Why Are Games So Hard To Balance?

[@GibusWearingMann]

I'm pretty sure there exists a competitive Rock Paper Scissors league. The metagame there is built entirely around being as unpredictable as possible and trying to detect and exploit any unnoticed patterns in your opponent's strategy.

[@zidaryn]

I think high level Rock Paper Scissors is less a game of chance and more a psych game. Guess, manipulate your opponet. Bluff. Etc.

[@smort123]

@@zidaryn arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/win-at-rock-paper-scissors-by-knowing-thy-opponent/ "A new study applies statistics, probability, and psychology to RPS. "

[@jacksonmagas9698]

Knowing some human psychology as it relates to RPS allows you to get around a 75% winrate against most people, the first one is close to 50/50 who wins (although most people pick scissors first so rock is slightly greater than 50%) but after that you can exploit psychology to know what they are most likely to do next

[@richlee3777]

If you're going to go hardcore, you go Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock! www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html

[@EmpReb]

Fighting games are Rock Paper Scissors with one more move.

[@GamerKey91]

Ah yes, the classic "Players are GREAT at identifying problems, but horrible at designing solutions for them". This should be the first lesson for any game designer. Listen to your players, if they are complaining then something is most certainly wrong. But take their suggested solutions not with a grain, but with an entire shaker of salt.

[@fragarena9910]

On the other hand developers have stopped playing their own games as well. Which has lead to a number of trash tier games for the last few years. If the game is not built for competitive , DON'T ADVERTISE IT AS COMPETITIVE!! Is that too hard to ask for ?

[@TalynWulf]

Also, never forget that they are terrible at telling you what the real problem is. A lot of times, their complaint is actually their intended solution. Basic example is "There are not enough powerups." This is a solution (Increase number of powerups), not the base complaint (I don't have enough base power).

[@BigDaddyWes]

If the players are complaining, that doesn't necessarily mean there is something wrong.

[@_Salok]

The shaker of salt IS the player's feedback. :)

[@ronnielenroberts6136]

Look for a trend developing in their complaints.

[@thelemon8424]

I'm cancelling my patreon support because of this video. I can't believe all this time I was supporting a member of Big Chess.

[@aryanarjun07]

ur kidding right lol

[@rubedog961]

@@aryanarjun07 no, he's not, and I'm in full support of his decision.

[@aryanarjun07]

@@rubedog961 Ok gud for u

[@rubedog961]

@@aryanarjun07 *NO* good for *YOU*

[@aryanarjun07]

@@rubedog961 I just asked a question

[@chompyzilla]

There’s a phenomenon in board games called “point salad” games where instead of winning by completing a specific objective, players receive points for various things throughout the game. Naturally the designers would try to balance the amount of points any particular activity gives so no strategy is too dominant. However, if they do *too* good a job at it, then you can have a game where your decisions are mostly irrelevant because any strategy is equally as good as any other.

[@nielsunnerup7099]

It sound to me like the problem in that game is that the only relevant choice to make is which strategy you're going to go for. In chess for example it also doesn't matter that much which strategy you choose, but instead how well you execute it.

[@winged_destro]

Yea one time I won in Mario party for getting rent the hardest by the game, I got a shitload of points for rolling bad and getting teleported away from the actual points

[@nullpoint3346]

At that point you start filling the game with trap options.

[@revimfadli4666]

Seems like the problem moves towards low/weak interaction. If player actions affect each other strongly(be it directly or indirectly), then "overly balanced" strategies can still be interesting because players would have to make moves that are least susceptible to disruption, while trying to both sabotage other players and progress their own strategy at the same time

[@subprogram32]

I am reminded of the recent Enter the Gungeon update, where after a long, long time of complaints about the scarce drop rates in the game, they changed the drop rates and rarity up to be more generous and less punishing. But they also made it a thing you could toggle, so that old players could still play the harsh beast they were used to as well. Which setting is more balanced? No way to tell. But one group of players will find one setting more fun, and another (perhaps smaller) group will find the other setting their cup of tea. But having the option there will always be in that game's favour. :)

[@Beregorn88]

the one with which YOU have more fun

[@ricardoteixeira3491]

Yeah, but you will not know which one you'd like before actually playing the game, so the choice can become sort of "pointless"

[@cachotognax3600]

I think the best solution would be to have the old low drop an unlock for new players. So they can start by feeling the old and originally intended way, and then get the option to make it easier on them. That way most players will try the hi drop once unlocked, and make them fully aware of the effects, so they could decide to stay in the "ezy mode" for a less harsh time, or see how unfun would it be and remain in the "hardmode"

[@ricardoteixeira3491]

Like in Celeste right?

[@subprogram32]

Problem is that if you start with the harder version, many players might just go 'this blows' and quit playing without ever unlocking the easy mode. :P

[@JM-nothing-more]

the complexity of MtG's color pie is probably one of the biggest reasons the game has stayed alive for as long as it has it encompasses game mechanics (as roughly outlined in your video), morality and ideology and character traits for all the colors, and even after over 20 years the game's designers are still finding new elements to add to each that make sense within the pie, in all those areas

[@poryg5350]

Modern is dead and standard makes combining colors quite difficult. For me it's quite simple. :D

[@Telendil]

@@poryg5350 Magic the Gathering quite simple??? It`s the most complex game you can have without a PC. It`s actually so complex that it is "turing complete" and able to demonstrate the "halting problem". Meaning the game is so complicated and complex that you can get a board state that is an actual "turing machine". If you think it`s boring than probably because you didn`t understandt it`s possibilitys in stategy and decision making to their full extend. Also you normally don`t play mono colored decks in standard with the exception of red. And modern isn`t dead it`s one of the most played formats in the world. BTW Magic is after Poker the highest endowed game you can play outside of PC games and sport.

[@poryg5350]

@@Telendil Yugioh still enjoys a large player base just like Modern, yet many consider it dead. The reason why is simple - many people simply play the current meta, even on championship level. Standard has one advantage compared to Modern, the rotation every 3 months. Even still, the colour combinations are mostly the same. You rarely want to play 3 colours and so the recurring colour combinations would be RB, RG, UB, UW, R and U+Artifacts. RB and RG are more aggro, UB and UW are controls. That looks like a quite simple spectrum to me, not sure about you. And you're right, I've never understood the full extent of strategy in MTG, but as a teenager I did not even have the cash to invest to it, so I just played with a decent, but cheap deck for the fun of it. It all ended with the rise of Modern, because the card prices immediately skyrocketed. Nowadays I mostly watch MTG from distance. It's gotten faster than it used to be and more streamlined. Also, what does the turing completeness have to do with competitive MTG? The fact that there CAN be a complete turing machine on board does not mean that it's SOUND to do it competitively, adding into theoretical max complexity of the game, but changing nothing for the competitive field.

[@Telendil]

@@poryg5350 No the deck that is able to produce this board state isn`t a competitive deck. And yes the game is expensive no question about that but from what you are saying i can already tell that you never really played competetive magic on a serious level. Maybe just because it costs a shitload of money (BTW playing standard is way more expensive than playing modern in the long run because you have to build a new deck with every set that comes out and you can easily spend 300-400 bucks per deck and this 3-4 times a year ... a good modern deck costs around 1200 and more). And i won`t judge that this is to expensive for a lot of people. I just played casual a long time but modern is still one of the most played formats in tournaments and far away from being dead. In Part because with every new set that comes out the meta in modern shifts at least a little bit (ok not as much as standard but still) and new decks and strategies emerge all the time. Also there are a good amount of 3 colored options for modern and for standard or even 5 color options for the current standard for example. And your right a lot of people just play variants of the current meta but thats because they don`t have the time and knocklege to brew their own competetive decks. But let me try it with another example wow classic should be a settled thing with all the tactics being set in stone. But the PVP meta on the servers still is changing weekly with absolute crazy results and tactics. But maybe i don`t understand what your definition of dead means in the context of a tcg.

