Slashdot Mirror
Dealing With Fairness and Balance In Video Games
MarkN writes "Video games are subject to a number of balance issues from which traditional games have largely stayed free. It can be hard finding players of comparable skill-level to create even match-ups, diverse gameplay options can quickly become irrelevant if someone finds a broken feature that beats everything else, and some online games make your ability to play competitively a question of how much time and money you've invested in a game, rather than the skill you possess. In this article, I talk about some of the issues relating to fairness and balance in games, in terms of the factors and strategies under the player's control, the game's role in potentially handicapping players, and the role a community of gamers plays in setting standards for how games are to be played. What are your thoughts on managing a 'fair and balanced' gaming experience?"
I had the chance to play Bobby Fischer at chess once. He kicked my ass around the block.
Then he called me a fucking dirty Jew.
Which was weird, because I'm not Jewish.
Thinking about it now, I probably shouldn't have thought I could play chess with him.
Back in the real world where playing video games cost a quarter or two, sometimes you only got to play 3 rounds of Street Fighter 2 because the other guy was master of Guile's Sonic Boom/Spinning upside-down kick combo. These days, you just disconnect and go find another game to join. Back then you risked cold hard cash every time you went in to play.
I don't agree with the article about the expectation of fairness in games vs real life. I think in both cases what we really want is to know the rules, so we have a chance of following them and making it through.
In games I simply want things to be moderately predictable - so that with experience I can become better. And then I want variation; it gets pretty tedious if it is always just the same few things you do, like just killing monsters.
That's easy! Just get the ones published by Fox News!
If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
Please excuse me widening the discussion but... I play quite a few RTS games and I've noticed that over the last few years the various different playable races in those games have tended to become very similar in ability.
It used to be the case that in an RTS there were generally one or two races that were slightly better than the others but now they are very well balanced. The problem is that they have balanced the races by making them all the same and thus removing one of the most interesting aspects of the genre.
In AOE II for example you could pit a strong ranged race against a strong close combat race and have a damn good game with each side trying to lure the other into traps that play to their strength. By AOE III every race was damn near the same.
Ah well, maybe one day someone will have the courage / time to properly balance a game again. Oh and, get off my lawn you kids.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Quake Live does a great thing by having you go up against a bot, and then determines your level of skill from that and then emphasizes those servers which are taylored to your skill level when you look through the server browser.
Of course you see people who play outside their skill level, but for the most part you are surrounded by people who play on your level.
Making it 'fair and balanced' can be fun (handicapping in golf or go), but in most cases it just makes a video game crappy.
Back in the days of Rainbow Six (yes, and now you can get off my lawn) I created an online ranking system based off of chess' scoring system. This worked great for the players and teams, as you didn't really have to find people on your own skill level to have something to gain.
If I (a mediocre chess player) were to play the reigning world champion of chess, he'd stand to gain maybe 1 point in his ranking by winning (I'd lose 1 I think), but if I were to win, I'd gain upwards of 24 or 32 points (and he'd lose a lot of points). This scoring system makes it worthwile for the best player to avoid drawing or losing to a less skilled player.
We did get a few complaints about the scoring, because the "best" players were used to them being unable to lose their top spot without losing to #2, where as with this system, someone could overtake them simply by winning lots and lots of games against less skilled players/teams. This has the upside of enticing people to play more, and not just by cherry picking from the top 10. Any adversary is okay, as it gives you a chance to win more points.
See more on the Wiki page
You obviously haven't played online much. The important thing here is latency, not throughput. Any latency under 80ms is more than playable, and a 768k DSL line is more than capable of that. Hell, with fastpath I used to hit ~30ms on a 1M line.
Just use a server that's in the same country instead of halfway around the world.
Author obviously never played basketball with his friends.
You mean this?
Time spent training is a large factor, if not the largest, in attaining a high level of skill. Good equipment helps in real-life games and sports, too. Some even insist that shell and slate stones make them play better go. Go figure. :)
Natural Selection had success in balancing itself by inviting diversity among its players. The marine team has chain of command - it allows less experienced players to be effective by following orders. On the alien team every player is equal. Both teams need strategic thinkers and good shooters. It leads to a enjoyable game for a larger spread of personality and experience level compared to, say, Counterstrike.
At least once a week I tell my nine year old twins "the world is not fair". Seems appropriate here.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Many games offer a seemingly large freedom when creating your character, playset or play style, but eventually you find out that only a very narrowly defined path leads to success. Take WoW. You can, in theory, create almost limitless variants of skill point distribution, yet only a handful "work". For some classes, it's basically set in stone that you have this or that distribution, depending on whether you want to go against other players or some large raid encounter.
In other games, too, you are limited to a narrow set of viable choices. TFA uses beat 'em ups as an example where you can only pick a handful, or even only one, character to succeed, the others being basically fluff.
It's also not really "balanced" when you're basically forced to play by a certain strategy because all the others simply do not work. If you play an MMO and your class excels in mezzing, it ruins your class if mezzing is simply unnecessary, no matter how much you excel in it. Instead, you have to rely on your other spells which are maybe (in the end, when the devs heard enough whining and don't want to "break" the game for the others and make mezzing important) even as strong as the ones of another class, yet an important part of your character, maybe the reason why you chose it in the first place, becomes completely obsolete.
This can actually break a game. For a player, or for all.
Imagine an MMO where healing becomes obsolete because items became so powerful that nothing (short of a player wielded weapon) can harm a tank. Dedicated healer classes would certainly feel unbalanced and "useless". Now, instead of making healers important again, they're giving a boost to their damage spell lines and are told to behave like offensive casters. That's not what I made. I made a healer. If I wanted a damage caster, I would have made one.
