Guild Wars 2

Ever since I started to think about balance, I wanted to propose inherent problems with balance. By definition balance means equality, a balance scale (the real life object) is actually set up to achieve equality in weight of an unknown weight of an object to a known weight…

So, when I hear people ask about a better balanced game while at the same time people ask for a stronger profession profile and better roles, I somewhat cringe. Still though, it is also somehow the way I view professions (in roles and profession profile), while at the same time wanting a balanced game so my choice to play X doesn’t mean I will suck or be frowned upon for making the choice to go with profession X.

It’s also a profound dilemma of game designers, how to achieve balance (aka. equality) on the one hand, but also foster diversity, so that I give my players a valid choice on how to play the game. And I think that understanding and discussing these issues should be part of this ‘profession balance forum’.

I am not sure where to take this discussion, but have found a way to clarify some of the issues and hopefully get some meaningful dialogue about this topic, and a place to start. I went to the internet and dug up some ‘extra credit’ video’s, now I was hoping to find a video on this exact topic, but there wasn’t one :P

Now they did make a vid that came close to this issue, and I will start of by linking to that, it has nothing to do with creating balance though, quite the opposite:
Perfect Imbalance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w
The question is now, is GW2 a game that falls into this category (GW1 did) and if it has the tools and elements that make GW2 a perfect imbalanced game.

It also points out some ‘problems’ with balanced games (2:05), the interesting part of this example is the mention of ‘changed to an action one’. And seeing it is mentioned that GW2 should be an action based game, this implies that GW2 should also have a perfect balance in order to make the actions important and not the ‘choices’ (more on those further below)

Closely related to imbalance, is the following topic, and some of you may well spot an ‘imbalance’ in GW2 that has to few ‘counters’ …
Counter play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g
Good counter play is obviously a way to both create balance as well as diversity, given of course everybody has access to a counter, but if you come this far you can clearly smell the ‘perfect imbalance’ game design coming from this as well.

Obviously equality can still feel really diverse, as long as the design is done in such a way that it obscures the equality. Slow Hard hits vs Fast low damage, Long lasting low damage conditions vs fast hard hitting conditions. And vice versa for the healing. This (I think) leads to a mild meta game within a balanced game, where healing vs damage type causes a running meta and mild counters. The problem with the design though, is to get the balance right, as the length of the encounter determines how equal the options are and thus how balanced the game is. And another problem with this is then, if the professions are perfectly balanced the fight may last for ever in players of equal skill).

Now why does this all matter, well, it matters a lot because of the choice for your profession and of course the choice of your build.
Choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8fVtKyYxY

And here also arises somewhat of a ‘contradiction interminous’. In a perfectly balanced game, there is largely equality (at least on the defining game mechanics, average DPS over a set time, healing and condition removal, and choice comes down to your preference in particle effects), now if the options available to you are equal, then do you have a choice? On the other hand, if there is imbalance, then there is no choice by default, as the imbalance causes a calculation problem even if it is a circle kitten calculation with no answer.

These issues are profound in regards to this thread, and for GW2 as a whole. If GW2 is an action game with perfect balance, then clearly there should be more balance, and professions should become more mechanically equal. If on the other hand GW2 is ‘perfectly imbalanced’, then do we have enough tools to counter the imbalances within each profession. And how much choice do we then have, because imbalanced games have a ‘rock/paper/scissors’ setup or reduce choice to a calculation problem, instead of a choice. If GW2 is a hybrid, is that even possible? Is that good for GW2 and what are the implications?

It also matters in regards to this thread, because determining which type of game GW2 is, determines what type of balance suggestions and complaints we should file with ArenaNet, and which ‘issues’ we can expect to be solved.

Thank you for posting, very interesting topic and some good food for thought.

Personally I like the idea of “perfectly imbalanced” – the choices we make would then be to either be a rock, a piece of paper or a pair of scissors, the flavour of the object being governed by your class selection but every class should be viable as one of those three options in the metaphor used and this is where I feel the balance team has failed.