[@nilleftw]

Blizzard is famous for their delicate touch on balancing. "This class/item/spell is a bit too good, let's nerf it with 95%!" Repeat forever.

[@cecilrhodes2153]

DE too, they love nerfing the hell out of stuff.

[@honkers112]

This aged well

[@Fjuron]

*Everything affects everything.* This is exactly why I highly advocate for rock solid balance foundations, optimally mathematically expressed and calculated. I see so many games that just have wired fundamentally unbalanced systems at their core, which makes balancing them an impossible act of trying to build a straight house on a crooked foundation.

[@darthvaderreviews6926]

Actually, I disagree. Not with the idea that balance foundations shouldn't be well-thought out, but with the emphasis on math. *The foundation of balance should ALWAYS be the human element, not the raw numbers, because that's what makes your game fun in the first place and makes balance matter.* This is why Tic-Tac-Toe is garbage nobody enjoys playing past the age of ten and why Chess has endured for centuries. Both are very balanced games, but chess is complex enough that even a grandmaster can and will make strategic mistakes and a truly perfect game with no room for being outsmarted is just outside of human reach. In other words, if you can assemble something you can say with certainty is mathematically balanced because you've done the math, (excluding completely symmetrical games) you should double-check how the human element interacts with that math and if it's even fun in the first place. Also, a small imbalance is actually acceptable and arguably shakes things up and makes everything healthier for your game, see MOBAs and how the red team has a verifiable disadvantage. Many game designers will also argue that while a perfect meta is unattainable for a sufficiently complex game, the constant adjustments and ebb and flow of that meta can make for a healthier community.

[@seabassthegamer6644]

I'm no expert, but I'll offer my two cents. I would consider the "balance foundations" to be the default game state, with no influence from player choice. In games with character choice, all players will use the same character in order to remove influence of character choice. In both chess and tic-tac-toe, the default state slightly favors the first player. However, the thing that makes chess interesting is the amount of player choice built on top of the default state. Tic-tac-toe lacks the choice built on top of the default state. They both have the same "balance foundations," but chess builds more on them. In something like Street Fighter, the "foundation" would be that the stage is always flat and that the characters are always in the same place at the start. In cases where the game is farther from symmetrical, say, a capture the flag mode with a defence team and an offence team, it's a bit more complicated, as having everyone use adefensive character could benifit the defenders and everyone using an offensive character could favor the offence. Switching who does what every other round would help guarantee better balance. The ultamate goal is to make player choice what differentiates the winners from losers. In conclusion, the foundation of a game, which is free from player choice, should be as balanced as possible. Things the player can chose (characters, actions, ect.) can be less balanced as long as no option invalidates everything else or is invalid in its own right.

[@kerel995]

@Fjuron where have you been all my life?

[@timothymclean]

Rule of thumb: If you're a layman wondering why a team of professionals working in their field don't do something simple that would solve the problem, you are probably ignorant about the flaws in that solution. If you're a professional wondering why a team of fellow pros working in their field don't do that, you are probably ignorant about the time that trying that solution caused bigger problems by clashing against parts of the project which are only clear if you spend significant time on that specific project.

[@archmagusofevil]

Don't be ridiculous. The word expert is right there in the title "armchair expert". With my tens to hundreds of hours of play time, I clearly know better than the people who spend 40+ hours a week analyzing millions of games, digging into the mechanics, and experimenting with tweaks.

[@willywonka6487]

bullshit. ive made several gameplay mods that overhauled game mechanics to be far superior and even help the AI out, often only taking hours. devs get attached to silly ideas they cannot let go of and lack the flexibility to make rapid decisions

[@timothymclean]

Willy Wonka Superior according to whom? How thoroughly did you test those mods for stability, performance, engagement, etc? (Basically all AAA games aim for ludicrously high standards of stability due to requirements by console-makers.) How many people actually used your mod, and how representative of the entire audience were they? Etc etc etc.

[@fragarena9910]

Timothy McLean Consider this as an alternative to both your points. To the developers : If a game is not built from the core as a competitive game then DON'T ADVERTISE IT AS SUCH. (Example : overwatch, hearthstone etc)

[@karlzone2]

Overwatch was almost certainly built to be competitive from the ground up. I'm not sure what your problem is, because the competitive scene is doing incredibly well.

[@LordofBroccoli]

My suspicion is that Hearthstone's balance is so shit because Blizzard knows it will force players to buy more packs to get the few OP cards rather than if more cards were better balanced. A Hearthstone xpack usually has about 5% OP cards, 10% specific deck-defining cards, 10% playable cards, then 75% experimental or outright garbage cards. You'll have to buy a hell of a lot more packs to get those few OP or deck-defining cards, then if say, 40% of the cards were well-balanced.

[@MrElgate]

There is that, for sure but there is also another reason. Let's assume, you don't have the money to buy all these packs, but you bought a few. Now, if you really want said meta deck to play, your option is to dust the card you've acquired to turn them into the meta cards. Now if Blizzard decided to "balance" these cards (Nerf/up other cards) they would shift the current meta and by doing so, the player that actually put only a little money into the game an barely managed to get 1 deck going would go from being somewhat decent and able to play in legend to below average again. In this case, the reason not to improve balance is NOT found in the lack of will to do so, but in the will to keep more "casual" players that cannot afford to make change often. If you want a very simple example, MTG will do. If there is a deck that is slightly above average, many players will want it. But if suddenly, the cornerstone of the deck receive a ban, all the people that bought their competitive card for hundreds of dollar now have a card that is basically worthless, not only money wise (can't sell it anymore) but gameplay wise (can't play it competitively). TL:DR, Blizzard has always been and will always be hungry for money, but there are as many legitimate reason for them to chose this approach.

[@lhumanoideerrantdesinterne8598]

Nah. I won't pretend that Blizzard isn't a greedy company but I'm certain the design team is legitimately trying to keep the game balanced and for the most part, they manage it. Now do most cards never say competitive play? Yes, for sure, but that's pretty much an inevitability. Competitive means the best option available and, as this video points out, it's not possible, nor wanted to make all the options equally viable, so naturally people who want to have the best possible deck will gravitate toward a few cards. What matters is whether the cards which aren't "the best" can still stand a chance, and the answer in HS's case is yes. Even if you don't own a specific card, you can usually replace it with a perfectly adequate substitute (unless that card is the cornerstone of your deck of course) and win games against "better" decks. Sure, your overall winrate will probably be lesser than if you had the meta card, but not by a huge margin. If they really wanted to be greedy they would have introduced massive power creep with every expansion, something they managed to avoid. Sure, someone who owns all the expansions will have access to more powerful options than someone with just the basic set, but that's because they have access to more options and combination, not because their cards are individually stronger (for the most part).

[@C0C0L0QUIN]

Delvaux Jean-Baptiste Did someone say "Artifact affinity"?

[@Metushalakh]

in terms of packs, the nerfs usually target the S rank decks. but all too late to boost sales. Another big problem is that Hearthstone favors RNG (in effect or in draw order) as a balancing mechanism but conversely devolves into rock-paper-scissors in its more balanced metas. So, I think what the devs perceive as "fun" or "balanced" is also a critical but more subjective design factor. Players must find out for themselves whether their expectations will ever match the designer's expectations.

