Balanced gaming - and please keep this thread nice

[morella]

I was going to post a reply somewhere, stating that I know of no minis game that has ever been balanced in the way that some people think is possible. Then I realized, there are a lot of games I haven't played, so I can't really make such a statement. I have experience with GW dating back to the tail end of RT (1993) and Malifaux, but that's about it, so my experience is limited.

So my question for others is, have you ever found a game that was impervious to being "broken" by power gamers or where every army/faction/master whatever always had an even chance of winning in a competitive environment? I just don't see how it would be possible to design something like that, since the really competitive players do such a good job of finding and exploiting loopholes.

And I don't mean to pick on competitive players, I hope it doesn't come across like that. it takes a certain kind of talent to find these combinations of forces/abilities etc that fluffy players may not pursue. If you're competing in anything, of course you want to exploit any advantages you can find.

[Guy in Suit]

It's pretty tough the 'Break' DnD.

"Oh, so you've min-maxed your paragon path party, huh? Oh $$$$$$$$, wormhole opens and all your magic items disappear - and there's a level 27 dragon who looks huuuunnnggrryyyy!"

[morella]

I've never played any RPG, I'm tactile by nature I think. But then, that seems like a pretty random event . . .

yeah, let's please not go there.

[Chucklemonkey]

The most balanced miniature game I have experienced to date is Warmachine/Hordes. Whilst there are certainly bad match ups that can occur I think PP in general do a good job on that front.

That game is however simpler in it's mechanics than Malifaux (significantly less special rules per model) and as such I think it is much easier to control the balance between factions.

One of the things that drew me to Malifaux was the narrative, story based encounters and it was for that reason that I was vocally against tournament rankings being introduced here in the UK. Luckily, one of my fears in this regard was unfounded as there are still plenty of unranked events. I do still feel that Wyrd should review that decision - as they indicated they would at the time - and decide what direction they want to head in: Tournament & Competitive game v Fun/Social Story based.

I still say that you do not need a perfectly balanced game to have an enjoyable, thematic experience on the tabletop with people of a like mind and that is all I ask for in a game really.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Chucklemonkey

[Boscotopia]

"No is implies an ought"

-David Hume

Rather than say, "no one else is balanced, so we don't have to be," why not listen to the feedback being given and be the first mini that is balanced. If indeed these pro-gamers find the problems, why not utilize them for play testing because whomever they have now is terrible...... I mean Microsoft terrible. How many patches does it take to get it right?

[fishtank]

Warmachine has it's fair share of over/underpowered nonsense though. Always has done since the earliest Sorscha AoE spam lists, through Denny/Nightmare/DJ nonsense into whatever the latest powercreep is. I love the world and the game, but there's way too many powergamers in it. Fluffy lists, even the theme lists, rarely stand a chance, and scenarios are rarely relevent except as an after thought to Caster Kill.

The idea that any game more complex than Chess is truly balanced is a fallacy.

[morella]

I made a blog post relating my thoughts on that - I just really don't care about tournaments, or really even winning. I have other interests in which to test my mettle (though I get that others enjoy that enivronment, and I have no problem with it), but I love the gaming hobby in its sum more than its parts. So I absolutely agree that there is agreat deal of enjoyment to be had in a not-perfectly balanced arena. And imbalance can provide unique opportunities and challenges, especially form a story aspect.

[Chucklemonkey]

Warmachine has it's fair share of over/underpowered nonsense though. Always has done since the earliest Sorscha AoE spam lists, through Denny/Nightmare/DJ nonsense into whatever the latest powercreep is. I love the world and the game, but there's way too many powergamers in it. Fluffy lists, even the theme lists, rarely stand a chance, and scenarios are rarely relevent except as an after thought to Caster Kill.

The idea that any game more complex than Chess is truly balanced is a fallacy.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you entirely but I do honestly believe that all of the factions have access to those crazy combinations. At least in my experience thus far.

[Serigala]

Historical games.

I haven't played too many, but on the basis that they are grounded in fact rather than fantasy, and that generally opposing sides are fairly equal in terms of the equipment available to them, there is not much room for abuse.

I suspect if you decided to try a spam list in Flames of War or Napoleonics you would be laughed off the table.

[morella]

And Boscotopia, my point was, in my experience, companies fix one problem, and another always appears. I just don't see that that richness and complexity can coexist with balance, although I am a mathematician, so maybe I just have a different concept of balance, which is the other reason I started this thread, to get others ideas on what that might actually mean.