I know right, I myself am glad I finally got to write this down in a format that seems to do justice to the complications. Even though, tbh, I myself have yet to thoroughly comprehend the implications, in part I wrote this to explain the difficulties ArenaNet faces with balance, aka balance being equality which in turn put a huge burden on diversity and choice.

In the end though, I think I toughed a deeper issue, the implications of either way, or even determining which kind of game GW2 is, has implications on how the professions should work. And what sort of game you envision has huge implications of what you ask for in regards of balance, f/e:

We largely see, ‘buff this’/‘nerf this’ discussions, now if the game would be a perfect balanced game, then these buf/nerf discussions would be over fairly quickly with the right math. Atleast given that the premisis of ‘balance’ is agreed upon. F/e all weapons of all professions need to be balanced around a set of ‘DPS + Counter or Buff or Condition’ set. Meaning, all weapons should be capable of doing say 100 DPs, in 5 skills, Have 1 counter to w/e or a buff’. Given that all weapons meet this requirement, we can say they are balanced. Any weapons that clearly violate this premise should be nerved, or buffed.

On the other hand, if we have an ‘perfectly imbalanced’ game, instead of asking for nerfs, we may well be needing to ask for Counters or buffs instead. The clearest example is Thief/Stealth: in a balanced game we should either be asking for similar skills for all classes, or the removal of stealth as an unbalanced mechanic entirely. In a more ‘perfectly imbalanced game’ we should not ask for nerfs, we should be demanding enough counters! And rightfully so the thief community should be asking for more options besides stealth to survive.

The issue sort of goes down to the core of the game mechanic, and while the preference for the kind of game is purely that ‘preference’, a choice has profound implication for the game as a whole. If GW2 is some sort of hybrid, then we need to figure out where this hybridity is, so that we can more clearly make suggestions about the balance. Or in case it turns out GW2 is one or the other, we can clearly identify the shortcomings to adhering to the system-requirements of that mechanic. (most clearly, I think, that for a ‘perfect imbalanced’ game, GW2 has way to few spells and counters. On the other hand, if it is a balanced game, then clearly it has to many imbalances. Or the premise of balance is far to unclear to the player.

Great Post this may help understand some Dev thinking. I have this bookmarked for X class should do Y like Z threads. This isn’t one of them but I think is relevant. These kind of gems from the Devs get lost or not seen. Which is partly why they made this forum for example.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Current-state-of-the-meta/page/9#post2474136

JonathanSharp.7094:

Oh, also, to the Op’s point (sorry, I’m about to present in China, my mind is elsewhere, didn’t mean to ignore the OP):

The reason we did a “big” change for the Necro, as I’ve stated before, is that we had the Pax tournament coming. We knew we wanted to get Necros and Warriors up with the other classes, and that’s why we had big changes.

Also, a lot of our changes happen VERY far ahead of what you guys see on live. What do I mean?

• It takes us time to get our changes to editors for writing (any text/trait change has to be edited). This can take a week or more.
• We have to then get changes to writers.
• We then have to make sure we work with artists for any visual changes
• We also have to work with sound to make sure we have sound for any changes
• We have to work with icon artists for icons if they’re needed (in the case of Death Shroud 5)
• We have to make sure the changes get through multiple stages of QA testing
• Then with the changes in, we get time to play them before we do final changes
• While doing all this, we have to take the current meta, be it in dungeons/wvw/pvp, and from that, try to extrapolate what we think needs to be done a few months in advance.

This process can take a LONG time, as you can imagine. It’s not as simple as, “Oh, let’s change this to a 2, and change that to a 7.”

I know the video game industry in general is not very transparent when it comes to how things actually work, but I wanted you guys to know that a lot of times, there is a LOT of process for even the SMALLEST balance/content changes.

