'Member balance?

[Nox]

Prettymuch the second there's two options, one is going to better (at least in X scenario). Unless its just a reskin of the same option.

Travelling genres here, but your original Command Conquer (I want to say 1992?). Nod were best at rapid early rushes, GDI were best at turling up a bit until they got their mega tanks and then they were almost guaranteed to win in the endgame. (Obviously either could make poor decisions)

The two were essentially relatively equal to win and in balance. But the particular scenario might give an edge to one or the other. All things being equal a good NOD player would usuallly beat the GDI faster then the other way around though. The few RTS's prior to that (or roughly around the same time) tended to be mirror matches with reskinned units (even the first Warcraft had a pretty 1:1 ratio between humans and orcs, if you ignored the names and models).

The 4v1 games (which started with EVOLVE to my recollection) all require the 1 to basically be overpowered to stand a chance. Even then I'd bet the money on a 4-person *Commmunicating* squad will beat the 1 every single time (which is exactly what derailed EVOLVE from a gameplay standpoint, their monetization (and lack of familiar IP) just sealed the deal)

Most "Hero" games tend to start with a few basic heroes, who will continue to shine because simplicity is often the best/easiest solution (Rhino coves this niche in Warframe) then as they keep feeding out newer ones they can't use simple ideas and things get more and more complex. Quite often this results in more powerful ones, but they're more complicated to use as an offset (the skill floor/ceiling as earlier mentioned). More broad audience/casual games, this usually makes the basic-good one the "META" and if you get into more niche and dedicated audiences (like fighting game tournaments) the more complicated one usually gets the favorable rating from the community (since they're all the proverbial "no lifers" who have time to learn all that)

Whoa, blast from the past. And nice to hear things never really changed for C&C because the same was true in Sun and Wars.

My thought is that if balance patches were more frequent a meta would never get the chance to form, resulting in a more varied and healty game. However, that's just guesswork because I don't know of a single game that has ever done that.

And the second thing you're talking about is power creep. Another sympthom of asymmetrical balance.

I dunno if you count fighting games as pvp or as a different thing entirely, but they're entirely balanced. Even when a char is a little bit better, even the weaker ones typically stance a chance in all the more recent games.

I have a strong dislike for fighting games for reasons that would require a whole other thread, but I don't play them, so I can't comment or offer an opinion on them. Which is why I didn't bring them up.

 

[Dreiko]

I have a strong dislike for fighting games for reasons that would require a whole other thread, but I don't play them, so I can't comment or offer an opinion on them. Which is why I didn't bring them up.

Ah ok, how about things like racing games or sports games, or in general other types of non-team-focused games where it's just 1v1 or solo people acting as individual teams? I think typically balance is sought after more in a game with fewer variables basically and when you have large teams co-operating even a weaker char may shine in the right composition whereas if it's just 1v1 then unbalance shines more clearly through.


Basically fighters are extremely balanced, to a negative in some cases, like for example DBFZ, where they achieve parity through making the universal systems too good and lessening the feeling of uniqueness from one char to the next.

 

[Asita]

Not to pull you by your example but aren't killers notoriously unbalanced in DBD? Especially the ones that come in shiny new DLC each time? Marvel Snap does the same with cards, new cards--mostly only accessible to those who pay--are wildly unbalanced until the f2p lot can get them, then they miraculously get enough info to nerf them.

I'm not pulling that example out of my bum without reason but to point out asymmetrical balance is, frankly, a load of rubbish whose only purpose is for devs to make the game p2w without anyone being able to objectively prove they did so because that "balance" is viewed as you describe, obscured by convoluted "big picture" and subjectivity.

That's really my whole problem with it.

No? You'll get various complaints about them at release as people are still figuring out the counterplays for them, and make no mistake, some of them are in need of buffs/nerfs/gameplay adjustments, but on the whole the kill rate is pretty tight across the board, ranging from 46% to 61%. Mind you, that's total survivor kill-rate, not how many times they wiped out the other team (a 4-kill, or "4k"). So they all come pretty close to averaging 2 out of 4 survivors per match, which is about where you'd want it to be.

