Game balance

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Game balance is part of game design and can be roughly described as the mathematical- algorithmic mapping of the numbers and game mechanics in a game, as well as the relationships between these numbers and mechanics. Accordingly, game balancing consists in adapting these relationships, numbers and mechanics in such a way that the mostly positive experiences intended by the developer arise for the players. The players' perception and experience are usually the goal of game balancing.

Overview and development

Although the game balance is relevant for every type of game, since the turn of the millennium there have primarily been publications that deal specifically with the design of video games. Their authors usually devote only one section to game balancing. Recently, however, there have also been an increasing number of online blogs and videos that deal exclusively with the topic of game balance.

Older publications initially focus primarily on single player and PvE ( Player versus Environment ) games and related concepts such as levels of difficulty, which must be balanced in favor of a positive player experience. Those authors included game designers Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings, Richard Rouse , Jeannie Novak, Tynan Sylvester and Jesse Schell .

The online blogs and videos on the subject of game balancing, which were increasingly published from around 2010, increasingly deal with player versus player (also PvP) and online games , but often refer to ideas and concepts of earlier authors, such as fairness. These authors include the game designers Ian Schreiber, Keith Burgun, David Sirlin , James Portnow from the YouTube channel Extra Credits and Dan Felder.

Recently, authors have also increasingly looked at the contribution of players to balancing, especially with regard to their skills and the player-created “metagame”, or “meta” for short. Metagame refers to interactions between players in which players often develop successful and popular strategies that they then disseminate. Strategies or archetypes that are frequently encountered at a certain point in time are also referred to as “meta”. Those authors include the two game designers and presenters Rym DeCoster and Scott Rubin, the YouTuber Adam Millard in his channel “The Architect of Games” and the journalist Marc Brown.

Own terms and slang

PvP, PvE and co-op games

PvP stands for player versus player (German: player against player) and describes games in which players compete against other human players. However, this does not rule out some PvE elements, in some cases even PvPvE is used.

PvE stands for Player versus Environment . In games of this type, the player is in his personal version of a game world and only competes against computer-controlled opponents.

Coop is an abbreviation for cooperative (German: cooperate, play together). These are essentially PvE games where multiple players play together against the computer. However, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility of PvP.

Play element

“ Game element” is an abstract term for all types of entities within a game and can refer to soldiers in a real-time strategy game, the player character of a role-playing game, but also to objects and spells.

Game mechanics

Game mechanics are procedures and rules of a game. They describe the goal of a game, how the player can and cannot achieve it, and what happens if the player tries.

Buff and Nerf

An upgrading of game elements (and sometimes game mechanics) is called a buff, a devaluation is called a nerf. Both can also happen through indirect influence when other mechanics or game elements are changed or newly introduced. Both terms can also be used as a verb. The first established use of the term "Nerf" happened in Ultima Online as a reference to Nerf toys, whose soft projectiles do not cause serious injuries. A buff describes the opposite of a nerf. The term probably comes from the English bodybuilding expression "getting buff". He describes that someone strengthens his muscles and thus "buffers".

The game designers of MMORPGs in particular devalue various aspects of a game in favor of the game balance, because occasionally new game content (objects, classes, skills) become too strong, too cheap or too easy to obtain and thus lead to an imbalance in the game system. This can happen, for example, when objects are obtained or used in a different way than the developers intended. Although the frequency varies between games, almost every MMO has received nerfs at some point.

In a number of cases, nerfs have sparked protests from online gaming players, including Anarchy Online . Because numerous items can be sold or traded between players in virtual worlds, a nerf - just like a buff - can also have a significant impact on the virtual economy. The reactions of the players can cause major price fluctuations until everything calms down in a new equilibrium. Just like a nerf itself, such changes can lead to great resentment among players against even small changes. In particular, when objects or skills are devalued, players can react angrily if they perceive the effort previously made to preserve them as waste. In games in which game elements have a very high value, this can even lead to legal disputes about the loss suffered.

Skill

Skill in the sense of playful ability is generally divided into the ability to make decisions and the ability to implement commands via an input device.

Overpowered and underpowered

The terms "overpowered" and "underpowered" describe game elements and mechanics as too strong (overpowered) or too weak (underpowered). Ian Schreiber also offers a more precise formulation: If a play element is still too strong, even at the highest cost, it is referred to as overpowered; it is still too weak to be underpowered even at the lowest cost. In addition, a game element can only be too expensive (overcost) or too cheap (undercost) for the benefits it offers.

Colloquially, overpowered is often used for a certain class in a role-playing game, a certain faction in a strategy game or certain tactics, skills, weapons or other units in various games. For something to be called that, it has to be the best choice in almost every situation and / or very difficult for the opponent to counter, even though it could be obtained with comparatively little effort.

