Mutiplayer Balance: What it means and why its important (long read ahead).

The purpose of this thread is to outline my philosophy on Multiplayer Balance in Shooters, and why it’s important for us, as gamers. So let’s begin with one of the most important questions:

Why?

Why do we care so much about balance? When the topic is discussed, most supporters of a currently imbalanced game will ask this question: why do you care? It’s just a game, they say, so you either like it and play it, or don’t play it. This is one of the hardest questions to respond to, because it’s an incredibly difficult idea to convey. Why do we care? “I just do” is hardly an acceptable answer when you’re trying to make a point.

To answer that question, we have to understand a bit about human nature, and the nature of competition. The reason we care about balance issues in videogames we play is the same reason that the NFL has millions of passionate fans who endlessly debate a single referee call. It’s the same reason why millions of viewers tune in to watch the Olympic Games. It’s the same reason why sports programs at schools are commonly the backbone of the entire area. Human beings care about competition, and as insignificant as it may seem, it is inextricably part of our nature.

Competition is healthy, it’s a good thing. It is essential to the development of youth; it builds self-esteem, sportsmanship, it engenders self-improvement and discipline and provides an outlet for emotions and anger. It pushes us to excel, to think critically, and to strive for self-improvement. The point of competition is to build a good work ethic and to build sportsmanship. Its necessity in today’s society, where mediocrity is coddled and even catered to, should not be understated.

Why do we care when athletes cheat, either by steroids, corked bats, illegal equipment or other means? It is, after all, just a game. It doesn’t affect us personally in any measurable way. So why is it such a huge deal?

It’s because the balance of the competition is broken; the experience is tarnished. When that drive to win is cheapened by an unbalanced, unfair system, it degrades the overall experience. It insults one of humanities most fundamental natures. And so it is with an unbalanced game; the competitive nature that is at the heart of every match played between two opposing sides is cheapened, lessened, and leaves us with a bitter taste.

The second aspect of the original argument against balance is the suggestion that we simply find another game if we don’t like it. Generally, when a game garners a lot of attention from competitive players, it is because the potential for greatness is there. Despite the harsh criticism we lay on some titles, the games have the potential to be amazing, and are usually the best viable option currently on the market. It says something about the state of gaming right now when there are truly only one or two viable options, and those options still require us to devote days of our time trying to get them fixed.

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s define what we really mean by “balance.” The focus of this article is balance as it relates to multiplayer video games, first person shooters in particular. Most gamers think of balance as some nebulous term relating to weapons and how they compare to each other. They often have difficulty describing it in any concrete terms or ideas, and the focus is generally on weapons, aim assist and player traits. I think it can be summed up in one sentence:

"Balance" means that success is directly proportional to the abilities, choices, and actions of the players.
Balance does NOT mean that the outcome of each game is closely contested. What it means is that the outcome of each game is dependent on how well each player performs during the course of the game. A player who has low ability shouldn’t be rewarded equal to a player of greater ability. Your reward should be proportional to your performance; there is nothing more “fair” or “balanced” than that.

This is where a lot of people get misled. They think that if the outcome of a game is close, it’s balanced! No! The outcome of the game should only be close if the performances of the competing sides are approximately equal, which is rare. If one team consists of unskilled players making bad choices and the other consists of skilled players making good choices, the outcome should in no way be close. If the game artificially renders a specific skill more or less valuable, that’s imbalanced.Take aim-assist for example: some people think that if the aim-assist is high for all players, it’s balanced! No! That rewards poor players disproportionate to their ability and prevents good players from using their superior ability to its full advantage. That is not balanced.

Take this analogy: a pro golfer can drive a ball 350 yards while a new golfer can hit the ball 250 yards. One year, the PGA decides that a new golf ball that boosts everyone’s drive to 325 yards shall be allowed on the tour. The pro can still hit it 350 yards, but everyone else can now hit it 325 yards. Is that balanced? Is that fair? Everyone can now hit the ball 325 yards, so that’s balanced right? No, its not. That’s rewarding people disproportionately to their ability. The pro’s advantage is no longer proportional to the extra effort and ability he had.

Balance is an essential element to any game played between competing sides; it has a direct impact on the replay-ability and enjoyment of the game. Players want to feel like they are treated fairly and that they are rewarded for their performance and abilities.A game that does not give players the impression of being fair is frustrating and generally not as much fun to play. If players can not see a correlation between their performance and the results, they will quickly lose interest.