[@MrElgate]

Unfortunately, i do not get the reference :p I am not a MTG player, I only know from a friend that the value of card can vary really quick with expansion and sometime with competitive ban ^^ I only referenced MTG because it was the closest to heartstone I could find that could also describe that same feeling of something you've spent money/credit/time in suddenly getting trashed and losing all its value.

[@rmsgrey]

Larry Niven has an anecdote. During one of his many collaborations with Jerry Pournelle, the publisher came back to them with a list of edits they wanted made. The two authors double-teamed the publisher and argued him down on every single one of those points, defending their original choices. Then they sat down afterwards with the list and went through it themselves, and made a change (sometimes the suggested one) for each of the listed edits. The lesson is the same as the point in the video: people are good at spotting where there are problems, but bad at coming up with the right solutions.

[@blarg2429]

"The two authors double-teamed the publisher" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[@8rynjar]

And as a result superman is terribly unbalanced

[@QrazyQuarian]

"So no one deck can reliably access them all." Oh ho ho... My Superfriends and Sliver decks wholly disagree.

[@fireflocs]

'Overpowered' and 'underpowered' are not terms that refer to static, permanent traits of a character. They refer to a given game element's viability _in the current meta,_ and are thus synonyms for god tier and trash tier.

[@MajkaSrajka]

What about the game that has several static metas possible (several equilibriums)? Are things that are trash tier in current meta (playerbase choice), but would be good in different metas really underpowered?

[@TheStrangeSandwich]

I think the point that is important to drive home there is that quite a few people do not realize you can buff or nerf characters/whatever by changing up their counters/general mechanics they rely on.

[@Madhattersinjeans]

For multiplayer games yeah but for other games that aren't as competitive balance terminology has different meanings entirely and different results depending on what you change.

[@ebbandfloatzel]

@@MajkaSrajka they likely are just low tier and brought up to mid/high tier when the meta pops up. A good example is actually Gnar from League of Legends. He's a tank buster that does well in tank metas, but isn't as useful in more brawler and especially duelist oriented top lane metas. While he isnt played as much when those metas pop up, he doesn't go all the way to trash tier because of it. He might lower to mid or low, but he wouldn't be trash because he still does what he wants to do. But an example of a character that is trash tier would almost certainly be someone like Chogath who got his items nerfed, and then on top of that has to deal with characters like Kaisa or mixed damage comps. So he doesn't do anything specifically better than other tanks. In fact, he does a lot of it worse than most tanks now.

[@Пашинамузыка]

"God" and "trash" are not antonims.

[@chemicalbacon5210]

10:59 Sorry to pick hairs but this part triggered me Skaven have bad infantry on paper, but they have above normal unit sizes per cohort - this means that whatever they throw at themselves at, they will always have the advantage. Skaven don't have the worst artillery but calling it good isn't accurate either. it's "meh". Their power comes in overwhelming numbers and monstrous units which can provide a stronger backbone to the weaker clanrats. You build near half of your army as a mix of clanrats/stormvermin and then augment that army with specific counter large such as poison wind globes (anti-large armour piercing), death runners (high damage anti lord/anti hero units), rat ogres (fast anti armour), etc. That's how they are balanced, a weak but numerous core with specialist units that need to be protected due to their low unit sizes. /neckbeardrage

[@MajkaSrajka]

neckbeard rage best rage

[@8rynjar]

Sorry but have to pick at your reply. Their artillery is the best at what its supposed to do. Plagueclaw catapult, demoralizise and smash infantry engaged with slaves. Warp cannon for big monsters/heroes before engagement then finish with assassin. Death runners are best deployed in synergy with gutter runners due to their -50 armor for 10 sec bonus. Rat ogres for tippin the scale on the morale or keeping heroes occupied. Your suggestion of both clanrats and stormvermin plus ogres plus globes in one army sounds pretty expensive. And they are not completely balanced. They are missing some hard counters against heavy archer based factions (high elves and dark elves). And as a glass canon faction with hard counters as a premise, this will be incorporated. My guess is jezztails vs archers, 15~ rats functioning as precicion artillery with slow reloading times. They can counter everything else.

[@night1952]

You just made me realize why i like playing black in chess. Because i like to disrupt the enemy and counter him

[@fi4re]

Grim1952 just curious; what level do you play at? I wonder if the pros agree or disagree with you.

[@night1952]

Oh no, i'm a total casual, any pro should destroy me. I just find playing that way fun.

[@fi4re]

Ah. What openings do you prefer as black?

[@8rynjar]

Or you're afraid to start? I always pick white, and you wont disrupt my tactic!. Unless you do of course.

[@dmas7749]

not a chess player myself but i've noticed this about myself as well i won't wait for the enemy to attack me first in games but i mostly find enjoyment in countering and finding ways to shut my enemy down

[@ThePredatorsBack]

*Saying Rock Paper Scissors* *Showing Overwatch* I think I love this channel

[@christianmio6562]

ThePredatorsBack not

[@saltefan5925]

There's a reason, most game developers use the term "Overperforming" when they comment on a complaint about an item/character/class/whatever players call "OP"

[@SneakySnorunt]

Commenting my own thoughts before viewing. I think In a lot of games, especially single player games, it's always balanced in your favor. Even difficult stages that you won't beat on the first try like a Cuphead boss give you the advantage by simply letting you retry until you learn about it and finally beat it. Multiplayer is where it gets messy. RTS's (that genre on the brink of extinction) usually tackle balancing by taking the rock-paper-scissors approach. Basically everything is strong against something, and victory will depend on reacting to the enemy army composition. Although some older or smaller RTS's struggled with this and there was only one really OP unit that everyone would go for. Games like mobas have the 'meta' which shifts with updates. Basically just changing what is OP at different times, while also having(for the most part) characters that counter any given character which brings into play game knowledge and skill with specific characters. Lastly games like Fortnite don't really have a balance. It has a obvious hierarchy of what's better, and although skill is definitely involved in encounters, if two players on the same skill level face each other, the one with the better gun will always win. The randomness itself doesn't really allow for a balanced game. I only scratched the surface, and I just talked about common games. I'm sure you'll go much more in depth.

[@EvilParagon4]

htf did you comment this 18 hours ago? My sub box only just showed it and it says 37 seconds ago (prolly 2 minutes at this point).

[@SneakySnorunt]

Evil Paragon 4 Patreon early access 😊

[@EvilParagon4]

Ahhh, so that's how that works. I thought Patreon early access was like, uploaded on Patreon first or something.

[@SneakySnorunt]

Evil Paragon 4 Nope! The video is just set to private and we get the link. Then later it's changed to public

[@Rain663]

Thanks for this video. : ) As a long time League of Legends player it's given me a much better perspective to view the balance changes through, and the tools to talk about it to other people.

[@nilloc93]

makes me think of TW:S2 when warrior monk armies were all over the place, people complained endlessly that you couldn't beat warrior monk armies, but eventually the player base realized that katana core rush armies are simply countered hard by warrior monks, and warrior monks are countered hard by balanced armies.

[@thepizzafoogle5481]

No amount of OP soldiers can defeat pure combined arms.

[@tatters8236]

*raises hand* the total warhammer skaven work the same was as tabletop skaven, they've been pretty well designed for a swarm army from the start.

[@Leivve]

Imperial Guard from 40k follow the same philosophy. Big tanks with big guns, with a wall of bodies between you and them. Even in the lore alien races comment about how the humans have a lot of tough tanks.

[@lv100Alice]

man honestly you have some of the best games i have seen talking about the interesting parts of game design. hopefully one day i can become a patron

[@LordEpos]

11:42 Though I was not a fan of Vaskii's changes to mana agglomeration and how they effected Botania as a whole, I'm content enough just to see that whole thing acknowledged in such a video.