Underpowered is mostly used for the same class, faction, tactic, skill, weapon or unit, but only when it is below average and therefore a poor choice in most situations. This happens when they're way too easy to counter or alternatives are just better.

Gimp

A gimp is a character, a character class, or a character ability that is underpowered in the context of a particular game - e.g. a melee warrior who only wears equipment with healing bonuses even though he has no healing abilities. Characters who are “countered” are less effective than others at a similar experience level . The player can "gimp" a character by teaching them inappropriate skills or not effectively improving them. However, this can also be consciously implemented by the developer to create an incentive to take the Gimp to a higher level or to give a gamer an initial head start. An example of this is the Mystic Knight class in Final Fantasy , which starts off weakly but can become the most powerful class at a high level. However, a gimp can also be accidentally created by the developer and may require a patch to rebalance it.

Sometimes the term "Gimp" is used in MMORPGs as a synonym for Nerf to describe a rule change that weakens an affected target. In contrast to the non-judgmental term nerf, this usually implies unfair discrimination.

Revamp

Revamp describes the change in a game element without directly implying an appreciation or depreciation.

Essential concepts of balancing

Meaningful decisions

Decisions are meaningful when neither all alternatives are ineffective on the game, nor is one alternative clearly the best. For example, it would be a meaningless decision to be able to choose the number of points on a die roll if the 6 always gets you the furthest. This example already corresponds to a dominant strategy, the most damaging form of meaningless decision, as there is no reason to ever choose any alternative. Meaningful decisions are therefore a central component of the interactive medium of play .

Meaningless decisions, also called trivial decisions, do not add anything desirable to a game. They can even be harmful in that they can only make the game unnecessarily more complex and thus, for example, more tedious or boring. Likewise, too many meaningful decisions can only make the game more complex. However, the choices offered should all be meaningful. Apart from that, decisions that are irrelevant for balancing can still influence the gaming experience, such as decisions between cosmetic alternatives such as skins .

Strategies

Strategies are specific combinations of actions that pursue a specific goal. Classic examples of this are rush and economic strategies in real-time strategy games . Not only elementary decisions within a strategy, for example between individual game elements, but also the decision between different strategies should remain meaningful.

Dominant strategies

A dominant strategy is a strategy that always leads to success and is therefore clearly the best. It makes all decisions that affect you in any way, meaningless. Even if a strategy does not always win, but is clearly the best, it can also be described as (almost) dominant. Dominant strategies harm games and should therefore be avoided. However, there is no objective limit to when a strategy ceases to be marginally beneficial and becomes dominant.

Rewards

Every player wants rewards, for example in the form of new game content or simple praise. Rewards should increase the longer you play. They make the player feel like they did something right and can accelerate further game progress. A certain unpredictability as to which reward you will receive makes it more attractive for many players.

Dynamic and static balance

Game balance can be divided into a dynamic and a static component. Static balance focuses on the rules of the game and game elements, i.e. everything that is already set at the beginning of the game or match. Dynamic balance, on the other hand, describes the change in balance between the player, the environment and computer opponents during the game .

fairness

A game is fair if all players have roughly the same chance of winning at the beginning, regardless of which of the options they choose at the beginning of a game. Fairness is therefore particularly important for PvP (player vs. player) titles. However, fairness also includes - and this also applies to PvE games - that the player never gets the feeling that the opponents are invincible.

Early uses of the term "fairness"

“Any good computer game must be totally fair. It must be possible for the player to reach the objective and win. This is not to say the game cannot be complicated or random or appear unfair. "

“Every good computer game has to be absolutely fair. The player must be able to achieve the goal and win. But that doesn't mean the game can't be complicated, random, or seem unfair. "

- Tim Barry : InfoWorld , 1981

“An important trait of any game is the illusion of winnability. If a game is to provide a continuing challenge to players, it must also provide a continuing motivation to play. The game must appear to be winnable to all players, beginners and experts, but it must never truly be winnable or it will lose its appeal. "

“An important quality of any game is the illusion of being able to win. If a game continues to challenge the player, it must also motivate him to keep playing. The game must show itself to be winable to all players, beginners as well as experts, but it must never really be winable, otherwise it will lose its attraction. "

- Chris Crawford , 1982

“ Dani Bunten was once asked how to play-balance a game. Her one word answer was "Cheat." Asked what to do if gamers complained, she said, "Lie!" ”

“ Dani Bunten was once asked how to balance a game while playing. Her answer was one word: 'cheat'. When asked what to do when players complained, she said, 'Lie!' "

- Johnny L. Wilson : Computer Gaming World , 1994

In 1982 Chris Crawford wrote about the importance of the "illusion of winnability" (original: "illusion of winnability") for games, Pac-Man was so popular because "it seems winnable for most players, but it is never whole" (original : "Appears winnable to most players, yet is never quite winnable"). This illusion, he said, was “very difficult to maintain. Some games can do this for experts but not beginners; these games deter all but the most determined. "(Original:" [This illusion] is very difficult to maintain. Some games maintain it for the expert but never achieve it for the beginner; these games intimidate all but the most determined players ” ) As an example, he cited Tempest .

