The Problem With Unbalanced Gaming

[Bartmanhomer]

There's always a problem with unbalanced gaming because of how the mechanics of games developed such as Pokemon and Super Smash Bros. You play one god tier character and other a bottom tier character and it favours the god-tier character. There's never a balanced in any games at all. And even if the games have any balanced with the development of the game there's going to be some unbalanced to some degree.

[Aresneo]

Super smash Bros is balanced unless you play with tournament rules which turn off the balancing mechanic of the system.

[MinimanMidget]

There's always a problem with unbalanced gaming because of how the mechanics of games developed such as Pokemon and Super Smash Bros. You play one god tier character and other a bottom tier character and it favours the god-tier character. There's never a balanced in any games at all. And even if the games have any balanced with the development of the game there's going to be some unbalanced to some degree.

Ignoring the inaccuracies in this, what's your point?

[Knaight]

Super smash Bros is balanced unless you play with tournament rules which turn off the balancing mechanic of the system.

Not really. The balance varies between games, hitting a low point with Brawl compliments of Meta-Knight, but the character discrepancies tend to just be exacerbated by items, weirder stages, etc. That said they're generally pretty close for the most part and there are definitely high level players which do well with extremely off-meta character selection.

[GloatingSwine]

Super smash Bros is balanced unless you play with tournament rules which turn off the balancing mechanic of the system.

If by that you mean assist trophies, items, and variable stage geometry, not really. Those things don't balance anything because the characters that are better at obtaining and exploiting them tend to be the ones that are better anyway because they're fast, have strong widely applicable movesets, and have more off-stage options.

[Winthur]

1) Play games where the balance is either very good or the variability between tiers isn't big enough and the tier list ultimately doesn't matter, e.g. StarCraft: Brood War, Age of Empires 2.
2) Play a game which is constantly being updated and where the whims of balance work in such a way that you're sometimes top dog and sometimes you're less favored, e.g. StarCraft 2, World of WarCraft Retail
3) Realize that you're likely not competitive enough to care about balance at all, e.g. Protoss in Brood War are a low skill floor race that have an easier time winning games if you're a beginner, and there's plenty of low-tier characters in many other games that are pubstompers;
4) Deliberately play low tier characters to dab on people who worship the tier list as a gospel
5) Realize most of the time the tier lists are tailor-made for the top 1% of the people who play the game and that you probably just need to git gud before you can even consider there being a problem with balance; otherwise, be like the typical Blizzard forum mongo who thinks Raynor or Abathur in SC2Coop should be buffed.

Recently I've been playing around with Jojo's Bizarre Adventure: Heritage of the Future on FightCade. I (pretend to) main Black Polnareff, a C-tier character, because I'm garbage at fighting games and Black Pol's place on the tier list is there because he has a limited toolset and is mostly a barebones rushdown character with a cap to his potential. I still can win games with him simply because he has one solid combo, a terrific super that often catches people off-guard even when mashed out at random (without prior setup), and one other decent super that punishes people who try a bad air attack. Similarly, I sometimes tune in to a tournament of that game and recently I've seen the mid-tier characters of Alessi, Old Joseph, and Hol Horse & Boingo claim the #1 spot.

[Morty]

Well... yes. Balancing games is hard at the best of times, even when the creators actually put in effort, listen to feedback and have resources to do it. It gets worse if any or all of those aren't true. Some games are balanced better, some are worse. But there's never going to be a 100% balanced game. All of this feels rather obvious.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ignoring the inaccuracies in this, what's your point?

That's my point. What inaccuracies did I miss?

[Winthur]

That's my point. What inaccuracies did I miss?

Probably that your notion of how balance works doesn't guarantee an advantage at all levels of play, and that this thread's original post doesn't really offer any solution, nor is it a plea to look for games that are, in fact, balanced. There are quite a few games where the playerbase is satisfied with the balancing. So it's really hard to figure out what the point of posting this thread is.

[GhoulKaven]

Just take it easy bro and go with it

[Bartmanhomer]

Probably that your notion of how balance works doesn't guarantee an advantage at all levels of play, and that this thread's original post doesn't really offer any solution, nor is it a plea to look for games that are, in fact, balanced. There are quite a few games where the playerbase is satisfied with the balancing. So it's really hard to figure out what the point of posting this thread is.

I was just posting to prove a point about how unbalanced most games are because of how the games developed.

[Winthur]

I was just posting to prove a point about how unbalanced most games are because of how the games developed.

Yes, and water is wet. Even with that in mind, most of the time imbalance is figured out by the community and the game is rarely deliberately designed to have the "best", "worst" and "mediocre" option.

[Bartmanhomer]

Yes, and water is wet. Even with that in mind, most of the time imbalance is figured out by the community and the game is rarely deliberately designed to have the "best", "worst" and "mediocre" option.

