Balance in games - is it done right?
- Thread starter Tinman
- Start date
ChaosADPumpkinHead
New member
Sorry to say this but this article is very poorly conceived. Comparing balancing issues between RTS and FPS games is as futile as trying to compare an Uno to a Ferrari.
There will always be balancing issues in RTS games due to their nature. Does that mean both sides (or all factions) should have all the same equipment and abilities? That would make for a very boring game. I've loved RTS games since day one and the thing that has always kept me from getting more involved in the multiplayer side of RTS games is the internet. What I find happens now is that people get a game, start playing it and then rush onto forums for guides and tips. So what happens is that everyone is essentially using the same, tried and tested tactics. Where's the skill in that?
As for FPS games, well I the last time I thought there were imbalances in an FPS was BF2. The Blackhawk just overpowered the Chinese and MEC equivalents. What did the devs do, they totally nerfed the Blackhawk so that it couldn't even kill infantry.
I like playing FPS games where I can choose the weapon I want to use. In BC2 I sometimes run around as a medic with an M1 instead of HMG. If I encounter someone who's gun has a better rate of fire, well that was my choice. I don't want the devs telling me what gun I am allowed to use or that I must use the same gun as the rest of the players. These issues arose in BF2 with the G36E, which they then nerfed, the PKM was also nerfed, Grenade Launchers were nerfed to the point where you actually had to HIT the target head on to get a kill. All these things ruined a perfectly good game.
I think that this balance "issue" is actually very damaging to gaming in general. Gamers should learn to cultivate their own style, skills and tactics, not just do what "works". I saw this in the few (very few) COD4 clan games that I played in. Everyone had the same kit layouts and the same tactics, so it pretty much comes down to timing and luck.
At the end of the day, I guess it all just comes down to personal preference.
There will always be balancing issues in RTS games due to their nature. Does that mean both sides (or all factions) should have all the same equipment and abilities? That would make for a very boring game. I've loved RTS games since day one and the thing that has always kept me from getting more involved in the multiplayer side of RTS games is the internet. What I find happens now is that people get a game, start playing it and then rush onto forums for guides and tips. So what happens is that everyone is essentially using the same, tried and tested tactics. Where's the skill in that?
As for FPS games, well I the last time I thought there were imbalances in an FPS was BF2. The Blackhawk just overpowered the Chinese and MEC equivalents. What did the devs do, they totally nerfed the Blackhawk so that it couldn't even kill infantry.
I like playing FPS games where I can choose the weapon I want to use. In BC2 I sometimes run around as a medic with an M1 instead of HMG. If I encounter someone who's gun has a better rate of fire, well that was my choice. I don't want the devs telling me what gun I am allowed to use or that I must use the same gun as the rest of the players. These issues arose in BF2 with the G36E, which they then nerfed, the PKM was also nerfed, Grenade Launchers were nerfed to the point where you actually had to HIT the target head on to get a kill. All these things ruined a perfectly good game.
I think that this balance "issue" is actually very damaging to gaming in general. Gamers should learn to cultivate their own style, skills and tactics, not just do what "works". I saw this in the few (very few) COD4 clan games that I played in. Everyone had the same kit layouts and the same tactics, so it pretty much comes down to timing and luck.
At the end of the day, I guess it all just comes down to personal preference.
Raven Gold
Local Boy Hunter
FPS and RTS balance is really a poor comparison, I agree. FPS games rely more on raw skill than the perks and weapons you use. Sure, if you go out with a bolt action rifle like the R700 and try it use it like an assault rifle, you're gonna get slaughtered. Is that a reason to make the R700 shoot at 6k RPM? Or make the assault rifles like bolt actions? I don't. Every weapon and perk in CoD4 has it's advantages and disadvantages that give a particular edge, but relying on any one will be your downfall when facing a player that knows how to counter it.
Subversion
MyGaming staff
You guys seem to have mistaken "balanced" to mean "uniform".
When developers balance games like Heroes of Newerth, they make sure every hero is useful in a specific role - but not to the point of being too powerful.
Using a sniper rifle like an assault rifle is stupid, as would trying to run around a Heroes of Newerth map trying to gank heroes solo with a healer/support hero.
Balanced doesn't mean everything is the same, it means nothing is too powerful in the role it is designed for. And I think a lot of games outside of the genres I mentioned get that wrong.
FPS/RTS wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was simply used to illustrate that balance is taken seriously in one genre, but not in another.
When developers balance games like Heroes of Newerth, they make sure every hero is useful in a specific role - but not to the point of being too powerful.
Using a sniper rifle like an assault rifle is stupid, as would trying to run around a Heroes of Newerth map trying to gank heroes solo with a healer/support hero.
Balanced doesn't mean everything is the same, it means nothing is too powerful in the role it is designed for. And I think a lot of games outside of the genres I mentioned get that wrong.
FPS/RTS wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was simply used to illustrate that balance is taken seriously in one genre, but not in another.
Raven Gold
Local Boy Hunter
In Call of Duty 4's case, that you mentioned, the balance is perfect, every perk, weapon and tactic has it's counter. The promod guys are just pissy because they keep getting toob'd out of thier favorite camping spots or they don't know how to deal with a juggernaught.
hideinlight
New member
I have to agree with this, in HoN especially has taken balancing their game to a whole new level. They've hired various community members and open direct channels of communication to the competitive player-base. Something that should of been done ages ago in FPS gaming.
