Talk:Game balance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just a suggestion on the "miniature wargame" section, but could you go into more detail? Y'know, giving examples of what constitutes "fair" and "unfair" in that case, kinda thing. Yar Kramer

[edit] OR

The "Principles" and "Factors" sections, aside from having been written mostly about character classes, seem to be mostly original research. Percy Snoodle 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that. We probably ought to give it an overhaul and, uh, come up with sources for most of this, really. —Yar Kramer 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

—For the "Principles" section: it isn't original research, although it could have been worded better to show how the principles were universal claims about all games. All games, including computer-based, soccer, chess, etc. are based upon those principles, even if it wasn't clearly explained. Maybe the author should have also explained how the concept of a "class" or "role" is universal to any sort of game. I think we are dealing with a specialized subject that has yet to be fully explored in what is considered traditional literature or educational settings. Consequently, we have a much more difficult task of referencing "authoritative" sources for the more specific claims in this section, i.e. some of the best places to find this information is actually on gamer forums. Gdoghomes 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Maybe I ought to make some sort of article on it and get it published ... ;) —Yar Kramer 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

-Just to let you know, Sirlin.net has articles that cover game balance. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 20:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

—Indeed, the "principles" described do not decribe a "balanced game" but rather "balanced options in a game" - in fact they convey two specific points in very specific scenarios: "reap what you sow" to role playing (even in an FPS) while "offence/defence" clearly in a scenario of a first person shooter, comparing two "weapons". These are just *facets* of balancing (computer) games, not principles. In fact defining only these things as principles is VERY diminutive of creating a balanced game (perhaps that's why we see so many unbanlanced game? ;) Red! 11:32, 12 July 2007 (EST)

Agreed - I've removed the sections as this concern hasn't been addressed in nearly a year. Percy Snoodle 08:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft

Terran are the best race at the highest level. -Iopq 22:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance is a more relative concept than the article implies

Quake (1996) was a simple and balanced deathmatch. Who gets the Rocket Launcher gets a winning streak until everybody can rush him and chip his health down enough with the starting shotgun. The (balanced) game is about having some luck when spawning and getting to the Rocket Launcher first, and keeping it. The carnage that ensues after someone dominates the Rocket Launcher is just the aftermath.

In the end, all games are balanced upon start-up, up to some point in time at least, when they transform in another game or stage which is an aftermath. Even a MMOG that allows level 30 characters to murder hordes of level 1 players is balanced: those MMOGs were balanced when the world was initialized. And even if some players paid to start at level 30 in said MMO, your (balanced) game as a level 1 player is to avoid those avatars.

So maybe the discussion should be about sustaining the game balance, and for how long. Starcraft does not sustain the balance for too long, and this is a good thing, or else the game would only end due to player exhaustion (the player skill being the only factor in the equation, it can loop for players that play at nearly the same skill level). If the protoss is allowed 6 full carriers with whatever rag-tag escort you'd have (a good economy-player can achieve this), and the player controlling this isn't like 10 times slower to click than the opponent, then he has the "rocket launcher" in his hands. Getting to this stage is rarer, more complex, and more dramatic than getting the RL in Quake, though.

The balance must break at some point, or else the game becomes boring. Spawning units affects the starting balance. Subtracting health from the opponent affects the balance. Changing the game rules mid-game affects the balance. The game is not just the static rules in the executable. The game is what happens, with actual players in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.54.12.28 (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)