What would you considered a "Well Balanced" video game?

[Mysterymask]

So curious...always seems to be talks on How Blizzard can't balance worth a shit in wow...

So what do ya'll consider a "Well Balanced Game" ..could be a JRPG who all has party members with characters who are great-excellent in certain situations or a fighter where all characters are viable or even an MMO that actually has (Gasp) every spec and class being viable!

To me some good ones are

Power Rangers Battle for the Grid: Every character is mostly viable the team aspect helps a LOT but I've seen most characters in the top 8 of tournaments pretty regularly.

Guilty Gear XX AC: Another one...the 3 "Top Tier" characters are only there because if you are actually good enough to do their freaky gimmicks they are gods the rest are perfectly balanced.

Chrono Trigger: All Characters are great in their own way...Marle is kinda the worst one only because she lacks damage but is INSANE as support.

[Rogalicus]

Balancing in MMOs (or multiplayer games in general) is mostly done by removing as much variables as possible and making the game completely bland and static in the process. And even when the game is perfectly balanced some options would be underplayed because of some underlying issues that can't be resolved with just numbers tuning.

[Mysterymask]

Balancing in MMOs (or multiplayer games in general) is mostly done by removing as much variables as possible and making the game completely bland and static in the process. And even when the game is perfectly balanced some options would be underplayed because of some underlying issues that can't be resolved with just numbers tuning.

well I mean it IS possible but I like to think the less is more strategy usually ends up better in the long run...

Since I said fighting games we can take 2 of them into consideration.. Marvel vs Capcom 2 and Guilty Gear Accent Core

Guilty Gear has 25 characters and Marvel has 56...

Both games have a "High Tier" but the differences is pretty staggering

The 3 high tiers in Guilty Gear are considered Baiken, Testament, and Eddie. The rest are considered good by most stretches. The thing with those 3 is they are good because of the insane skillgap they require to play and generally if you are good with those 3...you are good more for your skill and less for the character

Now Marvel has Sentinal, Storm, Magneto, and Cable...these 4 "God Tier" characters power level is MILES higher than the rest not to say they can't be beaten and the team mechanics will help out in a way (most teams aren't Storm/Sentinel/Magneto) but there is no skillgap with those 4 ..in fact I would consider them pretty easy characters to play.

BUT in an MMO (especially wow) you really don't want perfect balance despite what the populace screams about.

[starstationprofm]

Wrath of the Lich King Patch 3.3.5 PvP is hailed as the best it's ever been. I can agree with that, I feel like every class has room towards the top of the ladder.

[ClassicPeon]

well I mean it IS possible but I like to think the less is more strategy usually ends up better in the long run...

Since I said fighting games we can take 2 of them into consideration.. Marvel vs Capcom 2 and Guilty Gear Accent Core

Guilty Gear has 25 characters and Marvel has 56...

Both games have a "High Tier" but the differences is pretty staggering

The 3 high tiers in Guilty Gear are considered Baiken, Testament, and Eddie. The rest are considered good by most stretches. The thing with those 3 is they are good because of the insane skillgap they require to play and generally if you are good with those 3...you are good more for your skill and less for the character

Now Marvel has Sentinal, Storm, Magneto, and Cable...these 4 "God Tier" characters power level is MILES higher than the rest not to say they can't be beaten and the team mechanics will help out in a way (most teams aren't Storm/Sentinel/Magneto) but there is no skillgap with those 4 ..in fact I would consider them pretty easy characters to play.

BUT in an MMO (especially wow) you really don't want perfect balance despite what the populace screams about.

Balancing a fighting game and an mmo is two completely different things. Especially in the case of wow where you effectively have to balance for three different endgames.


The best balanced pvp games that comes to mind are probably the games where everyone essentially plays the same character with access to the same skills/weapons. So things like counter strike and so on.

As soon as you add variables between characters you have balance differences

[bbr]

Wrath of the Lich King Patch 3.3.5 PvP is hailed as the best it's ever been. I can agree with that, I feel like every class has room towards the top of the ladder.

Unless you had a legendary two handed axe ^^
Death knights were among the top most OP classes at the time once you got that.

[starstationprofm]

Unless you had a legendary two handed axe ^^
Death knights were among the top most OP classes at the time once you got that.

Warmane's ladder has plenty teams without a DK or Warrior.

I spot 11 DKs in the top 50 for 3v3, which doesn't sound OP at all.

[Biomega]

So curious...always seems to be talks on How Blizzard can't balance worth a shit in wow...

You misunderstand something fundamental about this.

It's not that Blizzard CAN'T balance everything completely - they DON'T WANT TO.

You are assuming that perfect balance is in their best interest. It isn't. Their goal isn't to make the most balanced game possible - their goal is to make money. And a lot of that money comes from people who 1) don't care that much about balance; and/or 2) benefit from a lack of balance because it gives them access to options that compensate for lack of skill.

I like to call this "the chess problem" - in chess, the better of two players pretty much wins every time (within a certain margin). However, that's actually not that fun to a lot of people, especially new players. They LIKE having that outside chance, that special angle, that option of sneaking around skill. If they went into something knowing they'll lose it reduces their fun, despite it being technically the more "balanced" state of the game.