 

[Nox]

Ah ok, how about things like racing games or sports games, or in general other types of non-team-focused games where it's just 1v1 or solo people acting as individual teams? I think typically balance is sought after more in a game with fewer variables basically and when you have large teams co-operating even a weaker char may shine in the right composition whereas if it's just 1v1 then unbalance shines more clearly through.


Basically fighters are extremely balanced, to a negative in some cases, like for example DBFZ, where they achieve parity through making the universal systems too good and lessening the feeling of uniqueness from one char to the next.

Again, not really advocating for pure balance. Surely there must be some middle ground between asymmetrical stuff and pure equality.

No? You'll get various complaints about them at release as people are still figuring out the counterplays for them, and make no mistake, some of them are in need of buffs/nerfs/gameplay adjustments, but on the whole the kill rate is pretty tight across the board, ranging from 46% to 61%. Mind you, that's total survivor kill-rate, not how many times they wiped out the other team (a 4-kill, or "4k"). So they all come pretty close to averaging 2 out of 4 survivors per match, which is about where you'd want it to be.

Right. But, see, there's a problem here where I don't know if what you're telling me is true or if you're one of the people who likes playing the OP thing and just want to keep doing that. Which is another problem with asymmetrical balance. I can't really check if what you're saying is true and those stats can be influenced quite easily in asymmetrical games. As an example, most cards in Marvel Snap have a 50% win rate, that's good, right? Well, the game has no mulligan and massive RNG--to a point it's actually a game of chance--which means the reason objectively OP cards have a 50% win rate is because sometimes people don't draw them.

I don't know if that's a relevant example to DBD, as I--clearly--don't play such games, but it is an example of how cooked those stats can be as well.

 

[Gordon_4]

Balance is PvP is a dragon most games have been chasing for decades and frankly there comes a point where the only thing left if player skill and some players are just shit. I know that because I am one; consistently the lowest scoring across any number of shooters I played in my 20s. Being bad at one might have been a balance issue, being bad at more than seven of them, at the point the only common factor is me.

 

[Asita]

Right. But, see, there's a problem here where I don't know if what you're telling me is true or if you're one of the people who likes playing the OP thing and just want to keep doing that. Which is another problem with asymmetrical balance. I can't really check if what you're saying is true and those stats can be influenced quite easily in asymmetrical games. As an example, most cards in Marvel Snap have a 50% win rate, that's good, right? Well, the game has no mulligan and massive RNG--to a point it's actually a game of chance--which means the reason objectively OP cards have a 50% win rate is because sometimes people don't draw them.

I don't know if that's a relevant example to DBD, as I--clearly--don't play such games, but it is an example of how cooked those stats can be as well.

For what it's worth, I alternate between playing killer and survivor, and have recently been playing the latter more than the former. You can see the killer numbers on a month by month basis here, and a summation of the stats (as released in September last year) here (both across rankings and in the top 5%). Helpfully, the former also has a breakdown of kill distribution.

For instance, right now, it has the top killer - by kill rate - as the Skull Merchant (the woman evoking Mortal Kombat's Kano with that half-mask), with a overall kill rate of 61.56%. 17% of her matches end with 0 kills, 15% with 1 kill, 12% with 2 kills, 18% with 3 kills, and 39% with 4 kills. Now, a 39% 4k is quite high, and skuttlebutt is that she's due for a nerf (and frankly, I'm personally inclined to agree that she needs it, as her skillset is simply unfun to play with/against), but even then...let's also do the math here. 17+15+12=44%. In almost half her matches she kills no more than half of the survivors. Does she need some balance tweaks? I'm inclined to say yes. But these numbers paint her as nowhere nearly as extreme an outlier that you suggest.