[@alessandrocavicchioli7557]

Arlo Mates Yeah, thought the same. That was a very nice clip

[@TheStrangeSandwich]

I've compiled what is probably an incomplete list of things to consider and tips for multiplayer balancing: 1. Avoid samey gameplay, often through many strategies. Tic Tac Toe is the opposite of this. It's easy to find the optimal strategy and just do that. 2. Make sure the viable strategies are fun and interesting to use. I guess the opposite this is something like pirate warrior in HS. You just go face. 3. Make sure the viable strategies are fun and interesting to play against. Counterplay, as it is called. The opposite of this would be a combo deck from HS. "Fun and interactive", as they say. 4. Make sure the most powerful strategies require a great deal of skill(Type of skill dependent on your choices). Core players hate being defeated by someone less skilled. Zerg rush is obviously the opposite here. 5. Make sure the new players have a chance. If any new player is just instantly going to get obliterated by the best players, you will not have a playerbase larger than 30 guys. (Note this can also be achived by matchmaking, though good luck there) 6. Make sure there is a good difficulty curve. Sort of fits in with the former. Avoid huge difficulty spikes. The opposite of this is fighting games in many cases. They rarely give a good introduction. 7. Try to build in some catch up mechanics so most rounds feel really close. Getting completely stomped is frustrating, and stomping isn't really that engaging either. 8. Think about teamworking. How much does your game rely on it? What tools and guidelines should you lay in that regard? I played a game where there were sort of defense and attacker roles but also not really, and most new players had no idea what a hero was good at and what they should do with it. Contrast that to Overwatch, where each character fits in a class and you know what your role is in the team when you are playing that class. 9. Avoid one solution fits all problems mechanics. This fits in with point 1, and Fortnite indeed had this problem with people building in close and shotgunning. 10. Make sure the delta of RNG isn't too high. Extra Credits have some good episodes on this. 11. Make sure the game isn't too frustrating or punishing. Players will not have a good experience if they are constantly sitting in a respawn screen over minor mistakes. 12. Make sure to communicate and give feedback to players as to why they lost or died, so they know where to improve. 13. A lot of strategy viability can be dependent on the enviroment. Build strategy variation into your map design.

[@ledsanreplays8225]

I really liked something you said, its vetter buff than nerf, also that makes people that likes to play some character or strategy a happier player because is more viable, and gives a better and more interesting challenge to the top tier users, so I guess its a win win

[@Crackhoven]

Thanos wouldn't like this Video. Edit: Ok, I gotta be honest here. I mostly have KZbin Videos on my second Monitor while I'm playing a game. I just heard the opportunity to make a Thanos Joke at around 02:35 and went for it. I scrolled up on the video and saw the Annotation. Congratulations, I played myself.

[@pholidia8175]

9:26 This triggers me soooo hard... I know you're trying to make a point but *just attack with the horseman to make magmaboii not die* You'd have lethal both ways but reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[@dragonmaster1500]

Kind of like how in D&D and Pathfinder, the wizard class is very versatile, in that they can learn every spell on their spell list, but they need to plan ahead and prepare their spells in advance. On the other hand the Sorcerer class can't learn nearly as many spells as a wizard, so they become much more specialized, but they can cast any spell they know at any time without preparing in advance and they can also cast more spells per day than a wizard can.

[@RedCaesar97]

Really great video breaking down game balance. The thing about buffing/nerfing that I've seen some people talk about is that for competitive games, such as fighting games: - players typically want to buff their favorite/main characters - players typically want to nerf characters they struggle against Some of these buffs/nerfs may be valid complaints against the game's current real or perceived balance problems, but may just be certain players wanting to better without actually getting better.

[@bugjams]

I think one of the Overwatch devs said something like this, "If the majority of players are saying something is too powerful or too weak, then it's too powerful or too weak. Even if you've play-tested it a million times, and the numbers on paper say it should be perfectly balanced, what matters is how your player base FEELS. Because if they FEEL bad, like the game's unbalanced, they'll leave. So the player is always right, even when they're wrong." I've never stopped thinking about that when it comes to game balancing. This video opened my eyes up to the dev's point of view on balancing, but it's also important to remember that at the end of the day, what matters is that your players are happy, too. And even if it creates imbalance, if it makes the majority of your fans happy, then it's a good decision to make.

[@devilsadvocate2876]

The problem with that line of thinking is not addressing that we live in a different time for multiplayer games, where people rarely play for the fun, but for the competition and as long as there is a loser, people will be unhappy and rage out on their point of view that the game is unfair somehow. Thus dev's would always cater to the losers of any game and that doesn't make for good balance either.

[@literallyh3093]

You make alot of good points. Please make a part 2 soon. LETS TALK ABOUT CAPITALISM

[@almondpotato9483]

Don't worry. The entire strategy of Rocket League is to just fly around doing flips in the general direction of the ball until you score.

[@TrueLimeyhoney]

This has explained a side of the game balance I've never thought of before, Thank you very much!

[@FireFox64000000]

If you'd like an excellent example of how perfect balance can kill a game There's a Martial arts tournament game out there. I forget the name but it was actually perfectly balanced the only problem is everybody hated it because it wasn't fun. Another example of how imbalance makes games better is a rom hack for Street fighter 2 and Minecraft.

[@j2dragon109]

FireFox64000000 Just because an perfectly balanced game is boring, doesn’t meant perfect balance is boring.

[@onepoundswallowtwopoundcoc3115]

Humans miss variables all the time. I highly doubt op game was perfectly balanced. Balance just means that things in game are not redundant, or pointless. I think this video is ignoring the human variable, which is what usually makes a game balanced. Never has balance referred to every thing equal when i've talked to other gamers. This idea of the word balanced is flawed. It ignores what humans can do, which is why trash tier is destroying god tier in smash bros for pete sake. The trash tier is not actual trash, just not understood by players( until they are ). . The chess game is balanced as i've beaten people who played more than me, and were clearly more capable for the most part, while playing black. If it were unbalanced I would not be able to beat a better opponent a 3 times out of ten. The flaw is his idea of balance, so don't get suckered into that idea being correct.

[@duanebridges2915]

Another genre where "overpowered" and "underpowered" are demonstrable are free-to-play games on mobile platforms. Another platform was the various Facebook games. The specific games I am referring to were the ones where you paid cash to collect characters. I played (and paid) for a few "uncool" characters because they were impossible not to include on defense, but I also paid (but never played) some "wicked cool" characters that I wanted but knew they were absolutely useless in the game itself. In these games "overpowered" and "underpowered" were specific monetization choices.

[@viatori5566]

I am taking a programming class to learn 'C'. For our second project, we had to have a user enter 2 numbers. One number counted to the next number using various math. I have spent the last 5 hours trying to figure out how to get the user to not break my program. For fucks sake I can't imagine how hard getting everything right in something as complex as a video game would be.

[@Jamesthe1]

C is a low-level language, meaning it doesn't have the abstraction/obfuscation most other languages have, and therefore it doesn't have all the safeguards you'd find in other places. But yeah, programming games is quite a task and may even take an entire team depending on what you're working on.

[@viatori5566]

@@Jamesthe1 do you program?

[@Jamesthe1]

Yep, I do. C++ and C# are both languages I like to work with

[@viatori5566]

@@Jamesthe1 fuck yeah. What do you use them for?