And by the way, I've been here since the beginning of the game, and this company has never sat back and done nothing about issues that need fixing. A few months or even a year is actually quite soon for fixes based on my experience with the gaming world.

[LordZombie]

I think the real problem is the player choice and views. With all the choices to be made in a game, be it Warhammer Fantasy, War Machine, or even a Clixs game the possibles are almost limitless. I could take a full on skeletonal Tomb King army in fantasy and if I go up against a min/max skaven list, I am most likely to lose. Take on a full out unit list in War Machin and go up against all Mech list and that is not a easy win (still possible with caster kill). In Malifaux, if I take a Molly and full crooligan list up against Lillith and a double twin/stitched together list, she would most likely wipe me out before I get my first vp. I don't believe there is any game out there that is balanced. The only way that could happen is to have all models have the same stats and abililities, and if you do that there is no need for armies or factions. Even if tried and balanced each troop type and selection, it then goes to the player that can buy and use the better troops. Balance is a state of mind and applies to each player. Chucklmonkey just stated he thinks War machine is balanced, but I don't think so. I don't think I have played a game yet that is balanced. And the rule that if all things are unbalnced, they must be balanced, doesn't really work here. As long as you are having fun, that is all that should matter.

[Chucklemonkey]

Chucklmonkey just stated he thinks War machine is balanced, but I don't think so. I don't think I have played a game yet that is balanced. And the rule that if all things are unbalnced, they must be balanced, doesn't really work here. As long as you are having fun, that is all that should matter.

Not to argue but I believe I stated it was the most balanced miniature game that I had played. That being limited to Warmachine/Hordes, 40k/Fantasy and of course Malifaux.

In that company, I stand by my statement.

I also made your exact point that you do not need balance to have a fun gaming experience.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Chucklemonkey
i before e except after c

[ThePandaDirector]

I think you could quite easily draw a graph on this one:

As Variables (V) and Players (P) increase you get a right shifting negative concave curve of Balance (.

In other words the more complex the game and the more players there are to try and break it, the harder it is to hit the balance mean. You could easily say that the more players the more people to balance it, but as Karl Pilkington wisely said "every problem fixed is a problem made"

Warmachine is close, because they had public playtesting and such, but it lacks gameplay variety.

Historical gaming is closer, but has less variety in character (in the same game).

I would say miniature board games are pushing what can be done with minimum imbalances.

Cue Puppet Wars =D

I made a very long list on why PW is the most balanced game I have ever seen or played (and boy have I played it). There is a crazy amount of variables in that game, almost mindboggling, and yet it is able to find a mean where it is in fact balanced by its own imbalances; the game is a pecking bird (if balance equals pecking and imbalance equals water) =]

Sedition Wars looks like it is also gonna have a crazy amount of variety while being balanced by the single dice roll mechanic.

I think cutting out the measuring tape does a Hell of a lot for a game's balance and accessibility. As much as people love it, since I started with PW mine has just been gathering dust.

So at the end of the day the key is to simplify the core mechanics as much as possible and address the variables with counter variables tied together through the underlining probability factor.

Now who wants to see that PW list? =D

[LordZombie]

Not to argue but I believe I stated it was the most balanced miniature game that I had played. That being limited to Warmachine/Hordes, 40k/Fantasy and of course Malifaux.

In that company, I stand by my statement.

I also made your exact point that you do not need balance to have a fun gaming experience.

Oh yeah, I totally respect that. I didn't mean for look like I was calling you out. At the time, your post was the first one to have a game listed in it. I play Hordes and it is a very fun game. And we both agree, balance has nothing to do with having fun.

[Bazooka]

I agree. Its my theory on why Bloodbowl is "balanced".

The harshness of the d6 and ravenous "we always tour with the band" fanbase.

[nilus]

So my question for others is, have you ever found a game that was impervious to being "broken" by power gamers or where every army/faction/master whatever always had an even chance of winning in a competitive environment? I just don't see how it would be possible to design something like that, since the really competitive players do such a good job of finding and exploiting loopholes.

Chess and to a lesser extent Checkers

[Ratty]

I would say Go, as that is like Chess or Checkers but also has a handicap system so you and any player can have a challenging game even if your skills are vastly different.

[ThePandaDirector]

Chess and to a lesser extent Checkers

You mean you haven't broken chess? Newb =P

I would say Go, as that is like Chess or Checkers but also has a handicap system so you and any player can have a challenging game even if your skills are vastly different.