We get to see how Ridley Scott made Blade Runner with a companion DVD special, but in video games, no one talks about all the complex processes that go into making and balancing a game as complex as GW2 (which is basically 3 games in 1, all using the same balance #’s).

Hope this makes sense.

Oh, also, the reason we can’t give Necro’s too much disengage has to do with the point of “purity of purpose”.

In this game, we want to allow classes the ability to deal with all situations but in different ways. But, if we give all classes all TOOLS (which is a different thing), then players get confused as to which classes fill which roles, and in what way they fill those roles

Example: In PvP, the Necro and Engi both vie for the position of condition pressure. The engineer has more physical alternatives, the Necro has more boon/condition manipulation, the Engi has more escapability, and the Necro is a little squishier. If we gave the Necro too much mobility or escapability, then all of a sudden their “tools” start to line up exactly. If this is the case, one of them will simply be better than the other, as far as efficacy goes, and thus, one will push the other out of the meta for that “role” on the team. This class would then be the “apex” predator for that role. So, in order to prevent this, we try to make it so that the classes don’t have all their tools overlap perfectly. This means you have to say (following our example), “Well, if we take a Necro, we get more condies, but a squishy body that can’t disengage…..but if we take Engi, we lose some DPS and control (depending on utils), but we get someone who can stand up to a spike better”.

Make sense? If we just gave the escape to Necro’s, then all of a sudden, the Necro is just the clear choice. Not all decisions come down to a clean break like this, but this is the type of thing we’re trying to do when we “deny” some classes certain tools.

This is the same reason that Red doesn’t get interrupts in Magic, the reason that Zergs, normally, have much more mobility than Protoss (since Toss are usually stronger unit-by-unit), and why Karthus has no escapes. By denying tools, you create choices for the players. We sometimes do a poor job of this, sorry. But overall, we try to make it so that all classes have choices, and teams have choices in which classes they bring.

Also, keep in mind we’re trying to get 8 classes to fit into 5 slots, for PvE, Dungeons, and PvP.

This is all high level, and I’m in a rush, but I just wanted to explain this real fast…..

It’s funny, being in China, I have more time to post on the forums than I do while in the office. That’s irony or something….like 10,000 spoons….

-Chap from China

Tnx oZii, especially that last part explains it fairly good, assuming of course ‘one’ wants a ‘perfectly imbalanced’ game. In case you want a balanced game, then denying a certain profession a certain tool creates imbalance and thus…

Now, I do not want to give any preference to any system, or even a hybrid, and I hope ppl in this discussion wont either. Sorry MarzAttackz, but I personally think that saying the dev team failed is a weird statement, as it implies that your preference is the right way… Then again, if you read the statement of Jonathan, then to an extend you can conclude GW2 is not a pure balanced game, which means it is either ‘perfectly imbalanced’ or a hybrid of sorts. For their defence, they don’t always get it right, and if you check the vid on it, it doesn’t sound very easy, so saying they failed is way to strong of a viewpoint, at least in my views.

But the post of Jonathan does make clear that GW2 is not trying to be a balanced game. This in turn makes a lot of ‘nerf this/buff this’ threads pretty useless, now sure, some clearly overly powerful skills/heals still need to be addressed. But in all honesty, for a ‘perfectly imbalanced game’ you are far better off debating the counters to certain skills. and the amount of options available, or for that matter, the amount of options available to place the options you have.

It also gives us a way to be critical towards ArenaNet, f/e, if they release another spirit that does the same thing that a certain well does, or promises to make traps into combo fields. How ever cool that is, it doesn’t give us more options, nor does it provide more or different counters, it just gives us more of what we already have. I sort of pains me to say this, but sometimes honest and true critics hurt.

How ever cool I think it would be to have other traps combo as well, there are other things to be dealt with, f/e the unclarity of thief stealth counters or maybe even the lack of them entirely. As well as the clear incapability of most mid-armours to play WvW due to zerg requirements, not having the right tools or the correct counters to survive.