To your point about "drawing a card"...I can't think of an equivalent example. The player chooses their killer before they're matched and cannot change it after the fact. That killer is hidden from the survivors. Both the killer's perks and any given survivor's perks are hidden from literally every other player until the match ends. Survivors are wholly fungible, as all their perks are teachable to the other survivors as part of the core leveling mechanic, so the only solid information the killer really has is what - if any - tool they're bringing with them, which allows them some limited ability to adapt their perks if needed (in practice, this is mostly just to swap out one perk for Lightborn in the event that they're all bringing flashlights to grief you with stuns).

Though as an aside, if you're going to have such a discussion as this, you could at least have the common courtesy of assuming that those you're speaking to are responding in good faith (until such time that you are given reason to believe otherwise) rather than insinuating that they might have ulterior motives and can't be trusted to be honest.

 

[Nox]

For what it's worth, I alternate between playing killer and survivor, and have recently been playing the latter more than the former. You can see the killer numbers on a month by month basis here, and a summation of the stats (as released in September last year) here (both across rankings and in the top 5%). Helpfully, the former also has a breakdown of kill distribution.

For instance, right now, it has the top killer - by kill rate - as the Skull Merchant (the woman evoking Mortal Kombat's Kano with that half-mask), with a overall kill rate of 61.56%. 17% of her matches end with 0 kills, 15% with 1 kill, 12% with 2 kills, 18% with 3 kills, and 39% with 4 kills. Now, a 39% 4k is quite high, and skuttlebutt is that she's due for a nerf (and frankly, I'm personally inclined to agree that she needs it, as her skillset is simply unfun to play with/against), but even then...let's also do the math here. 17+15+12=44%. In almost half her matches she kills no more than half of the survivors. Does she need some balance tweaks? I'm inclined to say yes. But these numbers paint her as nowhere nearly as extreme an outlier that you suggest.

To your point about "drawing a card"...I can't think of an equivalent example. The player chooses their killer before they're matched and cannot change it after the fact. That killer is hidden from the survivors. Both the killer's perks and any given survivor's perks are hidden from literally every other player until the match ends. Survivors are wholly fungible, as all their perks are teachable to the other survivors as part of the core leveling mechanic, so the only solid information the killer really has is what - if any - tool they're bringing with them, which allows them some limited ability to adapt their perks if needed (in practice, this is mostly just to swap out one perk for Lightborn in the event that they're all bringing flashlights to grief you with stuns).

Though as an aside, if you're going to have such a discussion as this, you could at least have the common courtesy of assuming that those you're speaking to are responding in good faith (until such time that you are given reason to believe otherwise) rather than insinuating that they might have ulterior motives and can't be trusted to be honest.

The only time I spoke of balance was on the respective game forums and it has never been in good faith, so you'll have to forgive me approaching this conversation from the same perspective. Whenever a subject of balance is brought up the response has always been a resounding "git gud" because people, either refuse or, can't understand that some people don't find games fun only if they win.

As to DBD specifically, I've never played the game so my original comment was based on hearsay and the negative reviews that mostly called on killer imbalance. I can't really continue a conversation about a game I don't play and know little about. Which is why my answers to you have been broad and focused on asymmetrical balance itself rather than the game itself.

 

[sXeth]

And the second thing you're talking about is power creep. Another sympthom of asymmetrical balance.

Power creep is generally requisite that the newer shinier one is the blantantly better one.

If we stick on C&C, that would mean Scrin would be obviously better then both GDI and Nod.
For my Warframe example > Rhino is still very much a top tier Warframe even as newer folks come out. Rhino being from 2013 and his closest counterpart, Revenant (from I think 2019). Most folks would often consider Revenant the weaker of the two, though if you want to do some setup and modding shenanigans, he can basically just step outside the constraints of damage numbers and one shot enemies instantly and be (almost) completely invulnerable. Whereas Rhinos more classic invulnerability is limited in how much damage it can absorb (and his own damage buff is a very basic but effective X% multiplier) which can be a single button tap for each to refresh.