Each fair game is winnable, however, claimed InfoWorld in 1981, but it could be "complicated or random or unfair act " (Original: "complicated or random or appear unfair"). However, fairness does not necessarily mean that the game is well balanced. This is especially true in action games : Jaime Griesemer, lead designer at Bungie , said that "every fight in Halo is unfair" (Original: "every fight in Halo is unfair"). This potential for unfairness creates uncertainty, which leads to tension and the excitement that action games are supposed to offer. In their case, balancing is managing unfair scenarios with the ultimate goal of ensuring that any strategies the game supports are promising. The extent to which these strategies are equated with one another defines the character of the respective game.

Simulation games can, however, be balanced unfairly, for example to reflect real conditions. For example, a war game can put the player in the role of a general defeated by a superior force, and it is common in sports simulations to reflect the skills of real teams, regardless of what that might mean for the choosing player.

The player's perception can also affect how fairness works. Sid Meier said he left out multiplayer alliances in Civilization because he found the computer took advantage of them almost as well as a human, leading players to believe the computer was cheating.

Solvability

Colloquially, “solving a game” means winning it or finishing it. More specifically, Ian Schreiber describes a game as solvable if the player can identify the best action for each situation. However, it is generally considered undesirable if the best action is always easily recognizable and the game is easy to solve, as decisions become meaningless and the game becomes boring.

Schreiber differentiates between different levels of solvability: A game can be trivially solvable, but it can also only be solvable theoretically with considerable computational effort. Even a game that contains random elements can be solved if the best action can be determined based on the expected value. In addition to considerable complexity, it is mostly the withholding of information and the influence of other human players that make it almost impossible for players to completely solve a game.

Metagame

The metagame describes the situation or the context in which the actual game takes place, including forum discussions, interactions between players, for example at local tournaments, but also the influence of external factors such as available funds. The "meta", as it is also called, can be a kind of self-balancing force, for example when counterattacks against popular strategies that have become known are spread and within a relatively short time a large number of players change their playing behavior accordingly. However, the presence of the "meta" as a self-balancing force does not in any way release the developers from intervening in cases of significant imbalance.

Economies

In a game, more or less anything that has an owner or is made available to the player can be called a resource. This includes raw materials, units, pieces, etc., but also information and time, for example. These resource systems are comparable to real economies, especially with regard to the trade in resources. In video games, a distinction is made between open economies, which receive inflow from outside the game, and closed economies, in which this does not happen. Economies can also receive a theoretically unlimited inflow of resources or contain a fixed number that all players have to share. It is therefore particularly important in online games to make the economy sustainable and "fun".

Positive and negative feedback

Positive and negative feedback, also known as positive or negative feedback loops, essentially describe game mechanics that mostly reward good or bad games with additional power or punish them with loss of power. Success with positive feedback leads to more strength and thus accelerates progress further and further, while a negative feedback loop reduces the power or its continued receipt or provides additional costs. During implementation, care should be taken to ensure that these feedback loops address the desired player so that they do not unintentionally determine the outcome of the game at an early stage or unnecessarily delay the game.

Many games become more challenging after the player is successful. For example, real-time strategy games often include maintenance costs, a type of resource tax, the amount of which depends on the number of units controlled. Team games that challenge the player to penetrate opposing areas ( football , capture the flag ) have an integrated negative feedback loop: the further the player ventures, the more opponents can be expected.

Many games also use positive feedback loops - for example, that successes like conquering opposing territories lead to more resources or opportunities and thus to greater chances of further success. The dynamic balance of a game depends heavily on the relative effect of positive and negative feedback, so weakening positive feedback has an effect similar to introducing or strengthening negative feedback. Positive feedback can be limited by some rough indicators of success. Examples:

  1. In a role-playing game with a level structure, the level is often a concave transformation of experience points: As the character gets stronger and stronger, he can defeat increasingly powerful opponents and earns more experience in the same period of time, but also needs more experience per level increase. In this case, power and level do not increase exponentially, but roughly linearly with the playing time.
  2. In many military strategy games, conquered areas only bring a small increase in power, as, for example, the player's home area is particularly productive, while new areas offer fewer resources, have a predisposition for revolts or require the maintenance of public order and thus discard fewer resources, minus the Suppression of necessary resources. In this case, with initially impressive success, players can become overwhelmed trying to hold many low-income territories.
  3. In many games there is little point in hoarding a large number of similar items. For example, it is beneficial to have a large range of equipment and weapons, but only a minor advantage compared to a smaller collection that offers a similar variety. This is due, for example, to the fact that only one weapon can be used at the same time and having several similar weapons in your inventory is of little advantage. Generally speaking, such a limitation of using options that have already been gained can prevent positive feedback or reduce it to a weak level.

