I think the problem with many games that have a multiplayer aspect is that the set of stats that is present in all games is too generalized and the number of attacks available to a character are limited. These two factors are what I beleive to be the main source of imbalanced play. Another factor is an engine that doesn't allow much room for possibilities in terms of battle. Games that have attack collisions are taking a step in the right direction while games that have attacks pass through each other are lacking. The kind of game I would like the most is a game with 3D movement and a physics engine with an interactive environment and a redefined stat system that seperates attributes to where they belong. For example, having the speed stat determine both top speed as well as agility or maneuverability. Having a single stat determine both is to generalize completely different things into a single attribute, which gives this stat too much importance leading to imbalance. A character should be able to have a high top speed but low maneuvarability while another character might have medium speed and high maneuvarability. The speed stat by itself determining both attributes would make this impossible as you would have only somebody with medium speed and agility or high speed and high agility. That is why the speed stat should be seperated into two different stats, top speed and agility. This way, if there is somebody with top speed, they would still have to invest numbers into maneuvaribility, which would balance it by preventing somebody from having all out speed without a drawback. In this case, if somebody has both these things high, they will have low attack or low defense because they have all their numbers invested in top speed and maneuverability. Having a stat generalize different aspects of battle means there is no room for weaknesses and it becomes much easier for a game to become imbalanced. Another factor that leads to imbalance is having a limited number of techniques. A character should posses the means to aquire a high number of different attacks. The more attacks a character has, the more likely they are able to deal with different battle situations. Having a limited number of attacks leads to the possiblity of being in an unfair battle. The more attacks a character posseses the better they will be able to deal with diversity. Having diversity in a game is important as it makes things much funner and more interesting. If players have the same stat amount, but differently expressed, and both have a hefty number of attacks that maximize their strengths and hide their weaknesses, and both are equally skilled, then they will both have an equal chance of winning such an action packed chess game of battle. For example, having the same stat amount differently expressed means that both have the same stat total say 500, but lets say character A has most of it invested in attack and defense type stats, while character B has it mostly invested in speed stats. With a high number of attacks, both players will use attacks that maximize their situation the best. For A, it would be techniques that are fast but lacking power in order to have a better chance of hitting the target, while B would use attacks that are dependent on inertia due to the speed stat being the only way to accumalate force offensively. The technique would make the character run to gain momentum which when they collide, they are able to do some damage and then use their speed to get out of range again. Also, even if a character has something like say low speed, they should be able to compensate for that with another stat. For example a character with high strength can punch the ground to launch themeselves into the air to cover more ground quickly which would give them a way to have high mobility. Although strength being used for movement has its weaknesses such as that the movement being too linear just as speed has a weakness being used offensively. This is another example of diversity in a game. If a stat is able to do something other stats are able to do, but in their own way, it gives the game lots of depth. Just like in the examples of strength being used for mobility and the inertia that is generated by speed turned into something offensive. I have many listed. I am just a 2d artist but I hope to do design my own game sometime. For a hobby, I have been writing for years about this game play design and I sometimes use these ideas in some of the things I draw. Here is an example that I drew of speed being used offensively by gathering momentum into an attack. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/AnonymousPerson/gamedesign/FUYF017.jpg Here is an example of a destructible environment being used as a weapon by somebody with high strength. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/AnonymousPerson/gamedesign/FUYF03.jpg An example of strength being used to cover great distances by a character that isn't able to fly or run fast. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/AnonymousPerson/gamedesign/FUYF010.jpg Also, to use the knight as an example, he flies because his mystic stat is high, and he has a technique that turns that power into propulsion. That propulsion from a high mystic stat means that he has enough output to propel himself into the air with energy bursts made by the technique. The weakness to this type of flying is that it is unstable movement in the air. There are other types of flying depending on the stats and technique. I apologize for the length. [Edited by - Fulgent on September 27, 2008 2:01:47 AM]

It's good in theory, but it boils down to the same in practice. Even if you have 1,000,000 options, if 999,999 of them do 1 damage for some cost X, and 1 does 10 damage for the same cost X, you have an imbalance of sorts (it's bad to use "imbalance" in such a general term, as if all players have godly powers, they aren't imbalanced comparatively). It's actually easier to accidentally make one thing better than all others when you have too many to consider.

Rock paper scissors - when not compensating for cheating - has exactly three options and perfect balance. Now, I think the rock paper scissors model is insufficient for MMO's because of how overplayed and stifling towards innovation it is, but it is an example of how limited (or generalized) choices can be balanced.

The real trick is to make nothing free. If you cannot level your agility to 10,000 without having very poor vitality, you have a balancing tool. Ragnarok Online choose this route, allowing very high singular stats at the cost of all others - one couldn't (on a regular server anyway) have 2 stats at 99 (the cap). Now, it failed to achieve a perfect balance of course, but the theory holds true. Include opportunity costs (what you must give up in order to receive something else) one of your design principles and you have a means of balancing a game.