Warframe of course, does not (outside of the 7 lost Conclave players in the world) exist as a PvP experience. But its reasonable example. There's 54 frames (53 offical, 1 is a weird perk thing, and then debately another 7 that are more often considered alternate game modes). Theres basically no way you could ever keep that many unique abilities (~250) in actual balance with each other.


Patchiing the balance has own its problems. Unless you have something very specifc like PAth of Exiles Leagues/Seasons where you create a character each League, you have players who may have put hours/weeks/months of investment into unlocking or developing a playstyle and build. And games that need balance also need players and can't afford to coin flip on irritating their playerbase constantly (even PoE has a lot of struggles with this as far as people who play standard, which is the persistent mode league characteers retire into)

 

[Nox]

Power creep is generally requisite that the newer shinier one is the blantantly better one.

If we stick on C&C, that would mean Scrin would be obviously better then both GDI and Nod.
For my Warframe example > Rhino is still very much a top tier Warframe even as newer folks come out. Rhino being from 2013 and his closest counterpart, Revenant (from I think 2019). Most folks would often consider Revenant the weaker of the two, though if you want to do some setup and modding shenanigans, he can basically just step outside the constraints of damage numbers and one shot enemies instantly and be (almost) completely invulnerable. Whereas Rhinos more classic invulnerability is limited in how much damage it can absorb (and his own damage buff is a very basic but effective X% multiplier) which can be a single button tap for each to refresh.

Warframe of course, does not (outside of the 7 lost Conclave players in the world) exist as a PvP experience. But its reasonable example. There's 54 frames (53 offical, 1 is a weird perk thing, and then debately another 7 that are more often considered alternate game modes). Theres basically no way you could ever keep that many unique abilities (~250) in actual balance with each other.


Patchiing the balance has own its problems. Unless you have something very specifc like PAth of Exiles Leagues/Seasons where you create a character each League, you have players who may have put hours/weeks/months of investment into unlocking or developing a playstyle and build. And games that need balance also need players and can't afford to coin flip on irritating their playerbase constantly (even PoE has a lot of struggles with this as far as people who play standard, which is the persistent mode league characteers retire into)

I'd prefer a new thing just be interesting in a cool new way. Warframe is a solid example of that as each weapon feels interesting, different, yet still serviceable. But, as you say, that's not really a pvp game and I'm not bothered about balance in pve games. As long as a thing is serviceable, I'm alright. Although, I do know many people who call upon that "carry" bullshit if you don't pick the most optimal build for the task.

Your second point does answer the meta question well. I do think I would enjoy a pvp game with an ever shifting meta forced by a, say, weekly balance changes, but I'm also not naive enough to think a game like that would ever see success.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

At the end of the day I had more fun losing than I ever did winning because I picked a certain character(OW) or bought a p2w card (Marvel Snap).

What I'm trying to say is...I miss Unreal Tournament 2004.

Well lets see how Overwatch functions as a shooter. The best weapon in ut2004 is perhaps the rocket launcher, so what about Overwatch? It's nowhere near the best weapon in the game.

How about another class-based game: tf2. The soldier can kill anything in 2-3 splashes or 1 direct hit and shotgun. In OW you can't hit anything as Pharah because characters can just change direction on a dime with no velocity loss, and worse, that's your only weapon. Oh sure you can fly now but it only makes things worse because it increases travel time, meaning more time to dodge. This problem applies to all projectiles, sniping, and anything that's not full-auto hitscan. That's why the game feels so bad to play.

It's not that class-based shooters are bad, you're not playing a good shooter. You're playing a MOBA game in first person, really, the point of the game is to use cooldown abilities at the right position at the right time in a teamfight. Other class-based shooters aren't like this, you have support with shotguns, rifles, and LMGs instead of being farm for carries.

 

[Nox]

Well lets see how Overwatch functions as a shooter. The best weapon in ut2004 is perhaps the rocket launcher, so what about Overwatch? It's nowhere near the best weapon in the game.