If you want a game to remain competitive your constantly gonna have to re-iterate it, as new imbalances/meta game that goes against the spirit of the game shows up. For instance HoN had a problem where the meta-game was heavily shifted towards jungling the whole game long then annihilating the opposite team.
Now in FPS gaming that would of just been accepted as the game, but in HoN new mechanics and changes were introduced to shift the meta-game more towards ganking and team fights.
There's a reason why a game like HoN maintains it's player numbers, while FPS games have a huge decline in player numbers after the first few months.
Oh and I've been working on a balance mutator for UT3 in the past few months, not like anyone is gonna care. But it definably improves the overall game experience even though it's only been tested in single-player. Damn bots is OP with linkgun and stinger...
Last edited:
Magnarmalok
The Resident Young'un
Balance is fine.
They just need to nerf QQ
They just need to nerf QQ
ChaosADPumpkinHead
New member
I tend to disagree with this statement. Just look at how long BF2 and COD4 have lasted. I find that the problem is generally with the players rather than with the game itself. Some players are just too lazy to bother to try and improve. I know FPS players that can use a sniper rifle like an assault rifle, they're just that good.
I guess, at the end of the day it comes down to individual taste
Also, I think game developers are aiming more to the casual gamer market as it's easier to satisfy.
HavocXphere
New member
Hardly. The tubes in CoD4 are a real issue. e.g. Guy memorizes starting position angle & starts each round with a tube straight into enemy spawn. 5-6 kills which have *no* counter (short of doing the same leaving everyone dead on spawn).
to0kenZA
New member
I tend to disagree with this statement. Just look at how long BF2 and COD4 have lasted. I find that the problem is generally with the players rather than with the game itself. Some players are just too lazy to bother to try and improve. I know FPS players that can use a sniper rifle like an assault rifle, they're just that good.
I guess, at the end of the day it comes down to individual taste
Also, I think game developers are aiming more to the casual gamer market as it's easier to satisfy.
If you see someone that fires fully automatic sniper rifles, please let us know so we can go nerf his face
Raven Gold
Local Boy Hunter
And the same can't be done with 3x grenade perk? Heres a hint. Don't hang around the spawn, get moving on the objectives you lazy over-time camper.
ChaosADPumpkinHead
New member
If you see someone that fires fully automatic sniper rifles, please let us know so we can go nerf his face
Not fully automatic, just damn accurate
Xero
Official Zombie Slayer
In response to the Column
http://mygaming.co.za/news/columns/10847-Balancing-Act.html
This post, as requested by Chris is to correct the published piece he wrote in terms of the apparent lack of balancing by Publishers in specifically the FPS Genre.
First off:
"Yet while these genres rely so heavily on balance, it seems to be a concept which is completely neglected in other genres. What surprises me more than the absence, is that it never even really seems to be considered, discussed, or even noticed by competitive or even casual players. When last did you ever see a Call of Duty game’s patch notes that looked like this:"
CoD is used as an example here, and it is referred to as not listing or demonstrating the proper balance according to the author.
CoD 4 , since its meteoric rise to power in the online airspace amongst online gamers of all ages might not be the best example of ingame balancing but that aside, the game, in its vanilla format is balanced to the point of delivering a playable experience to both novice and experienced gamer alike.
This form of balancing complies to the standard FPS balancing curve used by a large portion of developers, allowing a low barrier to entry to new players (Grenade Launchers as an Example) while delivering a more complex experience to more experienced users.
As a practical example of this, and using the iGame Stats on CoD 4 gameplay one can clearly see the difference between the amount of kills generated by each individual weapon.
Why is the AK47 more popular and responsible for a larger percentage of kills on the servers than any other weapon?
Is it a balancing issue, or the fact that at Level 5 it is one of the first end game Assault rifles available to players, therefore one of the most widely used in terms of duration ?
A little of both to be compeltely honest, the AK 47, and most CoD 4 players will tell you the same thing, offers the best "Bang for your Buck" in terms of damage and usability, that is if you can learn to compensate for the recoil and other quirks displayed by the weapon.Along with the guys trying to shove the 12 Gauge in our ear packing Juggernaut
In terms of patching, the column lists a large amount of Blizzard activity as the primary support for genres like RTS being better balanced, I can from direct experience confirm that most developers for FPS titles do not make weapon balancing stats public specifically to test the effect on gameplay over all global servers for a specific game.
The changelogs referred to in the article are normally not made public to the their full extent specifically due to the fact that large amount of players ingame and play testing without any prior knowledge of balancing is more effective than informing that same playerbase the OMG , the AK has been Nerfed and having them focus solely on that apsect.
Chris, have you ever played a FPS game competitively?
If you have, then you should know that changes to CoD 4 specifically, including ProMod, which has become the global standard for competitive gameplay in CoD, is not a small scale attempt by the community to mod a title into something that they deem more balanced, but a large co-operative project between the publisher, developer and the community itself to ensure that the balancing required is delivered to the public, moulded specifically to what the community feels works best for the title.
Some games thrive specifically because their Vanilla modes ARE imbalanced and the developers allow access to Mod Tools and actively support the community that plays the title.
The comunity makes the title their own by modding it into the final form they deem fit to test skill on.