One more thing: sometimes imbalance is fun, and ultimately it's fun - not balance - that matters. Remember, a vast majority of games out there are imbalanced in some way... but they're still vastly more popular than, say, and online version of rock paper scissors. I wouldn't concern myself too much with balance, rather, I'd focus on what makes the game more fun. Balance is only a part of that - a significant part, but not the only part. Getting an edge is always a motivation to continue playing a game.

If everything is perfectly balanced, then in any circumstance you only have a 50/50 chance of winning, which isn't all that fun.

Quote:

Original post by Zouflain It's good in theory, but it boils down to the same in practice. Even if you have 1,000,000 options, if 999,999 of them do 1 damage for some cost X, and 1 does 10 damage for the same cost X, you have an imbalance of sorts (it's bad to use "imbalance" in such a general term, as if all players have godly powers, they aren't imbalanced comparatively). It's actually easier to accidentally make one thing better than all others when you have too many to consider. Rock paper scissors - when not compensating for cheating - has exactly three options and perfect balance. Now, I think the rock paper scissors model is insufficient for MMO's because of how overplayed and stifling towards innovation it is, but it is an example of how limited (or generalized) choices can be balanced. The real trick is to make nothing free. If you cannot level your agility to 10,000 without having very poor vitality, you have a balancing tool. Ragnarok Online choose this route, allowing very high singular stats at the cost of all others - one couldn't (on a regular server anyway) have 2 stats at 99 (the cap). Now, it failed to achieve a perfect balance of course, but the theory holds true. Include opportunity costs (what you must give up in order to receive something else) one of your design principles and you have a means of balancing a game. One more thing: sometimes imbalance is fun, and ultimately it's fun - not balance - that matters. Remember, a vast majority of games out there are imbalanced in some way... but they're still vastly more popular than, say, and online version of rock paper scissors. I wouldn't concern myself too much with balance, rather, I'd focus on what makes the game more fun. Balance is only a part of that - a significant part, but not the only part. Getting an edge is always a motivation to continue playing a game. If everything is perfectly balanced, then in any circumstance you only have a 50/50 chance of winning, which isn't all that fun.

Thank you for your message. Thats is a good point you mention on the imbalance of attacks that is present in some games. Although, the solution to that is to make techniques based on a formula that determines their drain relative to their amount of attack power, speed, and size. The mistake that some games make is to just guess at the cost of attacks while they are in the proccess of making them and this results in an attack with a cost advantage over others. It is important to make attacks be drain according to their effectiveness and power. For example, Lets say an attack has 26 power and 10 speed, then its cost would be 36, while an attack with 10 power and 50 speed would cost 60. Although, the formula for determining attacks should be more than simple, this is an example of how attacks should be based on a universal system that determines their drain on the energy bar. Any kind of attack will drain, even a punch or a kick, but unlike games where the energy bar depletes and stays depleted, energy should always be regenerating at a rate based on a stat of the player so that they can still make some basic attacks even if they used up 90% of their energy bar quickly unleashing their most destructive attacks.

I understand the example of rock, paper, scissors, although, I think that the game revolving around three attacks makes things too quick. I would like to mention that the diversity of attacks would mean using multiple attacks on the same target to be most effective than to spam an attack for each type of target. A single attack on a certain type shouldn't be effective as the player should have the option of different defensive techniques such as a timing a bubble shield when an energy attack hits. If a game has three attacks, after a few battles, the player will already have seen all three attacks being used and will find seeing the same attacks again for the 50th time to be dull. That is why diversity is good at keeping a player interested. There are a few games I have played with lots of diversity in battle and I found them to be very entertaining. Although, its not what you meant in that post in that you were just showing how something simple can be balnced, I just wanted to mention this about diversity.

The example of the balance of stats in RO is another good example. Although, I think the reason the game failed to achieve perfect balance was that some stats didn't have an effective influence until a certain number or the game put too much emphasis on some stats and had a limited number of attacks for each type.

It is true that imbalance can be fun. I think imbalance should be saved for single player modes of a game where a person can enjoy gaining a large amount of power to be able to take out large numbers of enemies. Although, I think in multiplayer, balance is most important and contributes the most to fun. I've seen players find most enjoyment from balanced competitive games where both sides had an equal chance at winning, which made every action an edge of the seat ride. It even had people watching the fight as it is exciting to see to players trading attacks skillfully. Although, I am not very skilled, because of the flexibility some games have, I have been able to win on tactics and mind games alone against players far more skilled than me. This is what impressed me most about games that allow a large amount of freedom while in what you can do in a game and at the same time retaining balance. If the attacks weren't balanced that skilled player would have taken me out using a numerically superior attack and no amount of tactics would have let me win. Although, I'm not talking about MMO's here though. Although its is my beleif that game balance applies to all games except single player games with no multiplayer. Although, it is true that fun should take precedence over many other aspects of a game, but some things I think actually increase the fun factor rather than to lessen it.