How about another class-based game: tf2. The soldier can kill anything in 2-3 splashes or 1 direct hit and shotgun. In OW you can't hit anything as Pharah because characters can just change direction on a dime with no velocity loss, and worse, that's your only weapon. Oh sure you can fly now but it only makes things worse because it increases travel time, meaning more time to dodge. This problem applies to all projectiles, sniping, and anything that's not full-auto hitscan. That's why the game feels so bad to play.

It's not that class-based shooters are bad, you're not playing a good shooter. You're playing a MOBA game in first person, really, the point of the game is to use cooldown abilities at the right position at the right time in a teamfight. Other class-based shooters aren't like this, you have support with shotguns, rifles, and LMGs instead of being farm for carries.

I don't even think that's the real problem. I think the core of the issue are healers. The real reason you can't kill anyone with a weapon is because there's probably a Mercy latched on to them or an orb hovering above their head. So you need to use an ability that'll one shot them. It's a fundamentally unfair system at the core.

What you said reminded me that the only fun game I ever had in OW was this strange one where nobody picked healers (this was, of course, before the role que thing). And the reason was mainly because the fights played out in a natural way. They weren't fair because...well, asymmetrical balance, but they still felt more fair than any other I had in that game.

 

[Asita]

The only time I spoke of balance was on the respective game forums and it has never been in good faith, so you'll have to forgive me approaching this conversation from the same perspective. Whenever a subject of balance is brought up the response has always been a resounding "git gud" because people, either refuse or, can't understand that some people don't find games fun only if they win.

As to DBD specifically, I've never played the game so my original comment was based on hearsay and the negative reviews that mostly called on killer imbalance. I can't really continue a conversation about a game I don't play and know little about. Which is why my answers to you have been broad and focused on asymmetrical balance itself rather than the game itself.

That much, I get. Where you crossed the line was in immediately assuming that you couldn't check my figures and using that assumption to question my integrity. You didn't even bother asking where I got the figures I was providing. As soon as I cited them, you simply declared "I can't really check if what you're saying is true", posited that I might be "one of the people who likes playing the OP thing and just want to keep doing that" (implying that I was grasping at straws and using data deceptively in service of the selfish motivation of exploiting imbalance), and that even if I wasn't lying per se, the stats couldn't be trusted anyways because "those stats can be influenced quite easily in asymmetrical games".

What I take issue with is that as soon as I gave you information that conflicted with your conclusion, you defaulted to making insinuations about my character. Not because my information was unreliable (which you did not try to ascertain) or because it conflicted with your experience (which by your own account, you do not have with this example), just reflexively. It's one thing to end up at that point after a lot of experience with a user evidences bad faith, but to bring such assumptions up almost right out the gate is just bad form.

 

[Nox]

That much, I get. Where you crossed the line was in immediately assuming that you couldn't check my figures and using that assumption to question my integrity. You didn't even bother asking where I got the figures I was providing. As soon as I cited them, you simply declared "I can't really check if what you're saying is true", posited that I might be "one of the people who likes playing the OP thing and just want to keep doing that" (implying that I was grasping at straws and using data deceptively in service of the selfish motivation of exploiting imbalance), and that even if I wasn't lying per se, the stats couldn't be trusted anyways because "those stats can be influenced quite easily in asymmetrical games".

What I take issue with is that as soon as I gave you information that conflicted with your conclusion, you defaulted to making insinuations about my character. Not because my information was unreliable (which you did not try to ascertain) or because it conflicted with your experience (which by your own account, you do not have with this example), just reflexively. It's one thing to end up at that point after a lot of experience with a user evidences bad faith, but to bring such assumptions up almost right out the gate is just bad form.

I pointed out why the info you gave me may not be the "proof" you think it is and I did instinctively challenge the stats while providing a very clear example of them being cooked in a game with asymmetrical balance. It was not my intention to insult you but you kept insisting on going into detail about a game I mentioned, several times, I know little about, and never played, so I had to make assumptions in order to furnish you with a reply. Just like you managed to make every assumption about my motivations.