I didn't know they even have those kind of options.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

What are you defining as a balanced game? Most games aren't perfectly balanced, but they're not meaningfully unbalanced either. Games with actually overpowered characters are pretty rare, can you provide examples? (You mentioned games but didn't actually provide examples within those games of god-tier overpowered characters.)

[Lacco]

Well... yes. Balancing games is hard at the best of times, even when the creators actually put in effort, listen to feedback and have resources to do it. It gets worse if any or all of those aren't true. Some games are balanced better, some are worse. But there's never going to be a 100% balanced game. All of this feels rather obvious.

Just for fun: how would simultaneous-turn-double-blind chess work as balanced game?

You make your move, your opponent does his own - both are revealed at the same time.

[Bartmanhomer]

What are you defining as a balanced game? Most games aren't perfectly balanced, but they're not meaningfully unbalanced either. Games with actually overpowered characters are pretty rare, can you provide examples? (You mentioned games but didn't actually provide examples within those games of god-tier overpowered characters.)

Mega Rayquaza is a god tier character in Pokemon. Meta-Knight on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Bayonetta is Super Smash Bros. 4. Those are good examples for overpower characters.

[Winthur]

Mega Rayquaza is a god tier character in Pokemon. Meta-Knight on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Bayonetta is Super Smash Bros. 4. Those are good examples for overpower characters.

Meta Knight is often deemed tournament-illegal solving the issue at a community level, as mentioned before.

[Bartmanhomer]

Meta Knight is often deemed tournament-illegal solving the issue at a community level, as mentioned before.

Ok. Sorry if I miss that part.

[veti]

You haven't really explained what you mean by "unbalanced gaming", nor why it's a problem. So you haven't begun to deliver on the thread title.

For instance, I play a phone game called Empires and Puzzles. It's based around constructing teams of five characters for various types of battles. The selection of characters you get to train up and choose from is random, and there's no doubt that some characters are markedly better than others in each context they can be used.

Is it "unbalanced"? If so, does it matter? Millions of people apparently enjoy playing it anyway. Why should "balance" even be an issue?

[Bartmanhomer]

You haven't really explained what you mean by "unbalanced gaming", nor why it's a problem. So you haven't begun to deliver on the thread title.

For instance, I play a phone game called Empires and Puzzles. It's based around constructing teams of five characters for various types of battles. The selection of characters you get to train up and choose from is random, and there's no doubt that some characters are markedly better than others in each context they can be used.

Is it "unbalanced"? If so, does it matter? Millions of people apparently enjoy playing it anyway. Why should "balance" even be an issue?

Unbalanced=not equal

Balanced=equal

May I need to say more?

[darkdragoon]

Even if you reach an arbitrary level of being equal, small differences have drastic differences in outcomes:

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/resoucePr...ournament.html


And really, for most people, the competitive scene is not that important. Or at least shouldn't be worried about until you figure out your own strengths and weaknesses.

[spectralphoenix]

In pokemon's case, it's significantly based around its RPG single player game. There wouldn't be much of a game if the annoying rodent mons you found in your backyard were just strong as the legendaries and dragons you get in the endgame. The competitive scene has tiers so more of the cast can see action.

[Bartmanhomer]

Even if you reach an arbitrary level of being equal, small differences have drastic differences in outcomes:

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/resoucePr...ournament.html


And really, for most people, the competitive scene is not that important. Or at least shouldn't be worried about until you figure out your own strengths and weaknesses.

Intrguing info. Interesting.

[Zevox]

Unbalanced=not equal

Balanced=equal

May I need to say more?

Yes, actually. Even to competitive, tournament players, some of the most beloved games ever are sometimes the least balanced. Among the fighting game community, for example, Marvel vs Capcom 2 and 3 are much beloved titles, but nobody is going to argue that either is remotely balanced. Four god-tier characters and the few best assists dominate competitive play of MvC2 leaving most of the game's over 50 characters unused, and 3 is only a little better off, with top-tiers like Vergil, Doctor Doom, and Zero being head and shoulders above everybody else, and most of the variety coming more from team building potential. Similarly, Super Smash Brothers Melee, while not the most imbalanced Smash game (because Brawl exists), is one of the most widely played and beloved even though it's well out of date now, despite the infamous imbalances between awful characters like Ganondorf, Mewtwo, and Pichu versus the top tiers like Fox, Marth, and Jigglypuff. So it's hardly clear that balanced = good and imbalanced = bad, and there are definitely those who will argue that some amount of imbalance is actually very good for a game.