Blizzard's goal is to make a product that is GOOD ENOUGH for the largest possible player base, because that's what makes them the most money. Balancing the game only matters to them insofar as it supports that goal. Some balance is desirable; perfect balance generally isn't. Blizzard has a holistic vision that includes all aspects of the game, and they design around THAT as a vehicle for player retention. Some imbalance in certain areas is completely accepted, even intended.

[ClassicPeon]

Warmane's ladder has plenty teams without a DK or Warrior.

I spot 11 DKs in the top 50 for 3v3, which doesn't sound OP at all.

The only thing that can beat a warrior with legendary is a frost mage

[Coldkil]

To me, "Well Balanced" means that you can do all content provided with any combinations of class/build/group/skillset in a reasonably varied timeframe. I know it sounds vague, but here's my reasoning.

First of all, balance depends on content structure. Be it a time rush, or a constantly increasing difficulty setup you need to make sure that any player has a reasonable chance to do it all. Player skill is not a variable to consider: granted the same capabilities, different classes/builds should be able to reach the end of the game. If a player is not "good enough" to reach it, it shouldn't depend on the class he choose.

Second, more on classes/builds/skillset/groups composition. It's just natural that most players will flock to the "META" because everyone looks for the path of least resistance to achieve their goals. The only way to combat this (not defeat it, it's never going away) is to make so non-meta characters are powerful enough to partake in the same content with success, so while meta still exists anyone can do the content granted he's able to do so.

Last, the "timeframe" part. Basically, any game mechanic can be measured in time spent playing. Doing something faster than someone else is universally accepted as being "more powerful", or "more optimized" - while variance in this is basically unavoidable due to how game systems work and affect each other, if this is kept in check everyone will feel more or less equally powerful and able to do the things they like. As for the point above, meta still exists so players will flock naturally to the "faster" classes/builds/etc but will be less attracted to those if the gain is smaller, especially when compared to "being forced to play something i don't like". Also, "reasonable variance" may be very different between players, as what's reasonable for me may not be for many others.

There's one thing though that screws basically everything up: ladders/competition. Since they have the most visibility, and players just love to show others how they're better than them, there's a very skewed perception of what's meta and what's actual balance. Also, depending on the content type what's required to actual balance a game may be up to simply impossible due to how a certain game deals with this kind of stuff.

I'll put two examples from WoW.
- Mythic Raids: are they balanced? If i look at warcraftlogs and check if there are classes that are not able to do 10/10, this is not the case. There are logs present for every class. However, not all builds are very represented (if at all) so this means that while classes are more or less balanced, actual builds are totally not with some being very string and others basically not played at all.

- M+: if i check 15s, basically any class can do the KSM and get the best rewards from them. So they're actually balanced enough. However if you're mostly pugging, though luck because everyone checks the best comp on r.io and sees all the same 5 classes and if you're not one of them, you're out (especially as dps). But this is not because M+ are not balanced, it's because most people think the best teams in the world play the same game they do, which is totally not the case.
M+ given its infinite scaling, just promotes meta to the max. At some point, some classes are going to just be left out because they simply cannot bring the performance needed. If you're interested in ladder climbing, this is part of the ruleset - otherwise be content of whatever level you can reach past 15s because that's not going to change.

TL;DR: it's complicated. You can have things balanced at a certain threshold but not below or above it due to how a game work.

[Kwaizar]

one that doesnt tip over when you go to the arcade

[Marrilaife]

I like to call this "the chess problem" - in chess, the better of two players pretty much wins every time (within a certain margin). However, that's actually not that fun to a lot of people, especially new players.

You could fix that with good matchmaking, but of course can't have that... instead of pitting newbies against newbies and veterans against veterans, in WOW you have a rampant scene of arena boosts where gladiator level skilled and geared players come to 1400-1800 brackets to roflstomp some noobs and carry someone who paid. Then obviously the boostee reaches rating their don't deserve by skill or gear, and either they take their gear and leave (case for people who wanted gear for pve), or they stay in that bracket and then complain they're getting their ass kicked without their booster partner.

[VinceVega]

So curious...always seems to be talks on How Blizzard can't balance worth a shit in wow...

So what do ya'll consider a "Well Balanced Game" ..could be a JRPG who all has party members with characters who are great-excellent in certain situations or a fighter where all characters are viable or even an MMO that actually has (Gasp) every spec and class being viable!

To me some good ones are

Power Rangers Battle for the Grid: Every character is mostly viable the team aspect helps a LOT but I've seen most characters in the top 8 of tournaments pretty regularly.

Guilty Gear XX AC: Another one...the 3 "Top Tier" characters are only there because if you are actually good enough to do their freaky gimmicks they are gods the rest are perfectly balanced.

Chrono Trigger: All Characters are great in their own way...Marle is kinda the worst one only because she lacks damage but is INSANE as support.

