life around that time and changed his drug dealer for the worse. Most of the music in TS is abhorrent, and I'm listening to death metal as I type this.

 

EDIT: This went quite off-topic...

 

X3M, I know you were just giving examples. But I don't think TD is 'limited in factors', Dune II maybe, but C&C I think has just the right amount of factors. Hell, we don't even know what all of them are!

[X3M]

Oops, forgot about the inaccuracy.

 

Yeah, I agree, Dawn looks better than TS as well.

The music is bad as well in TS. Except for some tracks. But I always thought of Klepacki's music going down slowly. In EBfD it is rather, well, not worth listening too. Yet in RA it is awesome, and so is it in RA2.

 

It was supposed to be better then the games that you have named.

BW, micro beats there.

AOE and TA, complex techtree beats there.

 

Can you show me some mod work with good graphics? I am curious.

[cn2mc]

I haven't played it because I generally don't play TS, but I did watch some videos of the Twisted Insurrection mod on Youtube that were quite flashy.

[Guest Mechacaseal]

Hell, TS basically downgraded C&C for all I care. Gameplay-wise, you don't have weapon inaccuracy, terrain height is more of a bug-inducing nuisance than a feature, air can't shoot air at all (even though it was the first C&C to actually let you target air, figures...) Should I go on with the awful limitations and oddities of TS? Very nice ideas in this game, but most of them very poorly executed. It had this wonderful promising engine that could do wonders... and it sucked. Because they didn't have the time to make it do those wonders. But hold on, there's more! As mods have domonstrated, graphics can be phenomenal in TS, nothing yet came close to it in '99, it was better than TA, better than AOE, better than BW... And the graphics still sucked, half-sprite, half-voxel, half-shoebox, dull buildings, little detal, uniform terrain... Again, no time, probably. Story-wise it was contrived as hell (shot quite well though), and even at 13 I didn't really feel the need to identify with B-movie stars like Biehn or Zagarino. As camp as C&C and RA were, this just seemed over the top, and it also 'broke canon' by not letting you be The guy. Overall, it seems as though they invested more in telling the story than in making the game play well. I also believe Klepacki did a bad choice in life around that time and changed his drug dealer for the worse. Most of the music in TS is abhorrent, and I'm listening to death metal as I type this.

 

EDIT: This went quite off-topic...

 

X3M, I know you were just giving examples. But I don't think TD is 'limited in factors', Dune II maybe, but C&C I think has just the right amount of factors. Hell, we don't even know what all of them are!

 

I play ts mainly for the tactical gameplay it offers over most other C&C games. i am also fond of the scifi future tech. obviously i wouldnt mind if they redid it with totally different design and better graphics scifi plus gameplay wins me.

[Ferret]

I'm going to answer this question for myself, rather than speaking for others...

 

I believe that the game has a lot of potential to become a game with much more strategic depth than it already has currently in its meta. I don't feel that in its current state that it could ever have that depth that I am looking for, or potentially the depth that other players are looking for. "Westwood intended it to be played with tank spam, they're the ones who made it that way!" So be it. I am offering players a different way of playing, and find those who enjoy having a much cleaner feeling real-time strategy game.

[X3M]

Almost every RTS has tank ("Tank") spam eventually. It is just made extra easy on the westwood games.

 

I can name you all the factors that are responsible for this.

- resources. WAAAAY to much. You automatically tend to build the most expensive ones first.

- crushing infantry; in other games you don't have this and the result is less tanks. However, this should not be a game killer, take a look at C&C3, where crushing is limited to a few per second. If you like to mod, you could reduce the speed of a tank when it is going to try to crush infantry.

- focus fire. Means that in fights, the weakest units die up to 200% as fast in comparison to the strongest units. This can only be countered by having a mechanic that blocks for other units. The walls in C&C fail tremendously at this. Another counter is having little prize modifiers where the strongest unit is 1,42 times more expensive like it should be.

- concentrated unit strength on the map. Where a $300 unit is the same size as an $1500 unit. If 500 is the standard, then the real costs should be 232 and 2598. In a few on 1 fights, you don't really see the difference. But having every field filled with an unit. You clearly notice a bonus advantage in the fight. Units in C&C3 clearly have their corresponding size. With a few exceptions, . Infantry (and of course air) have their size almost removed from the game. This means that this is a way to battle the focussed fire effects.

 

Keep an eye on these 4 since they cause problems in most games. If the last 3 are done perfectly (which is nearly impossible) Than the first one is not a problem any more.