It doesn’t mean that Anet did a bad job, at least not in my book, it just means their job isn’t entirely finished, and as the theoretical setup of the game is being tested by hours of playtime it shows it’s practical flaws. Yes they are flaws, but not by design, but by practical use, there is nobody to blame for the lack of coherence between theory and practice. The only thing that may be blamed is the lack of actions taken to fix the problems, or, in the case of a ‘perfect imbalanced’ game, the lack of the community finding ways to combat the imbalance.

And seeing, by words of Jonathan, and by getting a better understanding of the issue and how it pertains to GW2 by discussing it, it should be fairly clear that GW2 is somewhat of a hybrid. There is an overlap, but no total balance… still though in the overlap there should be balance where there is not a trade off. This obviously makes things slightly more difficult, we should both see that and respect that. And obviously as former lol players will know, in a perfect imbalanced game there will always be overlaps.

Still though, the realization that GW2 is a hybrid leaning on ‘perfect imbalance’ means that asking for stronger profession roles and profiles is a legit request. I also think (personally) that for being atleast somewhat of a ‘perfect imbalance’ game, GW2 should find ways to put in more skills sooner than later. Mostly pertaining counters or more diverse abilities and counters for those. These should be scattered over profession choice options in such a clever way that one can’t take all kinds of abilities, and also cannot take all counters.

Whining about abilities that have no counter, is entirely valid! Whining about not having certain abilities, is not! Which makes it somewhat weird, when looking at those statpages and the trait window! I do hope you can spot the inconsistency there. Or atleast, the room to be ‘perfectly imbalanced’ is made really small if all classes have all stats and should, in some shape or form, perform parts of large clusters of ‘abilities’ (meaning power|dps, conditions|presure or a mix there off). This may need some more in-depth scrutiny though…

Hopefully all this information is enlightening for all those here concerned about the balancing of the game, and hopefully starting to understand why some ‘concerns’ aren’t addressed at all. While at the same time, give those concerned with balance more insight in how to look at balance in GW2 and giving them more ways to address issues that may not simply be solved by a nerf or a buff, because their mechanic needs to be addressed by something like a counter instead.

If you think Balance has a fundamental conflict with diversity and choices, I think you might not quite understand Incomparables.

The way you’re looking at balance works off the assumption that there’s inherently enough similarity between things that you have a basis for comparing them, and determining if they are equal or unequal. The point behind Incomparables is that there is absolutely no common ground at all, you’d never be able to determine if one is greater or lesser than another because one is Einstein’s theory of relativity and the other is Potato.

When people say Balance is about equality; they don’t mean that things add up to the same number on a spreadsheet somewhere, they mean all the supported components or strategies are equally desirable to the player.
Which is a completely different thing.

@Vox it’s 5am now so I need to sleep, but I would appreciate it if you were to add some ‘you may think’, ‘I think you may not’ … as that sounds a lot less offensive then stating you already know what I think … this issue is more fundamental, and quite different than the quarrel about nerfs and buffs. Thus in my views it needs to tackle things one at a time so more people can understand what it is about.

From what I see in your response is that you look at balance in yet another way, this is all good to me, the more input and ways to view things is great, just make sure you don’t assume that the way you view it is the only and thus right way. Incomparables is a part of the whole, and obviously I haven’t gotten to them yet, you are right that I do not entirely understand everything, but you act like incomparables is the end all, and that certainly isn’t. Unless you can explain how GW2 is solely about incomparables and everything I wrote has absolutely no merit.

The thing about balance, as far as I followed discussions about it, has always been nerfs/buffs quarrels; and whining when things didn’t get them. Yet, as this thread clearly shows, there is more to know b4 you can even decide if something needs a nerf/buff explaining that in a way that more people understand, and thus ask Anet for the right things to add to change to the game, ultimately makes a better game…

So please, enlighten me (us), while I go close my eyes and rest for later today…

I apologize. I didn’t mean to write my post in an insulting way. I will try to choose my words more carefully in this one.

