Link to original post: [drupal=597]Why Balance Games?[/drupal]
What is the purpose of balance?
We take for granted that we want all the characters to be "equally good". Seldom do we stop and ask "Why?" Characters are not human beings possessing inalienable rights. Players who select a lesser character do so of their own free will, knowing full well their limitations and handicaps. Why then, is there any interest at all in making characters "equal"?
One of Sakurai's four key criteria for selecting characters to put in the game was "The character must bring an additional, unique playstyle to the game that does not mimic existing characters." Players like variety. Multiple characters with multiple moves and countless combinations of them is what makes the game interesting. After all, a game is nothing more than a series of decisions. Imbalance means some of the choices are less viable than others, reducing the scope of the game itself. The ultimate goal of any attempt to balance a game must be to expand its scope.
In other words, we aim to balance games not by making every character the same, but different.
People player characters because of their strengths; in their unique abilities the player is able to craft their own style of play. however, weaknesses are much more important to balance. This is because, as Valve said very well on their TF2 blog, weaknesses are what allow population control. Weaknesses of a certain character to others limits their proliferation in the meta-game. Part of the Meta Knight hype centers around the fact that he has no hard counters, nothing to limit the population of MK players. One of the most important goals of this blog will be to identify specific weaknesses for every character's design to a unique set of characters. (Weaknesses which are neither trivial nor insurmountable in magnitude.) I do not subscribe to the school of thought that a game would be best if all characters were 50:50 with one another; a great deal of excitement is added to the meta game knowing that you counter certain characters and certain characters counter you, especially when those counters are overcome.
I will use the following format for analysing characters:
1. State the means with which that character seeks victory.
2. State the character's weaknesses, and what characters should have an advantage against them.
3. Examine the moves that character has that are overused or unused.
4. Propose a list of changes that advance the character from its current state towards the initially stated goals.
5. Propose what end result these changes would have on the character.
Through this procedure, a rough draft will be created on how each character could be altered to advance the overall balance.
What is the purpose of balance?
We take for granted that we want all the characters to be "equally good". Seldom do we stop and ask "Why?" Characters are not human beings possessing inalienable rights. Players who select a lesser character do so of their own free will, knowing full well their limitations and handicaps. Why then, is there any interest at all in making characters "equal"?
One of Sakurai's four key criteria for selecting characters to put in the game was "The character must bring an additional, unique playstyle to the game that does not mimic existing characters." Players like variety. Multiple characters with multiple moves and countless combinations of them is what makes the game interesting. After all, a game is nothing more than a series of decisions. Imbalance means some of the choices are less viable than others, reducing the scope of the game itself. The ultimate goal of any attempt to balance a game must be to expand its scope.
In other words, we aim to balance games not by making every character the same, but different.
People player characters because of their strengths; in their unique abilities the player is able to craft their own style of play. however, weaknesses are much more important to balance. This is because, as Valve said very well on their TF2 blog, weaknesses are what allow population control. Weaknesses of a certain character to others limits their proliferation in the meta-game. Part of the Meta Knight hype centers around the fact that he has no hard counters, nothing to limit the population of MK players. One of the most important goals of this blog will be to identify specific weaknesses for every character's design to a unique set of characters. (Weaknesses which are neither trivial nor insurmountable in magnitude.) I do not subscribe to the school of thought that a game would be best if all characters were 50:50 with one another; a great deal of excitement is added to the meta game knowing that you counter certain characters and certain characters counter you, especially when those counters are overcome.
I will use the following format for analysing characters:
1. State the means with which that character seeks victory.
2. State the character's weaknesses, and what characters should have an advantage against them.
3. Examine the moves that character has that are overused or unused.
4. Propose a list of changes that advance the character from its current state towards the initially stated goals.
5. Propose what end result these changes would have on the character.
Through this procedure, a rough draft will be created on how each character could be altered to advance the overall balance.