I would say that a game becomes something rather different the moment you add narrative and character. Sure I could give each chess piece a name and background, etc, but the moment you try to implement that in gameplay, you can't escape the increase in variables.

[UberGruber]

So my question for others is, have you ever found a game that was impervious to being "broken" by power gamers or where every army/faction/master whatever always had an even chance of winning in a competitive environment?

The former is actually pretty true for a lot of wargames (Fields of Glory, for instance as a set of tabletop rules -- though there are others -- and heaps of hex based board wargames where victory conditions are generally factored to allow for historical imbalance). The latter is not true for any game, I think as even in games like chess a small bonus accrues to he who goes first (which admittedly is mitigated in multi-game matches with alternating sides).

But it's certainly true that most wargames that try to inject 'personality' into units become necessarily imbalanced as there are just far too many variables to balance properly. You chase the chimera if you seek balance in a game like Malifaux or 40K where units differ wildly in abilities (and Malifaux more than 40K in this regard). You can achieve reasonable balance (ie one player may have an advantage but not overwhelmingly so) between armies (and actually GW appear to have managed this pretty well in 6th edition), but you can guarantee someone will cry 'broken' because not every unit is balanced. It's this latter that is sheer insanity to demand.

[fishtank]

Blood Bowl is actually about as close as I have found to balanced, at least in the tournament environment (dependent on exact ruleset for advancements being used).

It's really a farily simple game, certainly in comparison to "proper" tabletop minis games due to the board and squares, and that contributes greatly.

Also, the current rulebook was written by the fans of the game.

In highly advanced league play there are some problems however...and GW stopped listening.

(Full disclosure: I admin one of the oldest and largest Blood Bowl forums on the net. Huge BB fanboy here.)

[snord]

I think it has a lot to do with each player's point of view and goals with the game. I don't know any perfectly balanced game. Even Chess, that is commonly mentioned as a balanced game by casual gamers, is not: <geek mode on>in higher level play, at the start of the game, white has the initiative/advantage while black is defending. Several books will teach new players that a draw as blacks is a victory while as whites is a defeat.<geek mode off>.

At the same time, if a perfectly balanced game existed, I am not sure I would like to play it long term. Imagine there was such a game, it is likely that the stronger/more experienced player would win 99% of the time. Unless one was lucky to find an adversary that is in all aspects also at the same play level, it would become quickly boring to always win/lose.

One of the things that make Malifaux so enjoyable to me is the fact that I can control the difficulty level of the games I am going to play. This is obvious on scheme selection, but also on the fact that I can hire crews with models that will make the game easier or harder to me, or build fluffy crews that will add another layer of fun to the game.

[UberGruber]

Yeah Bloodbowl's pretty good (but Goblins. . . ), though as you say, I think the grid helps and you don't really have terrain, etc complicating factors. Even there though you could say that some experience upgrades are far better than others (+1S is very, very useful, for instance).

[ravenborne]

Rock-Paper-Scissors?

(although I believe even that has an extensive meta game in vampire larps).

[Gruesome]

I do not believe we are capable of the sampling sizes necessary to balance a game like Malifaux.

The example I use is Starcraft.

It is the most balanced game I have ever seen for having three such absolutely diverse races.

Mind you that's *THREE* races, with far fewer units per race than Malifaux.

It took YEARS and *MILLIONS* of games to understand where the moving target that is balance was at. It was a moving target because the community continued evolving and becoming better, both because of practice, but also in reaction to prior changes.

So, in a video game, with MILLIONS of games with detailed win-loss and other statistics, along with the help of honest to goodness professional community whose JOBS were to play and improve at the game, it still took years to reach a level of near equilibrium.

No one here can convince me that with the relative tiniest fraction of samples and not even centrally collected, that a far more COMPLEX game with MORE unit and factions, that we will ever know what "balance" is.

Ratty, I believe, made a nice post about treating the outliers so as to adjust the median... That, to me, seems like the only rational approach.

... And we should totally start today by giving soulstones to Seamus and Nicodem and "fixing" Red Jokers by making rezzers immune to them.

[ThePandaDirector]

To be fair, I think the future of analogue gaming lies in its creative and social elements anyway. The game will always matter, but players should feel like winners just by getting their models and their friends to the tabletop. After that, it's just going through the motions =]