On the one hand, strongly negative feedback can lead to frequent draws ; on the other hand, strongly positive feedback can mean that early success increases in the course of a game and ultimately losing becomes almost impossible.

Power and costs

While power can describe anything that is an advantage, cost is anything that is disadvantageous. Power and costs can therefore be understood as positive and negative value ranges on the same scale and offset against each other. Sometimes it is just a question of considering whether something is an advantage or a disadvantage: For example, is it an advantage to get bonus damage against dragons, or is it a disadvantage not to get this bonus damage against any other targets?

Game balancing consists largely of adapting the relationship between power and costs, balancing them out, or determining a suitable relationship, for example with the help of a power curve. This is also made more difficult by the fact that some costs cannot be directly quantified as values: Spending gold for something while only having a limited amount may also deprive you of the opportunity to buy something later - although the value of that opportunity does not is immediately quantified . In some cases, additional activations are also required to enable the purchase of something at all. Sometimes the game doesn't even communicate certain disadvantages. Such disadvantages can be called shadow costs.

difficulty

The difficulty is particularly relevant for PvE games, but at least with regard to the use of game elements also for PvP games. The perception of the difficulty of a game depends on the game mechanics and numbers as well as the skills and expectations of the players. The ideal difficulty therefore depends on the individual player and puts him in a continuous flow state. During development it can therefore be useful or even necessary to target a certain target group of players. The difficulty should increase as the game progresses as players learn and usually unlock more power. One of the reasons why these goals are difficult to achieve is that playing ability cannot be measured objectively and testers also get better and better over time. In any case, the difficulty should in some way be adjustable by or by the player.

Symmetry and asymmetry

Symmetrical games offer all players the same starting requirements and are therefore automatically fair in the sense mentioned above. This makes them easier to balance, but here, too, the balance between play elements must be observed. Most modern games, however, are asymmetrical, and the degree of asymmetry can vary. Providing fairness is therefore all the more important for these games.

Giving all players the same resources is the simplest form of balancing. Most competitive games involve some degree of symmetry; some games (like pong ) are completely symmetrical, others, e.g. those with a move order (e.g. chess ), never achieve total symmetry, since a player always has an advantage or disadvantage, e.g. being allowed to make the first move .

However, symmetry is unattractive because both sides can use the same strategy or success can depend on very small advantages, such as a pawn in chess. An alternative to this is to offer a limited symmetry. In Wizard's Quest and The Settlers of Catan , all players initially have the same number of territories, but choose them in a changing order; the different combinations of territories leads to asymmetry.

The human psyche can, however, counteract the symmetry. A well-documented example of this is sporting events and video games, where people wearing red jerseys or uniforms win significantly more often than their opponents in blue.

Systems and subsystems

In general, games can be viewed as systems consisting of numbers and relations. However, they usually consist of several subsystems, so that all numbers in a game only have meaning in the context assigned to them. The subsystems of a game can be viewed as separate and pursue different balancing goals, but still influence each other to a greater or lesser extent. It is therefore always important to consider how changes in one place can change the entire balance.

Transitivity and intransitivity

(In) transitivity describes relationships from logic. In games, this usually refers to relationships between game elements, e.g. between A, B and C: If there is a transitive relation and both A beats B and B beats C, then A beats C. A is the best of the two three game elements. Such a relation is particularly useful for rewards for players who can unlock ever better game elements.

In contrast, in the case of an intransitive relation in the circumstances A beats B and B does not automatically beat C, A beats C too. On the contrary, it can even apply C beats A, as is the case with rock-paper-scissors. Such relationships are also assessed in the properties of play elements instead of simply defining the outcome. This is especially useful for creating variation and avoiding the formation of dominant strategies.

coincidence

While the optimal relationship between chance and ability depends on the target group, the outcome should generally be influenced more by ability. Chance and skill are usually seen as at least partially opposed to one another: chance occasionally allows weaker players to defeat stronger ones. In general, however, it is considered reasonable to favor many small random elements with low impact over a few with high impact, as this makes outcomes extremely different from the average less likely. In addition, the player should be given a certain amount of information and control over random elements.

Balancing process

When balancing a game, quantifiable quantities and their relationships to one another are always influenced directly or indirectly; this usually takes place as a process of iterative testing, partly depending on the genre , both during development and after the release of a game (e.g. via rule changes, expansion sets or software updates). Ideally, complex relationships and results are created using simple rules, which corresponds to the principle of emergence . However, it is not about finding purely algorithmic solutions, since aesthetics are also important and perfect balance can even have the opposite effect of gaming fun, e.g. boredom or lack of chances against equally strong opponents.