Like I said, I don't play DBD, and I did not make this thread with DBD in mind, and maybe it's the one asymmetric game that's perfectly balanced, which would make it even less relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Asita]

I pointed out why the info you gave me may not be the "proof" you think it is and I did instinctively challenge the stats while providing a very clear example of them being cooked in a game with asymmetrical balance. It was not my intention to insult you but you kept insisting on going into detail about a game I mentioned, several times, I know little about, and never played, so I had to make assumptions in order to furnish you with a reply. Just like you managed to make every assumption about my motivations.

Like I said, I don't play DBD, and I did not make this thread with DBD in mind, and maybe it's the one asymmetric game that's perfectly balanced, which would make it even less relevant to the topic at hand.

I didn't "insist on going back to it". I first cited it as a 'personally familiar example' to illustrate the broader point about how asymmetrical games include the asymmetrical nature of the teams in their balance. That rather than a 1 v 4 match simply translating to "not balanced", in your words, it balances the power of a team of 1 against the power of a team of 4 over the course of a full match wherein their relative strengths will change and how consistent those results are across matches.

You responded to this with a direct question about the killers being "notoriously unbalanced" to make the point that "asymmetrical balance is, frankly, a load of rubbish whose only purpose is for devs to make the game p2w without anyone being able to objectively prove they did". As you asked a direct question about that topic, I responded with an explanation for why that did not seem to be the case.

Your response then was to insinuate that you couldn't trust me or the stats I was citing to be honest (and it was only here that you first mentioned that you did not play the game). So in direct response to that, I addressed your assumptions to the best of my ability, provided the data you were questioning, and wryly asked that you at least could assume good faith, and that's the last I spoke of the game.

I did not, as you put it, "keep insisting on going into detail" on the game, I brought it up as an offhanded example and only elaborated in direct response to your questions and assumptions about it. I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to make make assumptions and ask questions about something and then complain that by addressing the former and answering the latter that I "keep insisting on going into detail" on them. If you didn't want to talk about that example - one that, by your own account, you don't know well - all you had to do was move on from that conversation point.

 

[BrawlMan]

I didn't "insist on going back to it". I first cited it as a 'personally familiar example' to illustrate the broader point about how asymmetrical games include the asymmetrical nature of the teams in their balance. That rather than a 1 v 4 match simply translating to "not balanced", in your words, it balances the power of a team of 1 against the power of a team of 4 over the course of a full match wherein their relative strengths will change and how consistent those results are across matches.

You responded to this with a direct question about the killers being "notoriously unbalanced" to make the point that "asymmetrical balance is, frankly, a load of rubbish whose only purpose is for devs to make the game p2w without anyone being able to objectively prove they did". As you asked a direct question about that topic, I responded with an explanation for why that did not seem to be the case.

Your response then was to insinuate that you couldn't trust me or the stats I was citing to be honest (and it was only here that you first mentioned that you did not play the game). So in direct response to that, I addressed your assumptions to the best of my ability, provided the data you were questioning, and wryly asked that you at least could assume good faith, and that's the last I spoke of the game.

I did not, as you put it, "keep insisting on going into detail" on the game, I brought it up as an offhanded example and only elaborated in direct response to your questions and assumptions about it. I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to make make assumptions and ask questions about something and then complain that by addressing the former and answering the latter that I "keep insisting on going into detail" on them. If you didn't want to talk about that example - one that, by your own account, you don't know well - all you had to do was move on from that conversation point.

I don't think Nox is going to listen or comeback.

It's rather horrible, this whole thing, isn't it?

I haven't been part of a forum for a a long time. Nearly a decade, I think. I think I stopped because most people sort of moved on to Facebook, at the time. And what was left behind was a very tight clique that, due to them being members for a very long time, enjoyed certain privileges...

forums.escapistmagazine.com