I don't think wow is bad at balancing. Tbh i think when it comes to MMOs they are better than nearly everyone else.
No class is useless and you can play every single spec unless you are top end in any content. But at that place you will always have some specs better than others.

Perfect balance is only achivable by significantly dumbing down the game. That is why single player not even try it in most cases. Strategy games always have factions waaaaaay better than other. SP-RPGs are more concerned with interesting gameplay as there is no need for balance. You don't compare to anyone/thing.

Even most online Multiplayer games don't bother too much. Look at Mobas. Every single on of those has dead heroes.

I guess a game where it felt balanced was the Mass Effect Trilogy. And Wow for me. Overwatch is allright.
Games with bad balance: Stellaris... phew that is so horrible. Love the game. But there are certain setups that are just dead. Eso. But there it is offset with the fact that everyone can do nearly everything as most skills are disconnected from classes itself.

[starstationprofm]

The only thing that can beat a warrior with legendary is a frost mage

https://i.gyazo.com/6baa34d4d065da28...1a6929669f.png

Dunno about that one

[ClassicPeon]

https://i.gyazo.com/6baa34d4d065da28...1a6929669f.png

Dunno about that one

I'm not sure what you think you are proving with this. You arent countering my argument thats for sure

[msdos]

Bloodline Champions/Battlerite was probably the most balanced arena game I ever played. There were over the top heroes who got nerfed, but the game didn't have economical advantages.

I'm thinking Smash Bros, but in a wide arena and very limited verticality and everything has more range and mobility. A simple game, but the skill ceiling was very high, most of the game was built around precise skill shots. There was a hero who had a directional leap frog as his movement skill and you couldn't control the timing on it, but if you pounced on an enemy with it it would do a fat nuke. It was hard to land, but you could chain 2 of them and leap onto 2 different enemies if you were good.
Everyone had a movement skill, everyone had a skillshot of some sort and everyone had some type of defense. Everyone had some type of CC. There was no "glass cannon" or gimmicky niche crap or "hybrid tax" or anything arbitrary like that.

There is no feeling like prefiring a skillshot across the map and hitting someone with it, but not randomly, like actually being able to aim, especially with a moderately slow missile that is designed to be able to be dodged.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

You can use multiple different playstyles to win, rather than just relying on one or two strategies that are far more optimal than any other strategies to the point that you really should only bother with those one or two most optimal strats. Most RPGs struggle with this. In Trails in the Sky and the Crossbell games, you should only really bother with stacking up your ATS as high as possible and spamming your highest damage AoE art (Aero, White Gehenna, Death Scream, and Lord Inferno), because that simply wins the battle far, far faster than any other strat (such as physical damage or speed or using debuffs, etc). In some cases you can't even beat the game using conventional strats such physical damage; you MUST spam your AoE arts or you simply won't deal enough damage and win before you die. It wasn't until Trails of Cold Steel that Trails games started being balanced, where there isn't any one strat that is far superior than any other. You can use delay, debuffing, condition stacking, arts, or simply melee attacking.

Mob and boss difficulty are also similar. Too often, enemies in RPGs are designed around just having one or two ways to defeat them, thus enforcing you to rely on certain strats. A good RPG will allow you to utilize many different strats to take down enemies. Notice how almost every boss in an RPG is immune to status conditions or debuffs? A good game will allow you to use status conditions and debuffs on a boss. Tactics Advance 2 is a good example of this.

[PACOX]

A lot of times when gamers go on about balance, they mean for everything to be the same but different flashy colors.

The loudest voices are incapable of understanding that balance also means that Class A may be really good at x but terrible at y but Class B is the opposite. Or that Class A maybe really good in low skilled environments but terrible at upper levels. People often ask for mediocrity where identifiers lose their identity.

[starstationprofm]

I'm not sure what you think you are proving with this. You arent countering my argument thats for sure

There's plenty teams near the top without a warrior or a frost mage.

[minteK917]

Balancing in MMOs (or multiplayer games in general) is mostly done by removing as much variables as possible and making the game completely bland and static in the process. And even when the game is perfectly balanced some options would be underplayed because of some underlying issues that can't be resolved with just numbers tuning.

No thats the way blizzard does it. There is another path they decided wasent gona be "fun". Because according to blizzard fun is calculated by their charts. By making more clever utilities and more diverse fights to use said utilities spread across different classes, you achieve balance in the unbalance, where everyone has powers nobody else brings that everyone needs. Instead blizzard took the calculation chart approach, if everyone is the same, nobody can get pushed out. Except then its just the number dps that matters and guess what now your only basis for balance becomes the damage output of all classes, something that has 0 basis if something is fun to play. I can give you two class that do 100k dps. One will do a single attack every one minute that does 6 million damages and the other will have multiple attacks every seconds, thats technically balanced. How fun will you have playing the first one.

When they reduced balance closer and closer to, we making dps close and its all that mattered, the game turned more and more into bland shit. Instead the correct course should have been to make utilities more unique and more game breaking they could for every classes and build the game around that strategy, but its too late now, its decade of just thinking, but the chart says x. Chart cant tell you whats fun, hence its not fun.