It makes sense to first create a balanced basis, through which later mostly only numbers have to be changed and on which new content can be added more easily. In addition, it is important for the game designer to be able to adjust these numbers easily and to always be clear about how changes affect the system. The bigger picture should therefore never be left out of sight, as the ultimate goal is to create a positive experience for the player. However, extremely strong game elements and dominant strategies endanger this and should therefore be identified and limited in their effectiveness. It is particularly difficult, for example, to bring game elements that have a high situational usefulness to a general cost value that can be compared with game elements that are less situation-dependent. Another priority is to offer several promising options (“viable options”). In general, it is better for players to value something (“buff”) than to devalue (“nerfen”) something. A nerf can also be achieved indirectly through buffs elsewhere and vice versa, since games are always connected systems and changes can have far-reaching effects.

Goals of balancing

The primary aim of balancing is usually to maintain or increase the fun and participation of the players. However, this depends a lot on the particular game and its target audience or on the goals of the developer. In extreme cases, the goal can even consist of a large imbalance or be turned into the opposite of gaming fun: Especially in games with in-game content for sale (in-app purchases) or with in-game advertising, there is often such a high level of interest the operator of the game or the platform to earn money ( monetization ) so that the fun of the game takes a back seat. Such games, for example, by excessively frequent commercial breaks or by extremely bad opportunities ( e.g. with loot boxes ), also deliberately rob the players of the fun of the game, thus deliberately frustrating them while at the same time keeping the player participation high in order to animate the players, frustrating passages by as frequent as possible To skip spending money, and otherwise face considerable disadvantages (imbalance) against more willing players.

However, it is generally agreed that a large imbalance is not good for a game, even if the game is still fun - better balance could make it even more fun. However, there are different views on how balanced a game should be, what exactly should be balanced and whether a perfect balance is achievable or advantageous at all. In certain cases it is even assumed that a slight imbalance is more advantageous than the perfect balance.

A major aim of balancing is to prevent subsystems of a game from becoming ineffective or undesirable compared to the others. In extreme cases, this can even make certain points or situations in the game unsolvable. Badly balanced systems therefore represent at least a waste of development resources.

One balancing approach is to target the strategies in a game so that all strategies on offer offer about the same chance of success. Strategies can only be influenced by changing the underlying game elements, but the balance between the elements is not in the foreground. The strategies should ultimately give the game a certain depth of play .

It should also be noted that balance can be related to the skill of the player. It is therefore advisable to set a skill level as a goal on which the development effort is concentrated. This could be one of the following categories: veteran, professional or casual gamer. At the other levels that do not correspond to the primary target group, more imbalance can be accepted.

In addition, strategies and game elements should be protected from being irrelevant: Every option offered should at least have some benefit and be viable. For this purpose, strategies and game elements are compared in all contexts in which they compete, for example in combat or with regard to the use of resources. The presence of much too strong game elements or strategies (also known as "broken strategies") is considered particularly harmful, as it devalues ​​all alternatives.

Beyond that, however, there is also the view that a certain imbalance can be beneficial for a game, as it constantly drives players to find solutions to new problems, for example through interaction in the metagame. This is especially the case with games that are constantly being expanded. In contrast, in (almost) perfectly balanced games, sooner or later the best strategies are established and only a few top players have the luxury of making meaningful decisions, while the remaining players can only execute the established strategies if they want to be successful. In extreme cases, the synchronization of the power of all elements can make any decision superfluous, since everything is equally strong anyway.

Another approach is that the balance between game elements, strategies and actions is not the decisive thing, but more important is that the game against any situation enables counterattacks. The players or the community can find out these counterattacks together. The players are never faced with an unsolvable problem.

Finally, there are approaches to include the player in the balancing. This includes their skills and technical requirements and can be achieved with the help of a matchmaking system or a handicap. This can even reduce the negative impact of imbalance in the game, as players of different skills play against each other on a similar level. Also, the perception of balance by players should not be disregarded: For example, player behavior can affect the success rate of strategies and elements. Therefore, changes to the balance should be correctly communicated by the provider to the players.

Features of a well balanced game

Although the exact goals of game balancing have not yet been clearly defined, various authors cite various characteristics of a well balanced game: meaningful decisions are required. There are no stalemates where no one can win or lose. The player should always have a reasonable chance of winning the game, ie the leading player or computer opponent should not have an unrecoverable advantage until he is actually close to victory. Even early mistakes and chance shouldn't change the fact that a lagging player still has a chance of victory. A game should provide the information and level of control necessary to avoid mistakes, so that players always feel responsible for their actions.

However, measuring the state of game balance is another problem as data about it must be interpreted correctly. For example, mere victory rates for strategies or game elements are not very meaningful, as other factors such as player skill and the rate at which an element is chosen must also be taken into account. It is therefore necessary to correctly interpret the available data and correctly identify the causes of imbalance.