From the standpoint of a company seeking to make profit, longevity of a game is very important. A poorly balanced game causes the discerning player to care less and less about the game, and significantly decreases the replay value. If a player does not feel they are being rewarded fairly for their efforts, they are not likely to continue playing or continue to support that company.

So how do you ensure that your game is balanced? Simple - reward skillful playing…

Skill refers to the degree of difficulty of successfully performing actions involving practice, dexterity, and intelligence. The reward for performing a skillful action should be proportional to the amount of skill required to perform it. So how do we define skill in a video game? It’s a common question and its one of the paramount issues for competitive players. “Skill” is tossed around so casually when discussing video games that it is difficult to discern what exactly it means. Does it refer to aiming? Strategizing? Intuition? Cleverness? The answer, of course, is “all of the above.”

Many people scoff at the idea of “skill” in a video game. The purpose of this discussion is not to prove that there is “skill” in video games; if someone refuses to acknowledge the skill involved in gaming then I won’t waste my time arguing with them, as they are obviously too ignorant of the subject to even understand the arguments.

To have skill, according to standard definitions, means “[possessing] the ability, coming from one’s knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well.” Another definition: “Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience.” Now let’s refresh our memory on the definition of balance: success is directly proportional to the abilities, choices, and actions of the players.

So how does this apply to “skill?” Well, “abilities, choices and actions” is a pretty acute description of skill. In a FPS, “success” can mean many things, winning of course being the most obvious and paramount. However, “success” in its most basic form means achieving some goal. This can be anything from capturing a flag to jumping to a platform. Each of these objectives contributes in some way to the ultimate objective of winning. So in a balanced game, the most skillful actions should generally be the most rewarding.

A weapon that requires little aiming skill and is not difficult to obtain should not reward a player as much as a weapon that requires lots of skill to use well. The obvious exception to this rule is power weapons. However, the nature of the power weapons makes them a more desired weapon, leading to a different kind of skill - skill in obtaining them (provided their location and accessibility is fair), which maintains the balance.

This idea of balance hinges on one fundamental ideal that you must hold; you cannot be afraid to expose the player to the objective truth. What this means is that if someone sucks, a balanced game will not hold their hand, and if you’re afraid of hurting their feelings, you’re ability to balance the game is compromised. If the objective truth is that someone can’t aim well, a balanced game will mercilessly expose that.

Unfortunately, as I touched on before, today’s society is so concerned with not hurting anyone’s feelings or leaving them out of the “fun,” that video games have become a hand-holding, spoon-fed experience where skilled players are restricted from using their full ability. New players expect the competition to be brought down to their level, rather than elevating their play to that of the competition’s. Unfortunately, developers have been more than happy to comply. Developers are so concerned with appeasing bad players that they are willing to sacrifice the integrity of competition to ensure that “everyone” (meaning bad players) can have “fun” (meaning mindless action with valueless rewards). The end result is a shallow game that holds little lasting fun for anyone.

That is one of the most frustrating ideas that developers hold; the idea that a new or poor player will not have fun in a balanced environment. There are a myriad of ways to ensure that they do. There can be weapons or actions that are easy to use but that don’t reward the player as much as the skilled weapons would. There can be a simple matchmaking system that ensures poor players don’t mix with skilled players unless they want to. Then there’s just good gameplay; a game that’s fun to play will hold a players attention, even if they aren’t an elite player. That’s how the video game industry exploded - good gameplay that rewarded skill and dedication.

So in summation, the most important function of multiplayer balance is to remove, as much as possible, any situation where the player feels beaten by the game rather than an opposing player. The outcome of any given situation should rely, almost exclusively, on the actions and ability of the players rather than uncontrollable factors of the game. The game must provide every player with the opportunity to use all their skills to the furthest extent.

A multiplayer First Person Shooter that creates a truly balanced environment as prescribed above will attract gamers of all abilities and interests. Rather than alienate elite players for the sake of the newer players, the game would welcome newer gamers into an environment where they are only limited by their own ability and dedication, a game where their interests are not at odds with the competitive gamers, a game that engenders a desire to excel and improve. That is the kind of game the industry needs and should strive for. That is the kind of balance that we, as gamers, must demand from future Halo games.

If you make a game thats fun to play both casually and competively you’ve got a winner.

