THANK YOU. People donât care about balance, they just want their fave class to stomp others without having to put in the work to avoid their counter.
Maybe thereâs something Iâm not getting, but doesnât the second setup preclude basically anyone from stomping anyone? If stomping others is oneâs goal, itâd be through picking a class and then picking on any other class thatâs weak to oneâs own, no?
Yeah, the point of this comic is less about people buffing their favorite class (though people do tend to lean towards that) and more about people generally thinking âbalancedâ means everything is equal.
Though the man in the purple shirt is definitely wanting to get rid of the advantages rogues have on mages⊠The mages symbol also being purple lol.
Assuming this is for a team game, predator-prey relationships create interesting dynamics where teammates have to protect each other from their counters, while also aiming to create situations where they can isolate a countered opponent to press the advantage.
In a 1v1 game though, you do want panel 2. It would be very bad if Street Fighter was decided by playing rock-paper-scissors on the character select screen.
In the first panel, each class is considered in its interactions with each other class. In the second, each class is strong against one, weak against one and their relationship with the others isnât considered.
Also, at least in single-player games, and sometimes in multi-player too (depending on exactly where and how) balance is actually not even necessarily a goal you should be pursuing at all. The imbalance is the point, the BFG should be allowed to be the BFG, it doesnât need to be balanced. Even better is subtle imbalances that are not necessarily telegraphed directly. Not only does imbalance indulge the power fantasy when players can take advantage of it, but discovering those hidden âbrokenâ mechanics makes players feel like theyâve either lucked out or outsmarted the game and is actually deeply gratifying on its own.
It can also lead to some very emergent metagames that maybe havenât been considered. Sometimes the instinctual reaction to immediately patch out and hotfix any mechanic that is found to be unintentionally overpowered might mean youâre just being the âno fun allowedâ police. And games are supposed to be fun. And in multiplayer sure you have to think about the fun of all players instead of just one, but maybe you should give some thought to what would happen if you embrace the mechanic instead. Maybe it could be a per-game setting instead of just removing it. Maybe it could turn into a whole new game mode. If some people are having fun with it and could have fun using it against each other, maybe let them? Itâs understandable if youâre trying to make your game into an e-Sport but even sports have different leagues with different sets of rules.
Balance is overrated IMO. Imbalance can be entertaining, hilarious, and fun. Consider trying it.
Yeah, I also have to say that Iâll often not even bother trying to work out whatâs good and what is not, because thereâs a voice in the back of my head that says, well, it should all be equally viable, because of balancing.
Thatâs a big part of the reason why I like random map generation, because it isnât possible to make all options equally viable. Sometimes, you level up your axe skill and never find a good axe, and just have to deal with that.
Fun should take priority, and I think it usually does. Itâs just that in popular multiplayer games people usually find the optimum play style and then only do that, which can make the game quite boring and repetitive. One of the most viable ways to counteract that is to balance it so other play styles become more popular and make the game a bit more varied.
Another option can be to add some randomness to some mechanics so which play style is best isnât as obvious or changes more frequently.
It sucks when this happens in primarily PVE games too (looking at you warframe), classes go from feeling unique and having roles in a party to all being able to do everything equally effectively and becoming hemogenous.
Is this a cold take? I think its not hot nor cold. Its a medium take.
I think it depends what someone wants out of a game, and I think most people would agree that classes having just brick wall hard counters can be annoying in games where you play as a single character, like everything should have some chance of fighting everything else, even if disadvantaged by class type etc.
Like imagine a game like marvel rivals, but where you just straight up couldnât hit ironman as wolverine or similar. I think people would dislike that.
In like a real time strategy game though, thats different.
Europe Pub (PieFed)
justdaveisfine
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
THANK YOU. People donât care about balance, they just want their fave class to stomp others without having to put in the work to avoid their counter.
Maybe thereâs something Iâm not getting, but doesnât the second setup preclude basically anyone from stomping anyone? If stomping others is oneâs goal, itâd be through picking a class and then picking on any other class thatâs weak to oneâs own, no?