Methods and tools

The following sections represent a collection of various means and approaches with the help of which the state of balance can be determined or changed. It should not be forgotten, however, that it is not mathematical perfection, but the fun of the game, player participation or a mixture of both that remains the top priority and that human judgment is the only way to verify that this goal has been achieved. Balancing is also a complex process and usually goes through numerous iterations.

Aesthetics and Narration

The visual design and feel of a game shouldn't run counter to balancing. On the contrary: Particularly real models, such as historical facts, can serve as inspiration for mechanisms, counterattacks, orthogonal unit differences or intransitive relations.

Ban

For competitive areas in particular, the prohibition of certain game elements or strategies is a way of removing dominant strategies from otherwise well-balanced games. However, this should be avoided if possible.

observation

By simply observing the game and player behavior, some obvious problems can be identified or at least their approaches can be identified. This includes the simple mathematical superiority of game elements or strategies, but also disproportionately high or low use of those game elements or strategies. In any case, it should always be remembered that statistics do not necessarily reflect causalities and that there does not necessarily have to be just one reason for a problem; there are often several reasons ( multi-causality ).

Feedback

While feedback from testers is irreplaceable during development and further development, there are also a few things to consider here: For example, playful ability and the ability to explain this ability do not necessarily correlate with one another. Also, there are usually more players than developers, so that the players solve the game more or less than the developer himself. In addition, new testers should be brought in every now and then, as practice effects also develop with testers over time.

Gamemaster

A game can be dynamically balanced by a gamemaster who observes the players and adjusts the game in response to their actions, emotional states, etc. or even proactively steers the game in certain directions to evoke certain player experiences.

While gamemasters were historically human, some video games have artificial intelligence ( AI ) or simply algorithms that measure a player's performance and infer the emotional state of inputs. Such systems are also assigned a "dynamic difficulty". Examples of this are Left 4 Dead and its successor Left 4 Dead 2 , two cooperative games in which players have to fight hordes of zombie-like creatures with special skills. Both games have an AI director who not only triggers random events, but also tries to create tension and fear by creating creatures according to certain rules based on player progress. Above all, a lack of cooperation between players is punished by greater challenges. Research into biofeedback aims to dramatically improve the accuracy of such systems.

Handicaps

Handicaps can create a competitive situation even between players with different abilities. However, they can also go too far and make playful skill completely irrelevant. Handicaps are disadvantages for one of the players, some of which can be activated voluntarily.

intuition

Games can be complex systems. Due to limited resources, it can be useful or even necessary to rely on your own intuition . However, one should always be aware of how changes affect the entire system - and guesswork should always be based on evidence or evidence.

Counterattack

There should be counterattacks for all actions, game elements and strategies in order to beat them in direct comparison. This not only reduces the chance that dominant strategies will develop, but also allows players to discover their own approaches to challenges. A counter-attack relationship is ideally based on the properties of the game elements and is not simply defined. In the case of decisions that are made at the beginning of a game and cannot be changed afterwards, however, care should be taken that counterattacks do not automatically determine the outcome .

Matchmaking and player ranking

One approach to avoid various balancing problems is to classify players according to their ability. In the ideal case, the ranking system can predict the outcome almost perfectly and thus give every player (in a PvP game) roughly the same chance of victory, even with different conditions that are beyond the control of the game, such as different input devices. In any case, a good matchmaking system can be an enrichment for a game, as, for example, no chance beginners are thrown together against professional players and the challenge of competing against stronger opponents increases for each player with his skills.

Orthogonal unit differences

Orthogonal unit differences describe properties of game elements that cannot be compared using mere numbers. Ideally, each play element has a unique property. This also helps to create intransitive relationships and counterattacks.

Pacing

In PvE games you try to strike the fine line between continuous challenge and unfair obstacles. Balancing is thus similar to creating a dramatic structure, similar to what is called “pacing” in film production. Pacing is also considered for competitive games, but the autonomous action of fellow players makes it difficult to control it.

Power curve

A power curve (also: cost curve) is in principle a relation that shows the relationship between costs and power. It is particularly useful when many different game elements have the same type of cost with different value and offer advantages according to the cost, for example when using a central resource. It should be noted, however, that a power curve always reflects a ranking, depending on its scale level , but does not necessarily reflect exact relationships.

Randomize

The randomization (random assignment) of starting conditions is a common technique in board and card games, and even in experimental research, to counteract the human tendency to optimize patterns for one's own benefit. However, this takes control of the player, which can lead to frustration. To avoid this, the player can, for example, be allowed to choose between several randomly determined results (e.g. Scrabble or Magic: The Gathering ). This can also be avoided by keeping game sessions short enough to allow multiple attempts in a row (e.g. with Klondike or Strange Adventures in Infinite Space ).