Thus "balancing" a game may actually ruin it, when it is done without first considering what the player actually wants...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Okay, I'm sorry, but people throw around the word "skill" as though it is some special property that people either have or do not.
In fact, skill is the totality of what you need to be able to do to compete. In Darwinist terms, it is synonymous with fitness. Fitness, as a term, does not specify exactly what makes one fit; this is specific to each individual case, and is derived directly and in all cases from the conditions.
There are several methods by which one develops "skill", and they might or might not apply to a give game.
1. Skill is representative of reflexes. This is rare for most games; it usually is only true when the game is new and no-one really knows anything about it. In these cases, reflexes appear to be the same as skill because they represent an advantage that only one player possesses. Over time, other advantages usually develop to the point where reflexes alone do not represent (much of) an advantage by itself (but is a considerable edge for those who possess other advantages).
2. Skill is representative of time. This is the most common, because almost all humans are capable of both learning and adapting, and so in most cases practice results in elevated mastery. In almost every game, time spend playing is the single biggest advantage that one can have.
3. Skill is representative of money. This mostly used to apply in the days of coin-op arcade games, and is more of a derived skill representation as it enhances the advantage of reflexes by limiting the possibility of time. Those with money could get time to develop their reflexes; those without money had no time to practice and could get no advantage over reflexes alone. Money as a representation of skill is however making a comeback, with paid-for exclusive downloadable content starting to represent real advantages such as better weapons or earlier access to new maps.
4. Skill is representative of knowledge/intelligence. This is in many ways derived from time, but also somewhat independent of it insofar as an individual's natural pattern-matching and information processing and memory potential is concerned. This allows one to discover and or apply complex strategies or unusual rules to a competition, in their own favor. This is in many ways diluted over time, as information becomes disseminated.
Most games represent several values; Fighters and shooters represent skill mostly as Reflexes in the early days, but mostly Time at later stages of it's lifetime (some fighters can also significantly represent skill as knowledge/intelligence where long combo chains and complex moves are particularly important, or detailed knowledge of spawn times and map layouts). MMOs mostly represent skill as Time, but also Money (to varying degrees depending on many factors, and usually mostly in the early days). RPGs usually represent skill as Time and also in many cases significantly represent skill as knowledge/intelligence; on the other hand, Reflexes typically mean nothing at all. And so on. Other classes of advantages representative of skill exists, but are minor and mostly derived from the above.
Sorry to all of the elitists who decry modern games as overflowing with noobs who can't press buttons fast enough/aim their mouse precise enough, but "skill" doesn't just mean that. Almost all advantages come back mostly to time, and all are - in principle - subservient to it. If you say that you're skilled at a game, but don't really mean that you've simply played it a lot, then what you're really saying is that your advantage is likely to be temporary, unless you put time in.
What , you mean we should go back to the complex narrative of Pacmac for example? :)
Someone with the ability to play chess at top level obviously has certain mental powers that mean his actions have to be examined VERY closely before pronouncing them insane. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic etc..
Not that I know much about Bobby Fischer. Is he even alive? All signs point to the probability that he is/was nuttier than a fruitcake. Still, I'd have to know alot more about him to be sure.
...
He died a bit over a year ago.
This article just assumes games should be competitive. There are cooperative games. The Wii is pioneering more such cooperative games. Here is a general site on the topic of cooperative computer games:
http://www.co-optimus.com/
There are even cooperative board games:
http://www.familypastimes.com/
One great thing about cooperative games is that they make it easy for players of different skill levels to play together.
From Alfie Kohn's book, "No Contest: The Case Against Competition": ... In closely reasoned argument he shows that, while competition is deeply ingrained, it is also inherently destructive, especially where self-esteem is contingent on winning at the expense of others."
http://www.amazon.com/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254
"Contending that competition in all areas -- school, family, sports and business -- is destructive, and that success so achieved is at the expense of another's failure, Kohn, a correspondent for USA Today, advocates a restructuring of our institutions to replace competition with cooperation. He persuasively demonstrates how the ingrained American myth that competition is the only normal and desirable way of life -- from Little Leagues to the presidency -- is counterproductive, personally and for the national economy, and how psychologically it poisons relationships, fosters anxiety and takes the fun out of work and play. He charges that competition is a learned phenomenon and denies that it builds character and self-esteem. Kohn's measures to encourage cooperation in lieu of competition include promoting noncompetitive games, eliminating scholastic grades and substitution of mutual security for national security.
So, there are other ways to have more fun.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cooperative+games
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
As someone who does this for a living, I always feel like fairness, balance, and skill are just tools. The thing that really matters is player psychology. The game doesn't actually have to really be fair or balanced. It just has to *feel* fair and balanced to the player.
Skill and balance are a means to that end, but I don't think they should be the primary focus.
It's tempting to think just making it perfectly balanced will make it fun, but that's only part of it. If the player experience isn't considered, it's easy to make something perfect mathematically, but boring or frustrating to players.
As Jeff Kaplan (former WoW lead) put it, Perfect skill matching would mean you lose half your games. Is that fun? Is there any other way to do it and be fair? Probably not. So they found another way to make it feel fun anyways.
Whenever I've played with friends who were used to RPG-type games where they're always the hero, they get confused when they play against real people and die a lot instead of easily killing everything like they did before. That makes me think designers should think about how they transition these players from killing computer opponents to real ones.
As far as measuring skill goes, a perfect skill-based system would determine your skill quickly and accurately and it wouldn't change much. That would feel pretty boring and probably wrong to a player.
So if your goal is to make a game fair and balanced, you're probably barking up the wrong tree. Instead, think of fairness and balance as some of the tools to make it fun, and focus most on the perception of the average player.