In terms of playtesting and balancing post launch, DICE for BC2 are hands down the best developers I've ever worked with.
The DICE/RSP maling list is a literal storm of activity before patches come out, discussing upcoming balances to weapons, gameplay modes and chages that will be implemented to the physical gameplay style of the title.
I am fortunate enough to be a part of this discussion group, and although an NDA between ourselves at iGame and EA/DICE prevents me from making the exact changelogs public, for the same reasons mentioned above, I can assure you that DICE are spending huge amounts of time and massive amounts of internal and external resources to collect, analyse and balance their titles.
Yes its never spot on when it is released, no game could ever claim to be entirely balanced at this stage as no one can anticipate what a worldwide community will attempt/manage to do ingame.We are talking about millions of players, each thinking and reacting to situations differently, each taking a different action based on an event ingame and each using weapons/skills/tactics that do not follow normal conventional thought patterns on an hourly basis.
BUT
If one takes a title like Left 4 Dead 2 for example, the changelogs are pretty detailed for the title, if you have not seen such a changelog, do yourself a favor and get the game and update it to the most recent version over Steam, paying specific attention to the changes implemented since launch in terms of gameplay balancing.
You'll notice that they are fairly extensive, addressing common issues raised by the community and play testers alike.
Therefore a statment such as:
"FPS games seemingly go through little balance testing. I’ve no doubt the developers check out the guns beforehand for major discrepancies – but that seems to be the extent of it. The fact is, in every game, you’re never going to get it perfectly balanced on release. Yet unlike the RTS genre, every other game developer seems content to leave things be – and so do the players."
Simply does not hold true, as mentioned in my original response to your article, if you had done a bt more research, like checking the changelogs which are public on games such as Left 4 Dead, or opening one of the Vanilla or CoD 4 FF files that determine the usage characteristics of weapons, or enquired form a local RSP or from DICE on whether or not they balance post launch, you would have noticed that there is a LOT that happens behind the scenes which the normal public player is unaware of.
This strict regmen of testing and balancing is a constantly evolving cycle, ne balance has a global effect on others etc.
You further state that players also do nothing to balance the title, ProMod as an example?
Players specifically provide feedback through testing and mod titles specifically to address issues raised by balancing tweaks.
In terms of popular games:
"Competitive Counter-strike for example, is dominated by a handful of weapons. Rifles such as the AK-47 are commonplace, while others see little to no use at all. In a game such as Heroes of Newerth, if a hero is not seeing play the developers will attempt to make it a bit stronger, or rebalance it so that it gets more use – and Counter-strike doesn’t have eighty weapons."
http://mygaming.co.za/news/columns/10847-Balancing-Act.html
This post, as requested by Chris is to correct the published piece he wrote in terms of the apparent lack of balancing by Publishers in specifically the FPS Genre.
First off:
"Yet while these genres rely so heavily on balance, it seems to be a concept which is completely neglected in other genres. What surprises me more than the absence, is that it never even really seems to be considered, discussed, or even noticed by competitive or even casual players. When last did you ever see a Call of Duty game’s patch notes that looked like this:"
CoD is used as an example here, and it is referred to as not listing or demonstrating the proper balance according to the author.
CoD 4 , since its meteoric rise to power in the online airspace amongst online gamers of all ages might not be the best example of ingame balancing but that aside, the game, in its vanilla format is balanced to the point of delivering a playable experience to both novice and experienced gamer alike.
This form of balancing complies to the standard FPS balancing curve used by a large portion of developers, allowing a low barrier to entry to new players (Grenade Launchers as an Example) while delivering a more complex experience to more experienced users.
As a practical example of this, and using the iGame Stats on CoD 4 gameplay one can clearly see the difference between the amount of kills generated by each individual weapon.
Why is the AK47 more popular and responsible for a larger percentage of kills on the servers than any other weapon?
Is it a balancing issue, or the fact that at Level 5 it is one of the first end game Assault rifles available to players, therefore one of the most widely used in terms of duration ?
A little of both to be compeltely honest, the AK 47, and most CoD 4 players will tell you the same thing, offers the best "Bang for your Buck" in terms of damage and usability, that is if you can learn to compensate for the recoil and other quirks displayed by the weapon.Along with the guys trying to shove the 12 Gauge in our ear packing Juggernaut
In terms of patching, the column lists a large amount of Blizzard activity as the primary support for genres like RTS being better balanced, I can from direct experience confirm that most developers for FPS titles do not make weapon balancing stats public specifically to test the effect on gameplay over all global servers for a specific game.
The changelogs referred to in the article are normally not made public to the their full extent specifically due to the fact that large amount of players ingame and play testing without any prior knowledge of balancing is more effective than informing that same playerbase the OMG , the AK has been Nerfed and having them focus solely on that apsect.
Chris, have you ever played a FPS game competitively?
If you have, then you should know that changes to CoD 4 specifically, including ProMod, which has become the global standard for competitive gameplay in CoD, is not a small scale attempt by the community to mod a title into something that they deem more balanced, but a large co-operative project between the publisher, developer and the community itself to ensure that the balancing required is delivered to the public, moulded specifically to what the community feels works best for the title.
Some games thrive specifically because their Vanilla modes ARE imbalanced and the developers allow access to Mod Tools and actively support the community that plays the title.