Yeah, the point of this comic is less about people buffing their favorite class (though people do tend to lean towards that) and more about people generally thinking âbalancedâ means everything is equal.
Though the man in the purple shirt is definitely wanting to get rid of the advantages rogues have on mages⊠The mages symbol also being purple lol.
Assuming this is for a team game, predator-prey relationships create interesting dynamics where teammates have to protect each other from their counters, while also aiming to create situations where they can isolate a countered opponent to press the advantage.
In a 1v1 game though, you do want panel 2. It would be very bad if Street Fighter was decided by playing rock-paper-scissors on the character select screen.
I mean, there is some nuance. Sucks for memes, because they thrive on the lack of nuance, but anywaysâŠ
Depending on implementation, you gotta be careful to avoid the top panel becoming rock paper scissors.
If class switching is cheap (say, every respawn), youâve just built a very very expensive rock paper scissors simulator.
are these not the same just changing whoâs good vs what?
In the first panel, each class is considered in its interactions with each other class. In the second, each class is strong against one, weak against one and their relationship with the others isnât considered.
I read it as the adjacent ones being neutral or a 50:50 odds. But it sounds like ur interpretation might be the intention
Also, at least in single-player games, and sometimes in multi-player too (depending on exactly where and how) balance is actually not even necessarily a goal you should be pursuing at all. The imbalance is the point, the BFG should be allowed to be the BFG, it doesnât need to be balanced. Even better is subtle imbalances that are not necessarily telegraphed directly. Not only does imbalance indulge the power fantasy when players can take advantage of it, but discovering those hidden âbrokenâ mechanics makes players feel like theyâve either lucked out or outsmarted the game and is actually deeply gratifying on its own.
It can also lead to some very emergent metagames that maybe havenât been considered. Sometimes the instinctual reaction to immediately patch out and hotfix any mechanic that is found to be unintentionally overpowered might mean youâre just being the âno fun allowedâ police. And games are supposed to be fun. And in multiplayer sure you have to think about the fun of all players instead of just one, but maybe you should give some thought to what would happen if you embrace the mechanic instead. Maybe it could be a per-game setting instead of just removing it. Maybe it could turn into a whole new game mode. If some people are having fun with it and could have fun using it against each other, maybe let them? Itâs understandable if youâre trying to make your game into an e-Sport but even sports have different leagues with different sets of rules.
Balance is overrated IMO. Imbalance can be entertaining, hilarious, and fun. Consider trying it.
Yeah, I also have to say that Iâll often not even bother trying to work out whatâs good and what is not, because thereâs a voice in the back of my head that says, well, it should all be equally viable, because of balancing.
Thatâs a big part of the reason why I like random map generation, because it isnât possible to make all options equally viable. Sometimes, you level up your axe skill and never find a good axe, and just have to deal with that.
Fun should take priority, and I think it usually does. Itâs just that in popular multiplayer games people usually find the optimum play style and then only do that, which can make the game quite boring and repetitive. One of the most viable ways to counteract that is to balance it so other play styles become more popular and make the game a bit more varied.
Another option can be to add some randomness to some mechanics so which play style is best isnât as obvious or changes more frequently.
It sucks when this happens in primarily PVE games too (looking at you warframe), classes go from feeling unique and having roles in a party to all being able to do everything equally effectively and becoming hemogenous.
but what do the green and red arrows mean?
IRL as well.
Is this a cold take? I think its not hot nor cold. Its a medium take.
I think it depends what someone wants out of a game, and I think most people would agree that classes having just brick wall hard counters can be annoying in games where you play as a single character, like everything should have some chance of fighting everything else, even if disadvantaged by class type etc.
Like imagine a game like marvel rivals, but where you just straight up couldnât hit ironman as wolverine or similar. I think people would dislike that.
In like a real time strategy game though, thats different.