[@Jamesthe1]

Game programming. It's an entirely different beast compared to game design, that's for sure

[@Blottingpaper]

Just want one critique Skaven are balanced that way via the TT game as well, hordes of rats with big splodey machines

[@hydraulichydra8363]

6:17 I've played OW for about 2 years. It is usually like that: Something that was perfectly fine a few seasons ago (without getting buffed) is suddenly meta (best example is after Triple Tank ended Tracer went from unpickable to completely meta (although to be fair, all characters except S76, Ana, Lucio, Hog, Rein, D.VA, and (maybe) zarya were unpickable in that...) And normally when something is OP, they don't directly nerf it (at least not majorly), they just "shift the meta" until something else comes in...

[@bigboydancannon4325]

Great video. I stopped playing Overwatch because of the constant and unnecessary changes.

[@ReadyAimFire_]

Interesting video. Still after playing so many hours of Diablo, Starcraft and Overwatch i think Blizz is bad at balancing lol.

[@doxazo5512]

You could spend a whole balance episode talking about Enter the Gungeon. At the beginning of the game, it feels grindy, inaccessible and SO unfair, but as you slowly start to beat bosses more easily, and clear floors without taking damage, you start to unlock more and more items, until at last once you get to the endgame you start unlocking some objectively insanely OP guns and items. This is completely ok because it’s a single-player roguelite. You’re not unfairly demolishing another person, and because of RNG you can and will go many runs without getting any insane combos that make the game a walk in the park. Part of why is is so satisfying and is in fact necessary is because of how tough the game was to begin with. Dying on the first floor so many times makes it a genuine achievement to beat the game, and OP items don’t make it boring, they just make your revenge on the game all the sweeter. (Casey-Super Hot Watch-Bloodied Scarf anyone?)

[@propheinx2250]

There's also another consideration when talking about modern day multiplayer games. Most MOBAs are built to have unbalanced characters, this is to encourage the player to buy the character. Release a character that's broken and overpowered so people get decimated without a chance, those people in turn want to decimate others the same way so they flock to spend money to unlock the character that decimated them, then the makers actually balance the character in preparation of the next character, and repeat till the game dies. Sure fire way to rake in the cash.

[@no3ironman11100]

Dota doesnt do that, whenever a new hero comes out for the past 5 or so years the pro scene is like "it's good but not insane" (the heroes are free though, and they start with no skins available to buy etc)

[@sandwichboy1268]

"No one deck can reliable have them all" Enter my sliver overlord edh deck (which 5 color)

[@Fluffy56547s]

When you watch every single Adam Millard video over the course of two days. 👌 Great writing man.

[@silvertheelf]

...I highly agree with your idea to make everything in overwatch an identical clone of bastion... but! I would make all the maps into bastion as well. And I would change the name of the game to Bastion Watch. 😂

[@Rhyno012345]

I find your commentary on Hearthstone’s Magma Rager interesting. It reminds me of a child learning to play the recorder (a simple plastic musical instrument). Kids don’t learn to play the recorder to become a professional recorder player, but learning to play this simple instrument helps build the foundation for understanding how to read music and how a musical instrument functions. Once this understanding is achieved, it is far easier to transition to a more complex instrument. The Magma Ranger serves a similar purpose by giving the player a simple, easy to use card which then helps them learn the game mechanics and build their understanding of overall game strategy.

[@drcookie2]

Epic shouldve looked into this before nerfing double shotgun to oblivion when they allready had buffed the smg's making double shotgun less favorable in a fight. By removing the double shotgun you are now left with less options when it comes to strategies in fortnite.

[@PyroMancer2k]

The talk about Fort Night and shotgun made me think of X-Com and how it also pushed into curtain strategies. In the original I remember focusing a lot on long range sniping and high explosives to clear out buildings since the terrain was destructible. So there was always lots of wide open lines of fire. However in the remake the terrain was not really destructible as you couldn't simply blow a hole in a wall and enter from there. This forced a lot more close quarters fights and as the game progressed I find that long range sniping was less and less viable. Instead it tended to favor more mid range and close fights which made heavy hitting things really useful. This was only made more apparent by the enemies getting a free turn when revealed. In X-Com 2 the focus on nearly every mission having a time limit turned what use to be a plan carefully and approach cautiously into a charge in with max fire power and hope for the best. Where the first game had me occasionally fielding a sniper for cover on open field missions the sequel had me pretty much never field one because their inability to move and shoot on the same turn meant they couldn't keep pace with the team and would fall behind. And since there is a time limit to complete objective with endless waves of aliens in some missions, having one character who can't keep up is a problem.

[@massaosaito4084]

Very neat video, but I missed the metion of "overloaded" kit. In games like LoL, with hundreds of characters created and reworked for years with clearly different mindsets behind those designs, balance becomes truely challenging, maybe impossible.

[@Leivve]

That's why riot has resorted to a cycle system. You'll have flavor of the seasons, and one patch wonders, but the goal is to make as many champions as possible have a turn in the spotlight. Well made champions might fall in to the "good" basket more often then not, but the goal is for everyone to get a turn at some point.

[@archmagusofevil]

Leivve Let us never forget that at one point they even made Urgot playable on the professional stage. Anyone capable of doing that knows how to mess around with balance.

[@Raymoclaus]

In this case, "overloaded" is just a comparative term describing the difference in the amount of utility one kit has compared to others. If players were smart and wanted more interesting kits to play around with, then they should actually be complaining about the "underloaded" kits which is usually a case of being outdated.

[@shdowdrgonrider]

Raymoclaus no no no. Interesting kits have distinct weaknesses to them and unique strengths. An overloaded kit can have so few weaknesses or too many strengths as to feel unfair to play against even if it is "balanced". The opposite is true with underloaded kits. I think a good example is lulu in league of legends. She has almost every possible tool at her disposal for her role. She has a REALY strong slowing effect with high damage on q Either a heavy attack speed steroid or a "polymorph" which is essentially another slow combined with a silence on her w. Which of these two you get depends on whether you cast on an ally or enemy. Her e is a damage steroid and a strong shield (effective health) or just flat damage depending on if cast ally or enemy. Finaly her ult is an aoe knockup for .75 second (crowdcontroll, can't do anything while under it) with an aoe slow for 7 second that also grants an extremely strong shield to the ally cast on. She has every tool a support could ever need or want with no downsides. I don't think she is overpowered. Only that she has too many options compared to other supports.

[@jamesvonderhaar2553]

A game where 30 characters are viable and 200 are not isn't much different than one where 30 characters are viable and 5 are not, right? The absolute number of options matters much more than the percentage (e.g. Pokemon has like 400 final stage options for a trainer to choose from, and at any given time maybe 35 of them are in the "OU" tier).

[@Пашинамузыка]

In my opinion, the game balance is in it's core mechanics. For example, in "rock-paper-scissors" if Player 1 sees Player 2 using rock only, they can win by using scissors only. The questions are "what decisions do you make" and "how much decisions cost". If they go scissors, use rock. Kingdom rush: if spiders show up, use artillery. StarCraft 2: if zerg goes mutalisks, use phoenixes as protoss. A decision or action that anybody is capable of or can learn to do is the ultimate counter to another - that's easy. The second question is what it costs to make a decision. It's relatively hard to define exact strategy of opponent in "rock-paper-scissors", but one may win the next round or create a strategy thet probably has more chances to win. In Kingdom rush resources are limited so sometimes it's hard to switch strategy the moment one sees a specific enemy type and the foes may break through. And in games like StarCraft 2 one has time to respond if they get to know the opponent's strategy. But the players don't have equal opportunities due to different races or heros in games. So if one decision is countered, there must be a way to counter that counter. If it exists, the problem is solved. Also, I think it's very important to have some kind of material for studiyng that assures players there is always an acessible though maybe not very obvious way to win to stop all the "change the numbers, X is too _strong_ / _weak"_ whining forever.