The comunity makes the title their own by modding it into the final form they deem fit to test skill on.
In terms of playtesting and balancing post launch, DICE for BC2 are hands down the best developers I've ever worked with.
The DICE/RSP maling list is a literal storm of activity before patches come out, discussing upcoming balances to weapons, gameplay modes and chages that will be implemented to the physical gameplay style of the title.
I am fortunate enough to be a part of this discussion group, and although an NDA between ourselves at iGame and EA/DICE prevents me from making the exact changelogs public, for the same reasons mentioned above, I can assure you that DICE are spending huge amounts of time and massive amounts of internal and external resources to collect, analyse and balance their titles.
Yes its never spot on when it is released, no game could ever claim to be entirely balanced at this stage as no one can anticipate what a worldwide community will attempt/manage to do ingame.We are talking about millions of players, each thinking and reacting to situations differently, each taking a different action based on an event ingame and each using weapons/skills/tactics that do not follow normal conventional thought patterns on an hourly basis.
BUT
If one takes a title like Left 4 Dead 2 for example, the changelogs are pretty detailed for the title, if you have not seen such a changelog, do yourself a favor and get the game and update it to the most recent version over Steam, paying specific attention to the changes implemented since launch in terms of gameplay balancing.
You'll notice that they are fairly extensive, addressing common issues raised by the community and play testers alike.
Therefore a statment such as:
"FPS games seemingly go through little balance testing. I’ve no doubt the developers check out the guns beforehand for major discrepancies – but that seems to be the extent of it. The fact is, in every game, you’re never going to get it perfectly balanced on release. Yet unlike the RTS genre, every other game developer seems content to leave things be – and so do the players."
Simply does not hold true, as mentioned in my original response to your article, if you had done a bt more research, like checking the changelogs which are public on games such as Left 4 Dead, or opening one of the Vanilla or CoD 4 FF files that determine the usage characteristics of weapons, or enquired form a local RSP or from DICE on whether or not they balance post launch, you would have noticed that there is a LOT that happens behind the scenes which the normal public player is unaware of.
This strict regmen of testing and balancing is a constantly evolving cycle, ne balance has a global effect on others etc.
You further state that players also do nothing to balance the title, ProMod as an example?
Players specifically provide feedback through testing and mod titles specifically to address issues raised by balancing tweaks.
In terms of popular games:
"Competitive Counter-strike for example, is dominated by a handful of weapons. Rifles such as the AK-47 are commonplace, while others see little to no use at all. In a game such as Heroes of Newerth, if a hero is not seeing play the developers will attempt to make it a bit stronger, or rebalance it so that it gets more use – and Counter-strike doesn’t have eighty weapons."
Last edited:
Xero
Official Zombie Slayer
Much the same thing can be said for any FPS title played competitively, this is not entirely balancing based though, semi pro and pro players make educated choices on which weapons to use based on weapon chracteristics, ingame performance, role and specific playstyle.
Counterstrike started out just as humbly, Beta 5.5 which all of us played at local Internet Cafe's and at LAN's introduced players to a tile that was unpolished, lacking exended balancing and heavily dependent on feedback form the community.
This same community feedback pattern is still one of the major contributing factors, not only in FPS but in RTS titles such as Starcraft 2 as well.
Players eventually help determine which gameplay balances are implemented and which ones are not.
"This goes beyond mere weapon choices though, and it also affects casual play. Silly strategies that are highly effective such as camping spawn points with grenade launchers are too a sign of imbalance. In the Modern Warfare games some perks see little to no usage, while others are considered mandatory – this is also imbalance. Yet all patches seem to focus purely on bug fixes, with absolutely no attention paid to making the game more fun. "
Developers cannot be held responsible for player tactics, as mentioned above somewhere, players are a dynamic entity, responsible for their own choices ingame.
You list spawn camping as an imbalance, sure, if you allow it to be, if however you fire back, this becomes less of an issue.
Map designers cannot, either through development or patching do more work on maps than the countless hours they spend during a development cycle on map design.
Yes certain perks are more usefull, but this is also player choice, if a player chooses to use slight of hands and not silent running as an example, that can hardly be seen as a shortfall of the developer in terms of balancing.That is literally a player choice, and yes as a practical example Martyrdom is used by new players in CoD4 and it irritates everyone, but once that new player gains experience he/she/it will soon enough change strategies to kill the enemy in a more honorable manner.
"As consumers we just need to expect a little more. I’m not arguing that painstaking balance testing is necessary for every single game – because it’s not. But if your aim is to make a game that will be played competitively in international tournaments, or even just have a big online following – you’re going to need to put in a little more effort"
As mentioned, you cannot presume to know what developers do behind the scenes unless you actually research the situation.
If you had any concept of what development entails and what exactly goes into producing and releasing a modern title, you wold understand that inhouse play testing by professional gamers for countless hours is still not going to yield the results that a public beta will for balancing.
"Currently, outside the RTS/RPG genres, gamers are taking this balancing into their own hands. Modifications which strip games down to just a few of its core elements are common, such as the “Promod†servers for Call of Duty 4."
This statement is in direct contradiction to the one quoted above saying players are content to leave balancing out of a specific title.
These mods are done by the community, on tools that are released by the developer specifically to ensure that the community can shape the game to what it requires, this is the best way of balancing for competitive gameplay around.