> If you make a game thats fun to play both casually and competively you’ve got a winner.

And you do that by ensuring the game is balanced, as prescribed above.

You can play a competitive game casually, but not vice-versa. Pretty much the only argument anyone needs regarding this topic.

edits epic typo fail

> You can play a competitive game casually, but not vice-versa. Pretty much the only argument anyone needs regarding this topic.
>
> edits epic typo fail

Which is the very reason Halo was so popular, but it seems that they forgot that in recent years. Reach is a casual only game while the Halo trilogy attracted competitve and casual gamers.

As usual, BigShow brings the truth.

The distinction between balance and a “close outcome” game is dead on.

> > You can play a competitive game casually, but not vice-versa. Pretty much the only argument anyone needs regarding this topic.
> >
> > edits epic typo fail
>
> Which is the very reason Halo was so popular, but it seems that they forgot that in recent years. Reach is a casual only game while the Halo trilogy attracted competitve and casual gamers.

I wouldn’t say its that casual but it has a chance to “capture” a competitive balance in Reach. I feel that gameplay should be Halo 3 style and not Loadout style. Earning your AA is a much better solution to making Reach “reach” its full potential casually and competitively.

saves thread

> > > You can play a competitive game casually, but not vice-versa. Pretty much the only argument anyone needs regarding this topic.
> > >
> > > edits epic typo fail
> >
> > Which is the very reason Halo was so popular, but it seems that they forgot that in recent years. Reach is a casual only game while the Halo trilogy attracted competitve and casual gamers.
>
> I wouldn’t say its that casual but it has a chance to “capture” a competitive balance in Reach. I feel that gameplay should be Halo 3 style and not Loadout style. Earning your AA is a much better solution to making Reach “reach” its full potential casually and competitively.
>
> saves thread

I dont really care if they equipment or AA’s, but just not in default matchmaking. Put them in special social playlists, and make default Halo more like Halo CE+Halo 2 was where it was good for casual+competitve gameplay.

> > > You can play a competitive game casually, but not vice-versa. Pretty much the only argument anyone needs regarding this topic.
> > >
> > > edits epic typo fail
> >
> > Which is the very reason Halo was so popular, but it seems that they forgot that in recent years. Reach is a casual only game while the Halo trilogy attracted competitve and casual gamers.
>
> I wouldn’t say its that casual but it has a chance to “capture” a competitive balance in Reach. I feel that gameplay should be Halo 3 style and not Loadout style. Earning your AA is a much better solution to making Reach “reach” its full potential casually and competitively.
>
> saves thread

I dont really care if they equipment or AA’s, but just not in default matchmaking. Put them in special social playlists, and make default Halo more like Halo CE+Halo 2 was where it was good for casual+competitve gameplay.

> > > You can play a competitive game casually, but not vice-versa. Pretty much the only argument anyone needs regarding this topic.
> > >
> > > edits epic typo fail
> >
> > Which is the very reason Halo was so popular, but it seems that they forgot that in recent years. Reach is a casual only game while the Halo trilogy attracted competitve and casual gamers.
>
> I wouldn’t say its that casual but it has a chance to “capture” a competitive balance in Reach. I feel that gameplay should be Halo 3 style and not Loadout style. Earning your AA is a much better solution to making Reach “reach” its full potential casually and competitively.
>
> saves thread

I dont really care if they equipment or AA’s, but just not in default matchmaking. Put them in special social playlists, and make default Halo more like Halo CE+Halo 2 was where it was good for casual+competitve gameplay.

nvm

Great read big show. Easy to use/ underpowered utility weapons, melee lunges, overpowered abitlities, and dynamic(changes based on when picked up) weapon timers are all examples of ways Halo games have moved from CEs perfect skillful balance to what we have now. But alas, the only reason Frankie thinks we liked CE is because it was on LAN and we could throw pizza at each other. I fear that these cries for balance are falling on deaf ears, however, I appreciate the read and I suppose we can all hope.

> If you make a game thats fun to play both casually and competively you’ve got a winner.

That’s exactly why the original trilogy was held in such high regard and lasted so long.

Though I agree with nearly the entire OP, I also believe many don’t understand what it really means. By the definition of what I read, Reach is balanced, the Trilogy is not.