Moreover, there's a few points that were made by others earlier that are kind of important. For one, most such imbalances don't matter much if you're not a high-level, practically pro player. If you play Smash 4 as a normal person just hopping online, playing Bayonetta is not going to give you a huge edge over other players, because she's a difficult character to play, and you're not going to pick up the zero-to-death combos that make her so great in tournament-level play if you're just messing around with the game. Similarly, Little Mac may be the worst character in Smash Ultimate for tournament play, but you can totally take him online right now as a low-level player and beat some people up with him no problem - because people need to know how to abuse his weaknesses to make him actually functionally be that bad, and most random online players just don't know how to do that. Heck, King K. Rool is another of the weakest characters in Smash Ultimate, almost completely unused by tournament players, but a lot of online players thought he was actually overpowered when the game first came out, because his abilities make him a great noob killer, since most random low-level players can't deal with his attacks having armor or punish his recovery the way a tournament player would. Until your skill is up to a certain level, game balance issues like those, which tier lists are based on, are not so much of a factor to you, as you just can't take advantage of the real imbalances, and can solve the issues that you will run into by just learning to play better against things that might look imbalanced to you at first glance, but which aren't really if you know what you're doing.

Another point worth making: perfect balance is impossible in a competitive game, unless the game makes both/all players have exactly the same options all of the time. The only perfectly balanced fighting game in history is Street Fighter 1, because the only playable character was Ryu (and Ken technically, but only for player 2, and he was genuinely identical to Ryu in that one), so every match that wasn't against the AI was Ryu vs Ryu, and both players were therefore exactly equally balanced. Nobody much likes that game, however, and it's instead Street Fighter 2 that is considered the huge classic that really established the series as it's known today. In any game that isn't like SF1, where players have different options, some will be better than others, even if only slightly, and at top level play the players will gravitate towards those options that give them a better chance of winning, even if only slightly, because they're playing to win. So there comes a point where you need to consider whether the amount of imbalance is too much or okay. For a game like Smash Ultimate, for instance, with a diverse array of viable top- and high-tier characters, and where all but maybe the bottom 10 characters are considered mid-tier or above, the game's pretty darn balanced and there's likely little need to change it much, besides maybe throw some buffs on those handful of worst characters.

[Bartmanhomer]

Yes, actually. Even to competitive, tournament players, some of the most beloved games ever are sometimes the least balanced. Among the fighting game community, for example, Marvel vs Capcom 2 and 3 are much beloved titles, but nobody is going to argue that either is remotely balanced. Four god-tier characters and the few best assists dominate competitive play of MvC2 leaving most of the game's over 50 characters unused, and 3 is only a little better off, with top-tiers like Vergil, Doctor Doom, and Zero being head and shoulders above everybody else, and most of the variety coming more from team building potential. Similarly, Super Smash Brothers Melee, while not the most imbalanced Smash game (because Brawl exists), is one of the most widely played and beloved even though it's well out of date now, despite the infamous imbalances between awful characters like Ganondorf, Mewtwo, and Pichu versus the top tiers like Fox, Marth, and Jigglypuff. So it's hardly clear that balanced = good and imbalanced = bad, and there are definitely those who will argue that some amount of imbalance is actually very good for a game.

Moreover, there's a few points that were made by others earlier that are kind of important. For one, most such imbalances don't matter much if you're not a high-level, practically pro player. If you play Smash 4 as a normal person just hopping online, playing Bayonetta is not going to give you a huge edge over other players, because she's a difficult character to play, and you're not going to pick up the zero-to-death combos that make her so great in tournament-level play if you're just messing around with the game. Similarly, Little Mac may be the worst character in Smash Ultimate for tournament play, but you can totally take him online right now as a low-level player and beat some people up with him no problem - because people need to know how to abuse his weaknesses to make him actually functionally be that bad, and most random online players just don't know how to do that. Heck, King K. Rool is another of the weakest characters in Smash Ultimate, almost completely unused by tournament players, but a lot of online players thought he was actually overpowered when the game first came out, because his abilities make him a great noob killer, since most random low-level players can't deal with his attacks having armor or punish his recovery the way a tournament player would. Until your skill is up to a certain level, game balance issues like those, which tier lists are based on, are not so much of a factor to you, as you just can't take advantage of the real imbalances, and can solve the issues that you will run into by just learning to play better against things that might look imbalanced to you at first glance, but which aren't really if you know what you're doing.