"There shouldn’t be a need for the gamers to balance a game themselves – developers need to be answerable to their own products, and a little more post-release loving is certainly due"
Once again, you are assuming that developers do no post release balancing, yet as demonstrated in the post above, they actually spend a lot of resources doing exactly that, developers also do not work for free, it costs Activision money to patch a title, contrary to popular belief and therefore these revisions are often batched together with bug fixing patches, with release notes stating which Class A bugs are fixed instead of the endless list of weapon tweaks that are being implemented.
"However, I genuinely do believe that perfect balance on release is impossible to achieve, and these games do not make any changes with patches in terms of balance."
Once again, this statment is based on what exactly, surely not information that is factual when taking into account that all FPS publishers spend large amounts of resources patching and balancing their titles?
In closing though, an example is used of certain amounts of dominant weapons being used for competitive gameplay, which is worse though, having the same weapon characterisitics for all weapons and therefore balancing the game down to make all weapons usable, thereby making weapon selection a moot point based entirely around which skin you prefer to be on your +1 Damage rifle, M4 or Ak ?
Or balancing up, to ensure that at least one weapon in each class is perfectly suited to a high level of competetive play?
I recall playing with every weapon available in vanilla CoD 4 leagues, where the guys with the recoilless M4 would dominate with Red Dot sights, to playing PAM where the MP5 would fire from the hip at long range with almost 0 bullet spread, to ProMod where the AK 47 emerged as the dominant weapon if players were willing to learn to play with it properly.
In the end everything you mentioned in your column is based on personal opinion and not backed up by facts at all, dev's do a lot fo work behind the scenes and players are eventually responsible for how they use the balances introduced.
The only discernable difference between RTS developers like Blizzard and FPS Developers like DICE / Activision is the amount of information they make public during patching, had your article stipulated that instead of the content released, I would have agreed 100%
Developers should be more open about what they are changing in my personal opinion, simply to allow players to identify changes and react to them accordingly.
Counterstrike started out just as humbly, Beta 5.5 which all of us played at local Internet Cafe's and at LAN's introduced players to a tile that was unpolished, lacking exended balancing and heavily dependent on feedback form the community.
This same community feedback pattern is still one of the major contributing factors, not only in FPS but in RTS titles such as Starcraft 2 as well.
Players eventually help determine which gameplay balances are implemented and which ones are not.
"This goes beyond mere weapon choices though, and it also affects casual play. Silly strategies that are highly effective such as camping spawn points with grenade launchers are too a sign of imbalance. In the Modern Warfare games some perks see little to no usage, while others are considered mandatory – this is also imbalance. Yet all patches seem to focus purely on bug fixes, with absolutely no attention paid to making the game more fun. "
Developers cannot be held responsible for player tactics, as mentioned above somewhere, players are a dynamic entity, responsible for their own choices ingame.
You list spawn camping as an imbalance, sure, if you allow it to be, if however you fire back, this becomes less of an issue.
Map designers cannot, either through development or patching do more work on maps than the countless hours they spend during a development cycle on map design.
Yes certain perks are more usefull, but this is also player choice, if a player chooses to use slight of hands and not silent running as an example, that can hardly be seen as a shortfall of the developer in terms of balancing.That is literally a player choice, and yes as a practical example Martyrdom is used by new players in CoD4 and it irritates everyone, but once that new player gains experience he/she/it will soon enough change strategies to kill the enemy in a more honorable manner.
"As consumers we just need to expect a little more. I’m not arguing that painstaking balance testing is necessary for every single game – because it’s not. But if your aim is to make a game that will be played competitively in international tournaments, or even just have a big online following – you’re going to need to put in a little more effort"
As mentioned, you cannot presume to know what developers do behind the scenes unless you actually research the situation.
If you had any concept of what development entails and what exactly goes into producing and releasing a modern title, you wold understand that inhouse play testing by professional gamers for countless hours is still not going to yield the results that a public beta will for balancing.
"Currently, outside the RTS/RPG genres, gamers are taking this balancing into their own hands. Modifications which strip games down to just a few of its core elements are common, such as the “Promod†servers for Call of Duty 4."
This statement is in direct contradiction to the one quoted above saying players are content to leave balancing out of a specific title.
These mods are done by the community, on tools that are released by the developer specifically to ensure that the community can shape the game to what it requires, this is the best way of balancing for competitive gameplay around.
"There shouldn’t be a need for the gamers to balance a game themselves – developers need to be answerable to their own products, and a little more post-release loving is certainly due"
Once again, you are assuming that developers do no post release balancing, yet as demonstrated in the post above, they actually spend a lot of resources doing exactly that, developers also do not work for free, it costs Activision money to patch a title, contrary to popular belief and therefore these revisions are often batched together with bug fixing patches, with release notes stating which Class A bugs are fixed instead of the endless list of weapon tweaks that are being implemented.
"However, I genuinely do believe that perfect balance on release is impossible to achieve, and these games do not make any changes with patches in terms of balance."
Once again, this statment is based on what exactly, surely not information that is factual when taking into account that all FPS publishers spend large amounts of resources patching and balancing their titles?
In closing though, an example is used of certain amounts of dominant weapons being used for competitive gameplay, which is worse though, having the same weapon characterisitics for all weapons and therefore balancing the game down to make all weapons usable, thereby making weapon selection a moot point based entirely around which skin you prefer to be on your +1 Damage rifle, M4 or Ak ?