[@jambott5520]

The thing about balance, is that you can play anything until you get to the highest tiers. I just grinded 300 sr, from mid diamond to masters with a group solely running dive, usually into meta Brigitte comps

[@minecraftoverlordpe2842]

11:43 Wow I never expected to see this again.

[@darkranger116]

Thank you for the video. I can see where you're coming from in your thought process here. For years, i've gone on about the imbalance in TF2, and I feel like its entirely justified to be honest. I've never made a game before, but I know what TF2 is all about. And I can tell you right now, the Demo and Soldier class got 10 times more love than anyone else. Most of the classes experience some kind of stagnation in their side-weapons giving them more options of play. But the one Class that is suffocated the most is the Sniper. After they turned the Darwin Shield into yet ANOTHER anti-pyro item, and they still havnt changed the Huntsmans headshot mechanics.. I mean why would they even bother making more content or fixing stuff at this point.

[@alecchristiaen4856]

Taking LOL as an example to show the butterfly effect of game balancing: In the game, there's a status effect called *grievous wounds* which hampers healing abilities. A select few methods are used to apply it (the ignite summoner spell, the mortal reminder item, etc). If they decide to buff grievous wounds, suddenly healing will become a less appealing ability. Champions like Vladimir, swain (tanky mages with self-healing mechanics), supports with heals (Taric, Soraka, Bard, Janna, etc), and Kayn's darkin form (tank-killer/disruptor with lots of healing) will become less viable, as do items with healing abilities (Bloodthirster, death's dance, ardent censer). The weakness of these champions and items means that the entire balance shifts. The champions normally countered by the above champions will become more viable, sometimes broken, because their usual counter has been nerfed. However, nerfing grievous wounds would cause the inverse. Champions with powerful healing sustain become unstoppable monsters because their main counter has been nerfed, allowing them to steamroll entire teams unchallenged. A single number can completely change the meta, and haphazardly fixing an issue will cause a weird wack-a-mole situation where each fix opens up a new issue. This isn't helped though by Riot's design philosophy, which is to "stir the pot" each year, spend the next 12 months fixing what they broke, and stir again when things settle.

[@alecchristiaen4856]

another notable thing in game balance, are broken mechanics. Gonna take another swing at LoL, specifically the champion Aatrox (more specifically before they reworked him). Aatrox is a fighter, and his general gameplay is based around using his hp to cast his abilities, storing them in his energy bar. If he dies, he empties the bar to resurrect, but this ability has a several minute cooldown. The intended playstyle of Aatrox was to have very good auto-attacks, because one of his abilities gives him a heal on his attacks. It's basically recommended to build lifesteal so he can regain hitpoints with every swing. Here's the issue: either Aatrox can remain topped off so long he's hitting something (and he's surprisingly mobile, so kiting is not an option), or he can't and dies almost immediately. This creates what Riot calls a *feast or famine* scenario: the champion's mechanics force the devs to either nerf them to hell, or to let clearly overpowered gameplay go unopposed. You'll see other champions based on self-healing in the game, notably Vladimir and Kayn, who both have a similar self-heal from damage. The difference is as follows: -Vladimir is a mage, and only one of his spells reliably heals him, but it has a 3-hit passive, where every cast gives a charge, and when he's fully charged, he can briefly do a *premium succ* for increased damage and healing. However, while he is beefy, he'll generally need to run around and time his spells right to have optimal tankiness. Also, his other basic spells cost him health, and his ultimate doesn't give an immediate burst of damage or healing, but marks enemies for a later burst. Timing and positioning is essential. -Kayn is a skirmisher (specifically his fighter mode, his assassin mode doesn't feature the discussed healing), and he gets a generous percentage of the damage he deals to champions with his abilities back as healing. However, due to item availability and his relatively short range and long execution window, he's best suited taking on tanks and fighters, rather than squishy targets that can kill him before he closes the distance. The healing will hold against a tank or a fighter, but the concentrated dps of a marksman will kill him. So similar concepts can be implemented, but the trick is to have exploitable trade-offs that don't diminish the general usefulness.

[@timholden8007]

This should be a mandatory video for all players of competitive games!!

[@Grim-c8n]

In Titanfall 2 some players complained The Ronin Titan didn't have enough health. Later, players realized his sword block ability makes it one of the best defensive Titans, they just weren't using the ability enough

[@devincory9695]

Why do people hate Bastion so much? I've only ever played Overwatch for, like, 2-3 hours at a friends house once (on the easiest mode against AI), but Bastion was by far the most fun character to play as. I don't really get it.

[@MajkaSrajka]

IDK. Maybe "fun and interactive"?

[@_Salok]

Basically, Bastion has the highest damage output while standing still by FAR (about 500 Damage per second in turret mode if I recall correctly)... 300hp for a DPS as well as a self-heal capacity makes him kinda beefy. To make matters worse, his weak point in turret mode is in the back. Since he has no turning speed penalty, the moment a bastion gets shot from behind he can turn around to prevent further headshot damage.

[@cabrondemente1]

Bastion was able to get headshot damage, ever since that was removed it's just an average niche choice.

[@williamforsythe5850]

The real problem is that game devs keep trying to balance for the lowest common denominator player. They do it for more playerbase which equals more money and that makes sense if that's all they care about. There needs to be tiers of balancing between game mechanics and skill. Let me explain. If in an FPS for example you have a type of railgun that does massive damage and outclasses all the other guns, keep the railgun and instead of rendering it useless add in a condition of skill. Make it do the massive damage if you hit a certain weakspot on an enemy but make it do significantly less damage if it misses that spot. If in an MMO you have an overpowered invulnerability skill (lets say a paladin). Give it a condition of skill to balance it. You first need to get a killing blow on an enemy to use said ability. People are fine with imbalance as long as it comes from someone who is really good at the game. It feels more fair. Dark Souls I think did a great job at this. Parry is incredibly strong but it takes a lot of skill to use it properly. Gamers in particular don't want to feel like the game is difficult, they want it to be challenging. Difficulty comes from unfair mechanics of the game (like an AI cheating and fudging numbers) and challenge comes from the game being hard for the player (dodging the big boss move correctly). Make things hard but give the player a way to overcome it and your game will be legendary.

[@creatorreda2379]

The Overwatch example is a great way to explain these complicated power struggles. Nice job. New subscriber ^_^

[@ABetterWeapon]

I've now watched several of your videos. I like what you do, and I have made the decision to subscribe. Please, continue kicking ass.

[@Guirko]

Someone should show this to the people over at Digital Extremes, the people who made Warframe. And tell them to actually start playing their own game while they're at it.

[@stevenneiman9789]

I hadn't thought about the way that buffing a weak option in such a way as to counter a strong option might affect the metagame, but I've been saying the same thing about poor balance hiding content for years. The important thing to remember is that balance is a means, not an end.

[@endlesswaffles6504]

Something to consider is that balance can vary greatly based on skill level. In low level Overwatch, Pharah can bomb your team with little resistance. At a Pro level, she gets torn apart by hitscans. My friends always blame me for losses when I play Bastion (Even when I have 3 Golds), but he can be effective at low level.

[@stevenneiman9789]

The thing to remember is that balance isn't an inherent virtue of a game. More than a goal it itself, balance is a supporting structure for the depth of game, and the places where the game seems poorly balanced are sometimes hidden brilliance. Not only are there the cases Adam talked about where balance can be used to create an interesting and diverse metagame or guide players towards a better understanding of the game, they can also be a way to provide a relief mechanism for inexperienced players, provided you're careful not to let the easy noob option turn into the new god-tier. A great example of this is the ranged weapons in Dark Souls. With some clever use of ranged attacks you can bypass something like 50% of the game by picking off enemies before they can fight back or by separating enemies who would gang up on you otherwise, but because Dark Souls is so hard even so, and because the option takes more time and effort, it doesn't make a player feel inferior if they have to do it the way adjusting a difficulty setting would.