By comparing Balance to a weight scale and saying it’s determined by encounter length, you’re giving the impression that you may think Balance itself is about boiling things down to a common measurement and comparing them. But that’s how the video defines Calculations. I’m writing this because I think you might be confusing Balance and Calculation.

Which is why I think you might be saying Balance and Variety don’t work well together. Calculation and Variety don’t work well together, which is why Extra Credits says calculations are bad for giving players real choices. But, Balance and Variety can work very well together.

I think you may be confusing Balance and Calculation because players often believe Balance is a word referring to numbers. In Game Theory the word is more often used to describe how players feel about their options subjectively, not how those options compare to eachother objectively.

Extra Credits touches on this a little bit in their ‘Illusion of Choice’ video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45PdtGDGhac). They say something like; “Games aren’t about what really is, they’re about what you perceive. If what mattered in games was what was really happening, we’d be talking about electrical impulses and math, not experiences.”

Game Theory shows like Extra Credits often phrase things that way. When they talk about Balance it’s from the perspective of the Player’s subjective viewpoint, like their choices and experiences. The game’s objective numbers are rarely mentioned, because they’re just a means to that end. So much so designers often describe using them in conjunction with things that defy math and spreadsheets, like educated guesses. They describe using guesswork because they have to balance things that have no mathematical representation or basis for comparison. So checking to see how it ‘feels’ while it plays is the only way to make sure it’s working, and it’s a good measuring stick because how a player feels while playing it is ultimately the only thing that actually matters.
(first section in; http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134768/understanding_balance_in_video_.php)

So Balance and Variety can work well together, because something like ‘Balanced Incomparables’ can exist.

Arghore.8340:

Sorry MarzAttackz, but I personally think that saying the dev team failed is a weird statement, as it implies that your preference is the right way… Then again, if you read the statement of Jonathan, then to an extend you can conclude GW2 is not a pure balanced game, which means it is either ‘perfectly imbalanced’ or a hybrid of sorts. For their defence, they don’t always get it right, and if you check the vid on it, it doesn’t sound very easy, so saying they failed is way to strong of a viewpoint, at least in my views.

No problem man, also wrote my response around 5am so was quite tired and hadn’t read the post by JSharp yet.

I’ll recant my statement and agree that they haven’t got it right yet. Little bit of my frustration shining through as I believe in the potential of the game as I’ve been involved from the first beta weekend.

Hiya Vox, let me start off by saying I did not experience your comment as insulting, but the way you put things down without ‘maybes’ felt provocative, which if not cleared up could easily turn into an argument instead of a discussion. I am glad that you are here to discuss and increase the understanding of balance issues, instead of fight over who’s right or wrong … I am also glad you took the time to elaborate your statement, it clears up some things I didn’t quite get early this morning (although that may also have been caused by the state of my brain ).

So yes, I fully agree, there is more to this then merely ‘full balance’ and ‘perfect imbalance’. Especially if you zoom in closer to the professions and their abilities. That is also why I mention that GW2 could/might be somewhat of a hybrid between the two.

Where you get me wrong (or maybe I worded it poorly) is on the point of variety and balance, and consequently I do not agree with you (or maybe I read it wrong) is that they do not go hand in hand.

Example, I played FPS games b4 the whole ‘perk unlock’ state of them, and in that era FPS games were (if not totally, then at least very close) ‘full balance’ games, but with a high variety. See at first everybody had the same character, armour options, and amount of weapon/nade slots; then all the weapons were fully balanced but varied, and I am sure that if you were to look at the numbers, the berretta (a really fast shooting/low calibre/low recoil-pistol), was DPS full balanced, against the Desert eagle (slower shooting/large calibre/med recoil-pistol). And even for most of the automatic rifles the same things applied. This kind of game was a full balance game with a decent amount of variety.