Or balancing up, to ensure that at least one weapon in each class is perfectly suited to a high level of competetive play?
I recall playing with every weapon available in vanilla CoD 4 leagues, where the guys with the recoilless M4 would dominate with Red Dot sights, to playing PAM where the MP5 would fire from the hip at long range with almost 0 bullet spread, to ProMod where the AK 47 emerged as the dominant weapon if players were willing to learn to play with it properly.
In the end everything you mentioned in your column is based on personal opinion and not backed up by facts at all, dev's do a lot fo work behind the scenes and players are eventually responsible for how they use the balances introduced.
The only discernable difference between RTS developers like Blizzard and FPS Developers like DICE / Activision is the amount of information they make public during patching, had your article stipulated that instead of the content released, I would have agreed 100%
Developers should be more open about what they are changing in my personal opinion, simply to allow players to identify changes and react to them accordingly.
Last edited:
hideinlight
New member
6 February 2011
82,879 82,879 Counter-Strike: Source
82,380 82,380 Counter-Strike
56,035 56,035 Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
45.284 45.284 Heroes of Newerth
42,935 42,935 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
32,350 32,350 Football Manager 2011
27,322 27,322 Sid Meier's Civilization V
22,113 22,284 Team Fortress 2
16,426 16,591 Left 4 Dead 2
11,124 11,261 Empire: Total War
10,835 11,546 Call of Duty Black Ops
24 March 2011
72,049 76,310 Counter-Strike
66,443 70,035 Counter-Strike: Source
42,000 42.000 Heroes of Newerth
32,976 36,512 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
30,491 32,948 Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
26,547 28,110 Total War SHOGUN 2
25,143 25,385 Football Manager 2011
19,487 19,487 Team Fortress 2
16,542 16,542 Sid Meier's Civilization V
13,330 14,281 Left 4 Dead 2
8,403 8,924 RIFT
The more balanced a game is, the longer it lasts. Because balanced games have more depth and variety in the end.
82,879 82,879 Counter-Strike: Source
82,380 82,380 Counter-Strike
56,035 56,035 Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
45.284 45.284 Heroes of Newerth
42,935 42,935 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
32,350 32,350 Football Manager 2011
27,322 27,322 Sid Meier's Civilization V
22,113 22,284 Team Fortress 2
16,426 16,591 Left 4 Dead 2
11,124 11,261 Empire: Total War
10,835 11,546 Call of Duty Black Ops
24 March 2011
72,049 76,310 Counter-Strike
66,443 70,035 Counter-Strike: Source
42,000 42.000 Heroes of Newerth
32,976 36,512 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
30,491 32,948 Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
26,547 28,110 Total War SHOGUN 2
25,143 25,385 Football Manager 2011
19,487 19,487 Team Fortress 2
16,542 16,542 Sid Meier's Civilization V
13,330 14,281 Left 4 Dead 2
8,403 8,924 RIFT
The more balanced a game is, the longer it lasts. Because balanced games have more depth and variety in the end.
Last edited:
Xero
Official Zombie Slayer
I dunno, Yes it might contribute to the longevity of the title, but, some of the most balanced games are also some of the most boring ?
Take Frontlines , game was uber balanced but never really had any players over a longer period of time.
No argument on HoN though, it is probably one of the best looked after and supported titles of our time, my argument was over the FPS titles and devs and RSP's that spend a lot of time collecting data for balancing and then being singled out.
Also remember, Activision now follows a different approach to releasing titles, they focus on Pushing content and then expanding with DLC , so they won't do too much balancing on a title when they simply revitalize player numbers by releasing a few rebuilt maps
Btw, you mentioned a UT3 Modifier you were working on?
Any details?
Take Frontlines , game was uber balanced but never really had any players over a longer period of time.
No argument on HoN though, it is probably one of the best looked after and supported titles of our time, my argument was over the FPS titles and devs and RSP's that spend a lot of time collecting data for balancing and then being singled out.
Also remember, Activision now follows a different approach to releasing titles, they focus on Pushing content and then expanding with DLC , so they won't do too much balancing on a title when they simply revitalize player numbers by releasing a few rebuilt maps
Btw, you mentioned a UT3 Modifier you were working on?
Any details?
Last edited:
HavocXphere
New member
You're not hearing me. Start round. Blink. Dead. As in dead <1 sec from round start. You know where the team starts the round, all on one pile? Thats where the toob hits. Hence 5-6 kills with a single tube.
Nades only start arriving >5 seconds into the round (5 sec fuse
). Because they have less forward momentum they A) fly slower B) need a higher trajectory C) don't have the range to hit the opposing round start point without both teams running towards each in the first few seconds.With a tube used as described you've got <1 second, which isn't enough to clear the tube AoE. i.e. There is *nothing* you can do to prevent dying.
uhmm wtf dude?
Subversion
MyGaming staff
In response to the Column
http://mygaming.co.za/news/columns/10847-Balancing-Act.html
This post, as requested by Chris is to correct the published piece he wrote in terms of the apparent lack of balancing by Publishers in specifically the FPS Genre.