[@Discalle112]

Great video,one would hope all ppl screaming on forums would see this. Ppl just dont get balance.

[@majmage]

1:01 _"don't actually shoot for perfect balance"_ _"imbalanced in just the right way"_ Given the accuracy of the entire rest of the video, these lines felt a bit weird. They _seem_ to be making the typical mistake of conflating balance with asymmetry? Basically the first priority is the game has to be fun. Most games become significantly more fun if they're *asymmetric.* Meaning: multiple playstyles exist. The reason why this works is it increases the retention of the game: there are more playstyles to try to figure out and more types of interactions to understand before the player will have completely mastered the game. When a game is mastered, it's boring. All the learning up until that point is where the game is fun...assuming the player feels they're constantly improving. ( _A Theory of Fun_ by Raph Koster fully fleshes out this idea of "fun in games is because the human mind enjoys learning") The second priority is perfect balance. So it's a lower priority, but it's still the goal. The better the balance, the longer it'll take to master the game (which is perhaps best understood by imagining a game with the Worst Possible Balance where doing one thing automatically always wins, and therefore the game is mastered almost instantly -- and therefore boring almost instantly). Increasing asymmetry tends to make balancing things harder, so they're two forces in tension. But both are pretty important for most game genres (all PVP genres, and even some PVE genres). Apart from that nitpick, the video is very accurate and bonus points for linking the Sirlin article (one of the best articles on the topic). I started work in the games industry in 2000 and it's basically been non-stop game balance (to varying degrees) since the start, back when I complained about the see-through-and-shoot-through-walls Farsight sniper rifle in Perfect Dark (N64). (I abused it pretty hard trying to get it fixed, but alas...)

[@Acidima]

Wow I am a new game dev and idk about others but your videos help me figure out how to make my game better

[@Maric18]

i always wanted to see a mechanic where (for an online game) all the characters/strategies have some "sliders" on them that boost/nerf them in a specific way (2 main alternatives: making them better/worse at what they do or making their aux parts better/worse, like a high dps sniper whatever character cares about damage, but could also be made more or less glasscannony via more or less hp) and those sliders get adjusted by pick/ban rates in real time. Gameplay stays the same, but specific number based balancing shifts, so people that are good with a character still have an advantage, but noone can just ride a characters inflated stats to victory

[@RobinSwede]

There was a turn based transformers game kinda like this. Transforming your characters lent them special abilities and/or increased damage as well as determine who strikes first.

[@raphniamagna2567]

something else about balancing you should consider is that something being god tier or trash tier also depends on what the player is doing. For example in Splatoon 3 the Wavebreaker is considered one of the best specials in salmon run, but not so much so in matches. This is because in salmon run, lesser salmonids can't jump, which puts them at the mercy of your wavebreaker and it revives your coworkers, so planting one down is a good way to ensure you aren't being swarmed by smallfry and that you dying doesn't end the shift. By contrast using the Hydra Splatling in salmon run is a good way to get a crew wipe within the first wave despite it being a monster in matches. This is because salmon run emphasizes faster weapons that don't take a while to use, which is the exact opposite of how the Hydra Splatling works and means you are going to get splatted a lot with it

[@kawaiidere1023]

I was looking for game balancing videos with a skew on Gatcha partially because Splatoon 3 has a few systems like that (ShellOut Machine, King Salmonoid Scales, Grizzco rewards, certain catalog rewards, etc). I think Splatoon 3 might have an underlying issue of not wanting to split the player base and not wanting to loose players (which is probably why it’s balanced to be so grindy), which has the effect of making the game less enjoyable and reducing the player base anyways. Likewise, I’ve been playing some Housamo recently and have been having a much better time with it than Genshin, but I think that is largely a result of little things with the games balance, such as including a fairly easy and renewable banner with the Ally banner, even though it mostly only gives reused basic enemies. Likewise, Splatoon and Genshin lack simple, rewarding, and bulk availability rewards, which makes their gatcha systems feel worse. I think Genshin could add systems like reducing the character ascension materials needed on weaker units and boosting the drop rates of weaker units in order to fill out banners, as well as adding more ways to acquire pulls. That might not be what the developers are going for, but I think it would encourage players to use weak units at the start of the game then transition to strong units after unlocking more leveling resources. I think Splatoon could improve its balance by introducing more fodder into the banners, such as large amounts of ability chunks, old gear in ShellOut, more Scales, cash in Grizzco rewards, etc. I also think Splatoon 4 would benefit from reworking the queue system, perhaps by allowing players to participate in multiple queues at once in some way, so that the balancing wouldn’t be as worried about splitting the player base or inactive players. I could see that causing some issues or being something besides what the developer intended (maybe they wanted players to get a ton of play out of the game, although in that case it might’ve been better to guarantee support for longer than 2 years)

[@tractor_7125]

UM ACTUALLY, David Sirlin was the balance man of Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo: HD Remix, not Street Fighter 2 Turbo

[@quantumpotato]

There was a Halo video about balance being "longevity" == how long do players keep playing game, using the analogy of a tower of stones. The stones are uneven, yet together they stand for a long time

[@Left4Cake]

I've also heard the idea that balance can also be achieved by making a meta where the top build kind of fluctuates on its own based on the players abilities to come up with counter plays to that mechanic meaning if players are constantly changing what build they consider to be op without you even needing to make an update then you've reached the ideal state for your competitive play because it's just a players learning the next counterbalance changing the game's balance

[@cass3030]

Great Video once again Adam!

[@GameDevYal]

New fan here, pretty good video as always! Just a little feedback thing, I feel like you miss a bunch of opportunities to add context to statements (like explaining why the backstab was so abusable in BCB, which I assume is because there's a 50% chance you're behind an enemy since it's a platformer), and the argumentation can feel a bit brief/shallow as a result. We viewers want to know EVERYTHING :P

[@HGaho]

Great video ! Just two quick remarks : 1. Your point about chess is very interesting but as far as I know, in most forms of competitive chess, adversaries play a pair number of games and end up having played white and black the same number of time. So even if the game itselft isn't perfectly balanced, the competition is supposed to be. 2. Regarding the tier-list, Innuendo Studios has made a very interesting point about the evolution of the meta game in his video about Smash Bros Melee. Everyone should watch his video but the short version is that if a character is at the bottom of the tier list it's not played anymore and people don't know how to counter this character. Making it more viable in the meta game.

[@Fjuron]

I agree. Buffing the weak instead of the nerfing the strong is a great general game design principle imho. (Riot Games should listen to this lesson...)

[@Topunito]

They are making so many champions overpowered that their power is now the new standard and the older champions without that much power are now just weak

[@badreedinedjellali1328]

actually when I played arkham city in new game plus it was hard but when I started to get use to it it really started to become fun and challenging and gives what the feeling to be batman

[@beokirby]

The fact that the colors in the Color Pie segment aren't in WUBRG order unnerves me.

[@DRAGOTEAM2769]

as a normal playeri often take advantage of untouched potential to the max and basicly abuse the rarely used setups (status effects in most games can stack very very high until you just sweep the enemy with area burn+poison while spamming heals)

[@Synchro-tq1mo]

This channel is a gem man

[@michaelwalsh6276]

My brother once put a bunch of symmetra turrets over the enemy teams spawn exit.