Obviously the same thing could be realised in an RPG, slow hitting weapons vs. fast hitting ones vs conditions over time, all doing the same DPS in different ways. Even though the full balance may not be entirely apparent, the ‘choice’ you have as a player is pretty much non existent, as you would be choosing between equal things. And this is not said to say GW2 is like this, I opt. this more of as baseline for ‘full balance’ RPGs, and to make clear how it is a full balance game without any real choice, for as far as professions go.

The part where there are no calculation in play here either, is because the calculations give the same results. Or rather they should give the same results, because they should result in balance (between the variety).

The other ‘baseline’ is the baseline of the ‘perfect imbalance’ game, games like Magic The Gathering or GW1. Which have a limiting balanced rule-set (f/e deck size, hand size, play stages for magic; or skillbar, runes/insignas, weapon-setup for GW1), but besides that have a ‘perfectly imbalanced’ play system. All the individual cards/skills are ‘perfectly imbalanced’ against each other, and the limiting rule-set then should balance things out, there are also a lot of different skills, set weaknesses and strengths, and counters.

Here also the ‘imbalance’ is based upon the numbers, but instead of balancing each skill against the other, the balance is achieved on a larger scope. For GW1 this was largely based upon the builds running the meta, the combinations on the bar should result in a ‘balanced’ whole. With two professions one could basically have a counter against anything, but, due to the limited bar, if you were to take a counter against everything you would no longer be able to do damage.

more on incomparables in the next post

BTW perfect imbalance is also called mathematical balance a>b>c>d>e>…>z>a and/or soft version of rock-paper-scissors

So I hope that with this post I perhaps cleared up why, in my first few posts, I set these very strict and limited examples for ‘Full balance’ and ‘perfect imbalanced’ games. By going back to the bare minimum and baseline for these two different approaches, there is at least some firm ground to look at GW2 skill-system.

Now where it becomes more difficult, is in the details, incomparables offer a way to give each class a unique feature, or skill-option. Incomparable, by default suggests that you can not compare them. Like ‘apples and oranges’, personally I do not agree with this mind-set. The name may have been better as ‘uniqueness’ instead of incomparable. Because in my view everything can be compared, to anything, sometimes resulting in the conclusion they are entirely different and in no way shape or form ‘the same’, but that just means they are unique when compared to each other, and not ‘incomparable’ (as you just compared them to conclude they were unique)

As far as games go, the ‘uniqueness’ features add in a lot of spice, but as they are unique they are ‘by default’ number-imbalanced, mainly because you can not express them in numbers, and the balance is to be determined by ‘feel’. This by default means that you are speaking of a ‘perfect imbalanced’ game format, and not a ‘symmetric full balanced game’. This then has implications for these unique features as well. Mainly ‘counters’, or ‘equal but equally unique options’, and in some cases limited access to the same feature.

Because without these things you can not achieve the feel of balance for the system as a whole. This is most apparent with the Thief in my views, if there were enough counters to deal with stealth, then even perma stealth wouldn’t be such a big problem. It’s the lack of counters to stealth that makes it such an issue for a lot of players. A similar thing happens with the Ranger and Pets, the pets aren’t really the actual problem, nor will better AI or even full control ever solve the issue entirely, the issue is that you can NOT work around it, the uniqueness is the weakness at the same time, and the ranger is unique in that too. Obviously when comparing the ‘incomparables’ of the professions, the Rangers feel ‘kittened’.

So to conclude, the two things I had been comparing with each other were basically baseline concepts , which (whether you like it or not) have consequences on how you view GW2 and how to judge it’s game mechanics and thus it’s balance. The reason why incomparables were not included at first, was because they are a further details of mainly ‘perfectly imbalanced’ games. As such, I hadn’t come to them yet, because I found it more important to ‘at first’ make it clear what ‘full balance’ means, how it pertains to choice, and what implications it has for uniqueness and profession profiles and roles.

