I''m actually with Dauntless on this one - any resource can be used to balance a game, not just unit strength. Position, supplies, non-linear goals, time constraints etc.

It''s just a *lot* easier to balance a game by starting players with equal resources.

But winning is a relative term. Here''s an analogy : Who is the real victor - the guy who wins a 100m sprint or the guy with 1 leg who comes in 1 second behind him?

SpittingTrashCAn

I can see your point, but I still have to ask, why is it important for things to be balanced to win in multiplayer? As Argus so eloquently put it, won''t you feel the victor if with only one leg you only lost by a second? Why does there need to be an "even playing field" so that everyone will feel that they have an equal chance?

If fun is about being rewarded and made to feel better about themselves, then I think there are alternatives to "winning". In life, things are balanced, but we can still extract meaning and joy out of them if we find the real value in what we have done. I know this all sounds very philosophical, and it is....but I really have to wonder if people even question the entire need for balancing and winning. Games are about having fun....period. That fun can take shape in many ways or forms....but the only way game designers have really stressed this is through "winning". Now, the definition of winning can vary greatly, and one man''s loss, is another man''s pyrrhic victory.

You say that cleverness and skill are what you truly want in a game...well, it is cleverness and skill that overcomes greater odds. So I ask again, why do things have to be "fair"? To make you feel that in a 50/50 situation, since you won, you are therefore the better man?

Dauntless,

I feel good about myself when I nearly win a game despite an obvious disadvantage. But I still lost, and it was still due to the disadvantage. In life victory conditions are not set in stone; as a matter of fact, if you feel good about the outcome of a situation, then you could say you won. Games are not life: they are competitions with definite victory conditions. If you want to include the concept of "losing the battle to win the war," you must add an additional element to balance: victory conditions. The 300 from Sparta who held back the Persian advance died to a man, but they "won" in the sense that they inflicted terrible casualties and denied the Persians the pass for a long time. In life, we can easily say that the Spartans were the victors as they were more satisfied with the outcome than the Persians. In a game, we''d have to describe the victory in terms of victory conditions: on casualties inflicted the Spartans win, on last man standing the Persians win, and on objective held it depends on how long the Spartans were supposed to hold the objective.

What you suggest is not an "unbalanced game" but a game balanced in terms of victory conditions instead of in the usual way with balanced units, resources, terrain etcetera. In the end, what we both want is a game where each side has a good chance of achieving victory, whatever that means. At least that''s what I think you mean... or do you mean that even though the one legged man loses every time, he should still race two legged opponents because his losses are very satisfying in some abstract way?

At any rate, this is getting quite off topic. Should one of us start a new thread regarding the concept of game balance?

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

I''m awake now, but running out the door.

Another take on "game balancing" is keeping hardcore players from finding that one unit type that is the key to everything... the one that is disproportionately strong. A usual reason is too much damage to cost ratio compared to other things. For example:

All else being equal, you have 3 units as follows...

Unit A - build cost 10, damage 10 (1:1)
Unit B - build cost 5, damage 5 (1:1)
Unit C - build cost 8, damage 20 (5:2)

Again, if there were no other factors that were different, which unit would you choose? Chances are, if you watched your players, after a while, NO ONE would build A or B units. What would be the point? Now, in a game like Starcraft, where the opposing force may have a completely different pallete from which to choose, let''s say his units are:

Unit X - build cost 8, damage 8 (1:1)
Unit Y - build cost 15, damage 15 (1:1)
Unit Z - build cost 4, damage 2 (1:2)

Obviously, this player will realize that Z is just not worth it (except for the "many pinpricks" strategy... but we are ignoring that for now). The next thing that would apparent is that player ABC would always be able to hammer player XYZ just by building C units. In that case, why would anyone WANT to play the XYZ race? All of your players would gravitate toward the ABC race and build unit C''s.

It kind of reminds me how my kids modified the rock/paper/scisors game to include dynamite. (This is a true story). Dynamite had the ability to beat anything else but dynamite. After observing for a while... and being thoroughly confused as to why my kids would actually attempt to win with the traditional 3 choices... I saw them start to have endless ties with dynamite vs. itself. They quickly realized where the power was and ignored the rest of their options. Of course, they also realized that the fun quickly evaporated (blew up?) when there was no more strategy and no more winning and losing. What a fantastic example of "cool explosions won''t save poor gameplay."

THAT is what game balancing is trying to avoid.

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development

quote: Original post by Kylotan
It seems like a system that would lend itself to massive imbalances in favour of whoever found something really useful first.

Good point. Would people enjoy the influence of this tertiary level of gameplay, that is, is unit design a worthwhile aspect of play to include? My underlying assumption is that people would want this, but from what I''ve heard so far that assumption doesn''t seem to hold water.

quote: The benefit of discrete numbers of units, whether explicit (most games) or implicit by the possible combinations (Alpha Centauri) is that all possibilities are predictable and can be allowed for in the game balance. I couldn''t see that your system would lend itself to this analysis... perhaps you can think of something that I cannot however, as you know your design better than I do.

I''m too close to the design. You''re right about the analysis. I think I''m getting trapped in the assumption that a smart and well-laid-out balancing period will be possible at all and thereafter that it will work.

I''ve got a couple of thoughts now, if you''re interested:
1) Although it was never intended to be an ordinary RTS game overlaid with unit design functionality, the design actually has to recognize that the time spent in the lab is a part of the balance itself, unless a governor AI system is put in place. I sort of like the former idea, but I don''t know if it would be enjoyable for most players. Possibly a situation where a testbed might help.

2) Given that, the pacing of the game will have to be slower than a typical RTS situation.

thank you.
ld