Another point worth making: perfect balance is impossible in a competitive game, unless the game makes both/all players have exactly the same options all of the time. The only perfectly balanced fighting game in history is Street Fighter 1, because the only playable character was Ryu (and Ken technically, but only for player 2, and he was genuinely identical to Ryu in that one), so every match that wasn't against the AI was Ryu vs Ryu, and both players were therefore exactly equally balanced. Nobody much likes that game, however, and it's instead Street Fighter 2 that is considered the huge classic that really established the series as it's known today. In any game that isn't like SF1, where players have different options, some will be better than others, even if only slightly, and at top level play the players will gravitate towards those options that give them a better chance of winning, even if only slightly, because they're playing to win. So there comes a point where you need to consider whether the amount of imbalance is too much or okay. For a game like Smash Ultimate, for instance, with a diverse array of viable top- and high-tier characters, and where all but maybe the bottom 10 characters are considered mid-tier or above, the game's pretty darn balanced and there's likely little need to change it much, besides maybe throw some buffs on those handful of worst characters.

Wow. That's a lot of information. How do you know all this stuff anyway?

[Winthur]

Unbalanced=not equal

Balanced=equal

May I need to say more?

Again, Brood War is considered a very well "balanced" game, yet it has three different factions whose units do not mirror the functionality of their enemies, so the factions in the game aren't "equal" at all.

Moreover, even Brood War's "balance" doesn't mean every race has equal win chances with one another; Protoss vs Zerg labors under a 57% win rate for the Zerg side and it's generally considered the hardest asymmetrical matchup. Terran vs Protoss is simialrly very hard for Terran, sporting a 45% win rate for that race, except at the progamer level there's a trend single-handedly upheld by the greatest Terran of all time where Terran often shows up with the positive win-rate simply because Flash is the strongest player of his race and has better TvP than anyone else.

You are a Chess player, so you should also know that the advantage of playing White gives the matchup a solid positive odds to White in spite of the game being almost entirely symmetrical, which is why super-GMs play White to win and Black to draw, and why an asymmetrical opening like the Sicilian is sometimes considered a bold attempt at a victory whereas the more symmetrical Ruy Lopez variations or something like the French Defense contain plenty of "drawish" lines.

As a matter of fact, everything you will ever play will contain a degree of imbalance and your simplistic understanding of the phenomenon will only ever serve to make you dissatisfied with anything and everything that you will ever play.

Consider also that a lot of people enjoy playing with the lower-tier options as a challenge or because the "weak" side relies on some sort of an underperforming mechanic that is fun to use but not competitive.

[Bartmanhomer]

Again, Brood War is considered a very well "balanced" game, yet it has three different factions whose units do not mirror the functionality of their enemies, so the factions in the game aren't "equal" at all.

Moreover, even Brood War's "balance" doesn't mean every race has equal win chances with one another; Protoss vs Zerg labors under a 57% win rate for the Zerg side and it's generally considered the hardest asymmetrical matchup. Terran vs Protoss is simialrly very hard for Terran, sporting a 45% win rate for that race, except at the progamer level there's a trend single-handedly upheld by the greatest Terran of all time where Terran often shows up with the positive win-rate simply because Flash is the strongest player of his race and has better TvP than anyone else.

You are a Chess player, so you should also know that the advantage of playing White gives the matchup a solid positive odds to White in spite of the game being almost entirely symmetrical, which is why super-GMs play White to win and Black to draw, and why an asymmetrical opening like the Sicilian is sometimes considered a bold attempt at a victory whereas the more symmetrical Ruy Lopez variations or something like the French Defense contain plenty of "drawish" lines.

As a matter of fact, everything you will ever play will contain a degree of imbalance and your simplistic understanding of the phenomenon will only ever serve to make you dissatisfied with anything and everything that you will ever play.

Consider also that a lot of people enjoy playing with the lower-tier options as a challenge or because the "weak" side relies on some sort of an underperforming mechanic that is fun to use but not competitive.

In all honesty, I'm consider to be a low-tier chess player. I'm not a god tier chess player compared to extremely skilled players or grandmasters. And you make a good point about Brood Wars and chess.

[veti]

Wow. That's a lot of information. How do you know all this stuff anyway?

It's not all that much info, but it is a lot of thought. The big takeaway is still "what do you mean by balance, and why does it matter?"

I doubt if it's possible to have two competitive sides be perfectly matched, unless you make them identical. And even then one side will probably have some advantage, like white in chess. In practice, I can't think of any game or sport that expects its sides should always be perfectly matched. The whole point of playing is to determine which is better.

The thing about computer games is, they allow people to recreate exactly the same matches over and over - there's no human athlete who is getting tired, or injured, no changing weather or team spirit, no crowd to get hostile or bored. And in those conditions - quite unlike any real sport - people have the chance to observe and optimise their tactics in a way that hasn't been possible before. If you think about it in those terms, it's not surprising that repeating the same match, over and over until both sides have run out of ideas, eventually settles down to give the same result each time.

[tyckspoon]

Wow. That's a lot of information. How do you know all this stuff anyway?

Zevox is a fight-game nerd.

[Bartmanhomer]

Zevox is a fight-game nerd.

I see. Well, that explains it.