The part I don’t agree with, using AAs is not like using a better golf ball that only increases the ability of the lesser skilled players to excel. Bull. In Reach, if an AA is a golf ball, then skilled players have the ability land on the green-in-1 on every hole. The skilled player would not be handicapped to their near original levels with a “better ball.”
Very silly.

Now a bit of logic:
AAs are not a crutch but they are how Halo: Reach is played by default. Equipment is not a crutch but is how Halo3 is played by default.
Using jetpack in Reach isn’t breaking a map, everyone can do it and it’s part of the options. It has an easy counter, choose Jetpack. And in case you didn’t notice, those places of huge advantage that Halo2 would give, Reach has soft-kill zones enabled for those zones deemed just as gamebreaking. Reach also has the ability for players to add their own areas and remove areas that they disagree with in terms of gamebreaking. Problems can be solved in Reach through Forge.
Using superjumps in Halo2 is breaking a map as it gets players to a place of non-movement and great advantage without an easy counter available. Its use online was rampant.
Using Halo2 button combos is like giving a Pro a green-on-1 capable ball to play with while the newcommers get to use the regular balls with the regular skills. That is imbalanced. If it was an Invitational where all the players get a ball… perhaps. But that means it isn’t close to an Open. And in the Open, it definitely is unfair of the Pros to be using a super-ball when the others are using regular balls.

Thanks for the read, as I said, I agree with most of it. Care to discuss Yomi levels?

> I dont really care if they equipment or AA’s, but just not in default matchmaking. Put them in special social playlists, and make default Halo more like Halo CE+Halo 2 was where it was good for casual+competitve gameplay.

Desktop, there is a difference between loving a game so hard and knowing what is right for the next game. I read your other thread and I can very well see that you love Halo CE(Just like Tom T) and have a exception for Halo 2 but that doesn’t mean it was balanced. Remove equipment and Halo 2 & Halo 3 are very similar. Honestly what you want isn’t for the best for the future of balance for H4 and beyond.

If anything on this forum ever deserved to be read, it’s the OP.

What the OP is insinuating is just wrong.

If anything, Cheating in sports, while it does ruin the experience, is much more like Hacking, or using button glitches in H2.

Using an intended mechanic to get a kill, or save your life, is still still operating within the intended rules.

And as long as those intended rules effects every player equally, then the game is balanced.

My Bloom is no greater or less than my enemies.
My AA choices are no greater or no less than my enemies.

We have balance.

> You can play a competitive game casually, but not vice-versa. Pretty much the only argument anyone needs regarding this topic.
>
> edits epic typo fail

This is one of the best, yet least passed-around analogies for competitive gaming ever.

Halo 2 is probably considered the most competitive Halo to date that had Xbox Live. I sucked BALLS at Halo 2, because it was my first time really playing against other players. Thing is…The game was good enough where it didn’t matter, and the ranking system made sure I was playing against even people.

I never made it above rank 20 or so at one time in my Halo 2 career, but I was still having a blast because the game was indeed balanced. The BR was a pretty dominant weapon, but even if you had the only one on the map, you had to be smart because kill times were still fast. If you didn’t notice that guy with an SMG behind you, you were toast. The superb ranking system had a lot to do with it, too. I never had any matches where people were quad-shotting or BXRing…Because I never played good enough to reach that level. I never really encountered a lot of cheating or modding because I never hit that point where it became a problem.

Thing was…I was okay with that.

In Halo 2, I knew that if I got better, I would rank up. I would have to fight tooth and nail for that rank, because you had to get significantly better at the game to even hope to go up a few ranks from your current “Max rank”. It pushed me to get better and better and climb higher on the ladder. I practiced all the time in unranked so I could finally have the skills to push on and get a few more ranks in Team Slayer, Rumble Pit, or Snipers.

I don’t have that drive in the new Halo games. I hit 45 in Halo 3…And I didn’t care about getting a 50 because I was “close enough”, and it had rank locked me anyway. In Reach…I just don’t care. The system doesn’t seem to be accurate at all, and I don’t see a visible change in my rank from game-to-game. It doesn’t feel progressive…It feels like a grind. It doesn’t feel like every game matters.

So sad to see Halo fall so far. I really hope 343 takes a hard look at what Halo 2 did right…

I was a level 40 in halo 2 most people didnt even reach 30. but halo 3 and reach you can suck and be the highest rank. Halo 2 was balanced the most weapons, melee, pick ups, maps everything was perfect. Reach is not simple as that if you think it is then you never played halo 2.