[@ArchaeanDragon]

Balancing game mechanics and the effects of such is a science unto itself, and many game devs do not have the skills developed to be able to set up their game mechanics and design parameters so that they /can/ be balanced, at least by human skill, as opposed to superhuman skill. While it is true that the goal of every part of the game development process is to maximize enjoyment, game balance is often a big factor in not only the amount of fun to experience in the moment, but also the longevity of that experience. You also use the term "equilibrium" which is nothing more than a synonym of "balance". XD I get you're trying to make a nuanced distinction, but that's really the point of balancing a game in the first place. To achieve a happy equilibrium within the system of mechanics so the game is playable and enjoyable to as large a degree as possible for the system alone to provide. Your point is quite correct, though. The more and varied (read: complex) the mechanics, the more difficult it is to balance. Often, the problem is that game mechanics are composed of large monolithic pieces with little commonality in the aspects of those pieces, so balancing becomes a matter of just making said pieces larger or smaller. This is in contrast to defining all mechanics based on a lower level or "quantum" approach, where each piece is comprised of a number of smaller and simpler components, each with a well-defined impact on game play, and then adjusting the "shape" of the larger pieces by changing the proportions/presence of each of the various quantum components that make them. This can easily devolve into a discussion of "top-down" versus "bottom-up" design principles, which illustrates the very complexity and difficulty to which you refer. :)

[@keithcastillo5434]

Starcraft is praised for how well balance it is. I think it achieved it's balance by making it so the resource gatherers collect resources all gather exactly the same way. I have only played little of Starcaft but Command & Conquer Generals I played a lot. Generals has 3 factions like Starcraft but Generals factions are USA, China, GLA(middle east terrorist). USA playing against China is underpowered and against GLA overpowered. In the USA faction the sniper can make the stinger sites useless then an army of tanks can easily roll into a GLA base. GLA is overpowered against China and underpowered against USA. Whenever a GLA structure is destroyed a tunnel is left over so after like 30 seconds the structure well automatically rebuild at no cost to the player. Many times China has used it nukes on GLA but the structures that are destroyed ends up getting rebuilt. China is overpowered against USA and underpowered against GLA. The gattling cannons and gattling tanks are very op against USA aircraft. Plus the nuke cannon seems to be more effective against USA defense structures than GLA defense structures. dispite these inbalances the three factions do feel fairly well balance I just play as a weak faction against a strong faction when I desire a bet more Challenge. Command & Conquer Generals Zero hour has even more faction choices which are USA, China, and GLA sub factions. A very difficult fight is playing as China Tank general against USA Super Weapon general another is playing as infantry China general against GLA toxin general and another is USA airforce general against either China Infantry general or USA laser general or GLA stealth general.

[@dataexpunged3914]

My guess is that there's a fuck ton of different settings that aren't balanced but only a few that are and just looking at numbers doesn't tell a developer what's balanced and what's not

[@thelastnoise9210]

I wish that they just buffed stuff, rather than nerf it. It would allow the meta to change without ruining it.

[@iae8793]

"Players need a Sombra to counter a Reinhardt" or just extremely potent damage

[@juceten]

symmetrical halo maps where all power weapons were given to either team or in the middle where you had to fight for them i rest my case

[@EatsUsedTP]

Magma rager is in one of my warlock decks where I also take shadowflame to make a ghetto 2 card flamestrike

[@TheAlison1456]

Perfectly balanced. As all things should be. I loved this video.

[@onlineotaku9166]

First of July

[@TheAlison1456]

@@onlineotaku9166 it sure is... no more. it's now the 2nd

[@rustyshackleford3160]

Games aren't hard to balance, people are just hard to please

[@TheDiazDarkness]

Both, actually.

[@patlanticocean8290]

Having seen that you play SupCom, would you agree that there are some balancing issues in their new additions in FA. Prime culprits being how the Percival and Brick respectively almost completely outperform the Titan and Loyalist both tactically and in down-right health and damage, but with other culprits as well like Aeon having a new amphibious vehicle when it was a key use for the low tier tank in the previous game (a point I previously thought to be an excellent way of keeping an early game unit relevant even in late game) as well as the new UEF point defence gun making any other form of ground defence obsolete in nearly every regard. A slightly annoying point given that they get a number of other additions so RIGHT: A new Aeon torpedo bomber to emphasise their naval powers without dominating aircraft's role in naval engagements. A weak and slow satellite for the UEF to improve their ability to fortify key positions without requiring a presence in all other parts of the map. The new Jester gunship for the Cybran rewarding players for sticking to their lore and utilising the Cybrans slight advantage in aerial combat and fluid battle movements. Perhaps its just me but I was half-hoping to see this somewhere in the video as a plentiful supply of examples for the points you made, but as you said: You're the one with the channel.

[@NerdyPro]

Ok so I agree with what you said. With overwatch though I feel like a lot of problems with early game feel could've been solved with just getting rid of Mercy's Resurrection. It often felt like it invalidated the work you put in. The only times I hadn't heard of Mercy is when blatantly better options came like Ana when she could out heal everything, or Brig now.

[@2ndpersonshooter713]

Currently working on a game with multiple characters, I need to make sure they are all unique and fun to play.

[@ProtonCannon]

Puts Bastion on Overgod tier INSTEAD of Brigitte. Are you sure you play the same Overwatch? XD

[@Vit-Pokorny]

also symetra isnt in garbage tier she is good

[@bokunorainbow58]

@@Vit-Pokorny they prob dont play alot of overwatch by looking at their tracking, even bad players get above avg tracking in this game compared to other shooters. I think the list was just his personal example.

[@richlee3777]

@@Vit-Pokorny Sym's changes made a huge difference towards improving Sym. Same with Torbjorn. Once Torb and Sym could throw turrets out, they became more viable. They were kind of garbage before that, as much as I've always loved builder chars.

[@gasternecross]

@@Vit-Pokorny it depends on the platform hes playing on

[@gasternecross]

there are multiple versions of overwatch

[@XOR-lith]

Damn you're good at this. Love your content.

[@raccoonsgrace2232]

Apex Legends does a great job at this because almost every gun has an equal spawn chance and “underpowered” guns like the Mozambique will still be used because if you want to switch guns you have to have that type of ammo as well attachments which you most likely won’t be carrying

[@MrMarinus18]

I think it's simply because of the huge factors involved and the human creativity of making combinations that aren't anticipated. Making a perfectly balanced game can take hundreds of hours of playtesting and refinement and that is a massive money-drain. Fans actually do come up with solutions and often compliment them in all kinds of mods. However for fans they have no costs associated and if you love a game it's no problem to devote hundreds of hours to improving it. In a company all those hours need to be paid.

[@aruwind]

In terms of just multiplayerj Create a game that gives an equal kit that players can access on the fly within that rock paper scissors balance. Limit RNG moments(which seems like a thing that devs do when they dont know what else to do) boiling down gameplay to just skill instead of chance should be the easiest and obvious solution in a multiplayer setting. but In order to attract a broader casual audience, devs add handicaps and widen distinctions between playstyles that become convoluted in the balance between accessibility/aesthetic and competitive progression.

[@jayjaygolden5123]

Good competitive games have a god tier fotm that changes every patch, while also having a selection of choices that are stable in the meta but rarely if ever fotm. Eg league of legends has annie, pantheon and garen be almost always stable good picks, where something like kassadin or zed is more fotm.

[@Morgwic]

Actually chess is balanced, since each player gets to play white & black same amount of times.. there's not a single pro who only plays black

[@Argomundo]

Well I learnt nothing new, but you are correct, so guess youll get that updoot