First off:
"Yet while these genres rely so heavily on balance, it seems to be a concept which is completely neglected in other genres. What surprises me more than the absence, is that it never even really seems to be considered, discussed, or even noticed by competitive or even casual players. When last did you ever see a Call of Duty game’s patch notes that looked like this:"
CoD is used as an example here, and it is referred to as not listing or demonstrating the proper balance according to the author.
CoD 4 , since its meteoric rise to power in the online airspace amongst online gamers of all ages might not be the best example of ingame balancing but that aside, the game, in its vanilla format is balanced to the point of delivering a playable experience to both novice and experienced gamer alike.
This form of balancing complies to the standard FPS balancing curve used by a large portion of developers, allowing a low barrier to entry to new players (Grenade Launchers as an Example) while delivering a more complex experience to more experienced users.
Yes, but the "new user options" are usually removed by modders due to imbalance, such as all the weapons taken out for promod. This "balancing curve" you're talking about runs completely opposite to the kind of balance I want. It's an interesting concept and discussion point though.
As a practical example of this, and using the iGame Stats on CoD 4 gameplay one can clearly see the difference between the amount of kills generated by each individual weapon.
Why is the AK47 more popular and responsible for a larger percentage of kills on the servers than any other weapon?
Is it a balancing issue, or the fact that at Level 5 it is one of the first end game Assault rifles available to players, therefore one of the most widely used in terms of duration ?
A little of both to be compeltely honest, the AK 47, and most CoD 4 players will tell you the same thing, offers the best "Bang for your Buck" in terms of damage and usability, that is if you can learn to compensate for the recoil and other quirks displayed by the weapon.Along with the guys trying to shove the 12 Gauge in our ear packing Juggernaut
Being Level 5 only certainly isn't an issue in competitive play. An AK47 may be the most versatile when you're running around on a casual server trying to shoot anything that moves, but in a competitive match different people in the team serve different purposes. But each team role generally only makes use of 1 or 2 weapons per role that are considered useful (or that are actually available after modders have taken everything out).
In terms of patching, the column lists a large amount of Blizzard activity as the primary support for genres like RTS being better balanced, I can from direct experience confirm that most developers for FPS titles do not make weapon balancing stats public specifically to test the effect on gameplay over all global servers for a specific game.
The changelogs referred to in the article are normally not made public to the their full extent specifically due to the fact that large amount of players ingame and play testing without any prior knowledge of balancing is more effective than informing that same playerbase the OMG , the AK has been Nerfed and having them focus solely on that apsect.
If balance patching is actually going on, its not working. I'm focusing on the end result here - games dominated by only a few choices. I want more viable choices in competitive play, and if patching is going on, its certainly not facilitating that.
Subversion
MyGaming staff
Chris, have you ever played a FPS game competitively?
If you have, then you should know that changes to CoD 4 specifically, including ProMod, which has become the global standard for competitive gameplay in CoD, is not a small scale attempt by the community to mod a title into something that they deem more balanced, but a large co-operative project between the publisher, developer and the community itself to ensure that the balancing required is delivered to the public, moulded specifically to what the community feels works best for the title.
Some games thrive specifically because their Vanilla modes ARE imbalanced and the developers allow access to Mod Tools and actively support the community that plays the title.
The comunity makes the title their own by modding it into the final form they deem fit to test skill on.
I made this point in my article - and argued that it should be up to the developers to create this "final form" - it is them, after all, that make most of the money from their game being played competitively, not the mod groups. If you look at Blizzard again, they make the modifications, but they do so based on feedback from the community. You're saying here that "Vanilla modes in some games ARE imbalanced". Well that's what I'm complaining about. Maybe you like that, I don't. But that is just a matter of opinion, so I don't think you then have the right to say I'm objectively wrong whilst confirming what I'm arguing is true. Everything after that point is subjective.
In terms of playtesting and balancing post launch, DICE for BC2 are hands down the best developers I've ever worked with.
The DICE/RSP maling list is a literal storm of activity before patches come out, discussing upcoming balances to weapons, gameplay modes and chages that will be implemented to the physical gameplay style of the title.
I am fortunate enough to be a part of this discussion group, and although an NDA between ourselves at iGame and EA/DICE prevents me from making the exact changelogs public, for the same reasons mentioned above, I can assure you that DICE are spending huge amounts of time and massive amounts of internal and external resources to collect, analyse and balance their titles.
Yes its never spot on when it is released, no game could ever claim to be entirely balanced at this stage as no one can anticipate what a worldwide community will attempt/manage to do ingame.We are talking about millions of players, each thinking and reacting to situations differently, each taking a different action based on an event ingame and each using weapons/skills/tactics that do not follow normal conventional thought patterns on an hourly basis.
BUT
If one takes a title like Left 4 Dead 2 for example, the changelogs are pretty detailed for the title, if you have not seen such a changelog, do yourself a favor and get the game and update it to the most recent version over Steam, paying specific attention to the changes implemented since launch in terms of gameplay balancing.
You'll notice that they are fairly extensive, addressing common issues raised by the community and play testers alike.
Bravo to Valve then. As for EA/DICE - they're the best developers YOU have ever worked with. Have you worked with RTS developers before? Probably not. And my complaints are focused pretty much entirely on post-release, not pre-release, as I've stated in the article.