Difficulty level

Video games usually allow their players to set the level of difficulty using levels, for example “easy”, “medium” and “difficult”. These influence the level of challenge. Sometimes the difficulty has to be chosen at the beginning for the entire game; in other cases the player can change them at any time. In modern games (eg Horizon Zero Dawn ) there is also an increasing level of difficulty "story" for players who are more interested in the story being told and less in interactive game elements such as fights. Other names vary. For example, The Last of Us has two levels of difficulty higher than “hard”, namely “survivor” and “grounded”.

Besides changing game rules, levels of difficulty can be used to change the game content that is presented to the player. This is usually done by adding or removing challenging locations, events or required items (equipment) in the game, but can also be expressed in lengthening or shortening the game to reward players on high difficulty and punish them on easier. The choice of difficulty is not always presented directly, however, especially in competitive games where all players are equally affected and the standard categories “easy”, “medium” and “difficult” are no longer applicable. Sometimes the choice is only obscured by other terminology (such as Mario Kart ); in other cases there are a number of minor adjustments that affect the difficulty.

Another alternative is the so-called "subjective difficulty", which should appeal to all players equally with different abilities. For this, a game must offer several solutions and paths that offer players with different abilities corresponding challenges ( Super Mario Galaxy , Sonic Generations ).

Statistical analysis

With the help of statistics , empirical data on player behavior, success rates etc. can be collected in order to find imbalances and make corrections. Ideally, the game or servers it contacts collect this data automatically. Statistics can only support the skills and intuition of the game designer and therefore only represent part of the decision-making process, alongside, for example, tester or user feedback. Statistics and their interpretation should also take into account factors such as playing ability and pick rates (how often and by whom a game element is chosen).

Game theory

Game theory is primarily concerned with players and their decisions and is therefore only suitable for designing games to a limited extent. However, it does provide useful knowledge and tools like a net payoff matrix that can be helpful in measuring strength and understanding player decisions.

Balance strategies

Another approach is to choose strategies as the goal of game balancing and not individual game elements. Strategies typically involve several game elements and decisions. This can ensure that all game elements have at least some use and decisions remain meaningful. However, when viewed in isolation, game elements that are actually balanced can inadvertently become strong as soon as several of them are combined in strategies. One difficulty with this approach, however, is that strategies can only be influenced by changes to the game elements and game mechanics.

Animal cunning

A tier list assigns game elements to one of several categories according to their power. The classification can be made on the basis of feedback, empirical data and subjective assessment. While the number and names of the levels can vary, a tier list usually goes from "God Tier" (divine level) through several intermediate levels to "Garbage Tier" (garbage level). When balancing, it should first be ensured that elements of the "God Tier" level are devalued, since game elements that are too strong make others, if not all others, useless. Then elements in the garbage tier should be strengthened to make the last useless game elements useful. Finally, the steps, which are now at least somewhat balanced, can be brought closer together until a satisfactory result has been achieved. An animal list is particularly useful for ranking game elements with exactly the same cost, such as characters in a fighting game .