Therefore a statment such as:
"FPS games seemingly go through little balance testing. I’ve no doubt the developers check out the guns beforehand for major discrepancies – but that seems to be the extent of it. The fact is, in every game, you’re never going to get it perfectly balanced on release. Yet unlike the RTS genre, every other game developer seems content to leave things be – and so do the players."
Simply does not hold true, as mentioned in my original response to your article, if you had done a bt more research, like checking the changelogs which are public on games such as Left 4 Dead, or opening one of the Vanilla or CoD 4 FF files that determine the usage characteristics of weapons, or enquired form a local RSP or from DICE on whether or not they balance post launch, you would have noticed that there is a LOT that happens behind the scenes which the normal public player is unaware of.
This strict regmen of testing and balancing is a constantly evolving cycle, ne balance has a global effect on others etc.
You further state that players also do nothing to balance the title, ProMod as an example?
Players specifically provide feedback through testing and mod titles specifically to address issues raised by balancing tweaks.
Not sure how you can mention promod, as I mention it myself. I actually argued that players do ALL the balancing themselves. I can't speak for L4D, and if they do make efforts to balance that's great and bravo to them, maybe they can lead the charge. As for Call of Duty titles - as I've said before, any balance efforts which may have been made (by developers, not modding communities) are simply not working.
I should also add that even promod is not what I want from balance. The game may be competitively balanced, but at the cost of taking 3/4 of the stuff out. And THAT is what I am taking issue with.
If you have, then you should know that changes to CoD 4 specifically, including ProMod, which has become the global standard for competitive gameplay in CoD, is not a small scale attempt by the community to mod a title into something that they deem more balanced, but a large co-operative project between the publisher, developer and the community itself to ensure that the balancing required is delivered to the public, moulded specifically to what the community feels works best for the title.
Some games thrive specifically because their Vanilla modes ARE imbalanced and the developers allow access to Mod Tools and actively support the community that plays the title.
The comunity makes the title their own by modding it into the final form they deem fit to test skill on.
I made this point in my article - and argued that it should be up to the developers to create this "final form" - it is them, after all, that make most of the money from their game being played competitively, not the mod groups. If you look at Blizzard again, they make the modifications, but they do so based on feedback from the community. You're saying here that "Vanilla modes in some games ARE imbalanced". Well that's what I'm complaining about. Maybe you like that, I don't. But that is just a matter of opinion, so I don't think you then have the right to say I'm objectively wrong whilst confirming what I'm arguing is true. Everything after that point is subjective.
In terms of playtesting and balancing post launch, DICE for BC2 are hands down the best developers I've ever worked with.
The DICE/RSP maling list is a literal storm of activity before patches come out, discussing upcoming balances to weapons, gameplay modes and chages that will be implemented to the physical gameplay style of the title.
I am fortunate enough to be a part of this discussion group, and although an NDA between ourselves at iGame and EA/DICE prevents me from making the exact changelogs public, for the same reasons mentioned above, I can assure you that DICE are spending huge amounts of time and massive amounts of internal and external resources to collect, analyse and balance their titles.
Yes its never spot on when it is released, no game could ever claim to be entirely balanced at this stage as no one can anticipate what a worldwide community will attempt/manage to do ingame.We are talking about millions of players, each thinking and reacting to situations differently, each taking a different action based on an event ingame and each using weapons/skills/tactics that do not follow normal conventional thought patterns on an hourly basis.
BUT
If one takes a title like Left 4 Dead 2 for example, the changelogs are pretty detailed for the title, if you have not seen such a changelog, do yourself a favor and get the game and update it to the most recent version over Steam, paying specific attention to the changes implemented since launch in terms of gameplay balancing.
You'll notice that they are fairly extensive, addressing common issues raised by the community and play testers alike.
Bravo to Valve then. As for EA/DICE - they're the best developers YOU have ever worked with. Have you worked with RTS developers before? Probably not. And my complaints are focused pretty much entirely on post-release, not pre-release, as I've stated in the article.
Therefore a statment such as:
"FPS games seemingly go through little balance testing. I’ve no doubt the developers check out the guns beforehand for major discrepancies – but that seems to be the extent of it. The fact is, in every game, you’re never going to get it perfectly balanced on release. Yet unlike the RTS genre, every other game developer seems content to leave things be – and so do the players."
Simply does not hold true, as mentioned in my original response to your article, if you had done a bt more research, like checking the changelogs which are public on games such as Left 4 Dead, or opening one of the Vanilla or CoD 4 FF files that determine the usage characteristics of weapons, or enquired form a local RSP or from DICE on whether or not they balance post launch, you would have noticed that there is a LOT that happens behind the scenes which the normal public player is unaware of.
This strict regmen of testing and balancing is a constantly evolving cycle, ne balance has a global effect on others etc.
You further state that players also do nothing to balance the title, ProMod as an example?
Players specifically provide feedback through testing and mod titles specifically to address issues raised by balancing tweaks.
Not sure how you can mention promod, as I mention it myself. I actually argued that players do ALL the balancing themselves. I can't speak for L4D, and if they do make efforts to balance that's great and bravo to them, maybe they can lead the charge. As for Call of Duty titles - as I've said before, any balance efforts which may have been made (by developers, not modding communities) are simply not working.
I should also add that even promod is not what I want from balance. The game may be competitively balanced, but at the cost of taking 3/4 of the stuff out. And THAT is what I am taking issue with.