Central resource

A certain value, be it an attribute of a game element, cost, time or a specific calculated value such as power, can be appointed as a guide value for balancing all other values. Accordingly, changes in these values ​​must go hand in hand with a change in the central resource, or when one value is adjusted, other values ​​must also be changed in order to keep the same budget.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Alexander Becker, Daniel Görlich: What is Game Balancing? - An Examination of Concepts . 2020. In Paradigm Plus Volume 1 Number 1 January - April, https://journals.itiud.org/index.php/paradigmplus/article/view/7 . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  2. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Ernest Adams : Fundamentals of game design . 3rd ed. Berkeley, California: New Riders, 2013, http://proquest.tech.safaribooksonline.de/9780133435726 . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  3. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Andrew Rollings, Ernest Adams: Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on game design. 1st edn. Indianapolis, Ind: New Riders, 2003, http://proquest.tech.safaribooksonline.de/1592730019 . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  4. ↑ a b c d e f g Richard Rouse , S. Ogden: Game design. Theory & Practice . 2nd edn. Plano, Texas: Wordware Publ (Wordware game developer's library), 2004.
  5. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Jeannie Novak: Game development essentials. An introduction. 3rd edn., Melbourne: Delmar Cengage Learning (Media arts & design), 2011.
  6. ↑ a b c d e f g h i Tynan Sylvester: Designing games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly, 2013.
  7. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Jesse Schell : The art of game design. A book of lenses. 2nd edn. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press / Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.
  8. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa Ian Schreiber: Game Balance Concepts. A continued experiment in game design and teaching, 2010, http://gamebalanceconcepts.wordpress.com . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  9. ↑ a b c d e f Keith Burgun: Understanding Balance in Video Games, 2011. On Gamasutra , https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134768/understanding_balance_in_video_.php . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  10. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l David Sirlin : Balancing Multiplayer Games, 2014. http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  11. ↑ a b c d James Portnow : Perfect Imbalance - Why Unbalanced Design Creates Balanced Play, 2012. On YouTube , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w& . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  12. ↑ a b c d e f Dan Felder: Design 101: Balancing Games, 2015. On Gamasutra , https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanFelder/20151012/251443/Design_101_Balancing_Games.php . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  13. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Rym DeCoster and Scott Rubin: PAX South 2018 - Balance in Game Design, 2018. Available on YouTube , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXD8YQ7j_Qk& . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  14. ↑ a b c d e Adam Millard: Why Are Games So Hard To Balance ?, 2018. On YouTube , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3n-Sy2Ko4I& . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  15. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j Marc Brown: How Games Get Balanced, 2019. On YouTube , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQzdXPTb2A& . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  16. ↑ a b Raph Koster : Nerfing. https://www.raphkoster.com/games/snippets/nerfing/ . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  17. ↑ a b c d Seth Schiesel: In a Multiplayer Universe, Gods Bow to the Masses, 2002. New York Times , https://archive.nytimes.com/query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage-9405E0D91F3BF933A25753C1A9649C8B63.html . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  18. ↑ a b c d Timothy Burke: Rubicite Breastplate Priced to Move, Cheap: How Virtual Economies Become Real Simulations, 2002. pp. 1 - 3. http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/Rubicite%20Breastplate.pdf . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  19. ↑ Theodore J. Westbrook: Owned: Finding a Place for Virtual World Property Rights, 2006. In Michigan State Law Review 779, partially available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mslr2006&div=32&id = & page = . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  20. ↑ Richard Aichoshi: Fury Interview - Part 1, 2007. IGN , archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20070823063024/http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/712/712948p2.html . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  21. ↑ a b Tim Barry: In Search of the Ultimate Computer Game, 1981. In InfoWorld , pp. 11 and 48, archived at https://books.google.de/books?id=Cz4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA10&pg=PA11&redir_esc=y#v = onepage & q & f = true . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  22. ↑ a b Chris Crawford : Design Techniques and Ideas for Computer Games, 1982. In Byte Magazine Volume 7 Number 12, p. 96, archived at https://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1982-12/1982_12_BYTE_07- 12_Game_Plan_1982 # page / n97 / mode / 2up . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  23. ^ Johnny L. Wilson: Mea Culpas and Culpability . 1994. In: Computer Gaming World . P. 8, available at http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1994&pub=2&id=115 . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  24. ↑ a b c Jaime Griesemer: Design in Detail: Changing the Time Between Shots for the Sniper Rifle from 0.5 to 0.7 Seconds for Halo 3, 2010. On GDC Vault, https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1012211/Design -in-detail-changing-the . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  25. ↑ a b Mark Newheiser: Playing Fair: A Look at Competition in Gaming, 2009. On Strange Horizons , archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20090312033347/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/ 20090309 / newheiser-a.shtml . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  26. ↑ a b Dustin Browder: The Game Design of Starcraft II: Designing an E-Sport, 2011. On GDC Vault, https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STARCRAFT . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  27. ↑ a b c Michael Booth: The AI ​​Systems of Left 4 Dead, 2009. https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/2009/ai_systems_of_l4d_mike_booth.pdf . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  28. ↑ Computer Gaming World : Graduation Day for Computer Entertainment, 1993. pp. 34ff, archived at http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=108 . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  29. ^ Andrei Ilie, Silvia Ioan, Leon Zagrean, Mihai Moldovan: Better to be Red than Blue in Virtual Competition . 2008. In: Cyber ​​Psychology & Behavior . Volume 11 Issue 3, pp. 375 - 377. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0122 . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  30. ↑ Mike Ambinder : Biofeedback in Gameplay: How Valve Measures Physiology to Enhance Gaming Experience, 2011. On GDC Vault, https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014734/Biofeedback-in-Gameplay-How-Valve . Retrieved on July 14, 2020. As PDF https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/2011/ValveBiofeedback-Ambinder.pdf . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  31. ↑ Miriam Bruhn and David McKenzie: In Pursuit of Balance: Randomization in Practice in Development Field Experiments, 2008. The World Bank , http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/372631468177851332/pdf/WPS4752.pdf . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  32. ↑ Ben Croshaw : On Difficulty Levels, 2010. In The Escapist , https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/7820-On-Difficulty-Levels . Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  33. ↑ Josh Bycer: Examining Subjective Difficulty: How Plumbers Can Fight Demons . In: Gamasutra . January 4, 2012, accessed July 24, 2020. (English)
  34. ↑ Haoyang Chen, Yasukuni Mori and Ikuo Matsuba: Solving the balance problem of massively multiplayer online role-playing games using coevolutionary programming, 2014. In Applied Soft Computing Volume 18, pp. 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.asoc.2014.01.011 . Retrieved July 14, 2020.