Now that it is pretty much established that GW2 is not a ‘full balance’ game, it means we can look at how ‘perfectly imbalanced’ it is, and or where it is a ‘hybrid’. Although I fear that there is no such thing as a hybrid, even ‘perfect imbalanced’ games have ‘equal and thus ’full balance’ rules sets in which the ‘imbalance’ takes place as a game system. Incomparables are part of the ‘imbalance’ systems, and as such should be accompanied by counters, and/or alternatives.

Hope that makes it more clear

When we tak about PvP, a “perfect imbalanced” game completely relies on “counterplayability”, and as we get closer to the “competitive” scene, the ability to counterplay must be given to players.
Otherwise, the outcome of a match could be greatly predertemined by the match-up itself, which is not fun at all (not at least for competitive players).

On a regular MOBA game, different champions start being clearly unbalanced.
A huge part of character building is done, however, during the game itself through the item shop and skill point allocation, allowing players to overcome some of the random imbalance.
In competitive gameplay, there’s usually one step more on top of this. Banning/picking phases prevent matchups from taking place on such an absolute unbalanced state that not even playtime-building could overcome that.
Even if champions are clearly unbalanced, the game offers enough tools for the match to be fair and somewhat “balanced”.

The video describes Starcraft as a “balanced” game.; I disagree with that.
Of course every race needs to offer a fair, call it balanced, matchup against each other. Otherwise, it would be like flipping a coin.
Different units for each race are, however, quite unbalanced and, unlike chess, you’re not assigned with some fixed numbers of them. You create them at your own choice, usually based on the “counterplay” idea belonging to unbalanced games.

There’s a point, of course, were every strategy has been tested and every counterplay move become somewhat set in stone, but that’s something that can be applied to every “perfectly unbalanced” game that also tries to accomplish “fairness”.
In order for this kind of games to not become stale, there’s the possibility to introduce little changes which can easily shake the whole meta up. Introducing new champions and items (or modifying existing ones) is the way to achieve this for MOBA games, while RTS ones can get the same result through units or even maps.
In the end, the rate these changes are made at is what decides how stale the meta becomes. Some developers might want their game to be as close as possible to the absolute fairness (which is closely linked to “balance”), so they won’t mess a lot with the “ruleset” once they feel they’re on a good spot, while others may prefer to lose a bit of that in favor of an ever-evolving scene.

Where’s GW2?
It’s and will ever be a clearly unbalanced game . The amount of classes and customization for each one just can’t deliver anything but that.
Where GW2 fails is, IMHO, on delivering tools to overcome that unbalance.

You can swap characters before the match starts, you can even have all of them completely untraited and carrying multiple gear options for 100% adaptability.
However, since the opposite team can also do that and there’s nothing like turns for this changes to happen, the process becomes a mess and quite unreliable.

On top of that, a lot of information is also hidden to you.
When playing a MOBA, you know almost everything about enemy heros and you can spot and react to any item based customization during the game. There aren’t surprises either with RTSs like SC2.
In GW2, you get just the enemy class combination and it’s up to you to guess what strategy lays behind it. Once the game starts there’s no chance to go back or react; if your guesses were wrong (for example, the necro was power based instead of the expected condimancer), well, you’ll need to outplay any possible unbalance.

In this situation, the more viable diversity you bring to the game, the more unfair/random it becomes. There’s just no chance for counterplay when you can’t know what you need to counterplay at all.
Ironically, counterplaying is one of those things that bring diversity to a game.

IMHO, ANet should embrace that “perfect unbalance” and deliver tools for counterplay to be an option (like a picking phase providing a good amount of information).
Balancing around this would be a lot easier than trying to achieve some delusional even ground, shared not only by every class, but by multiple specs for each one, and then expect natural and regular shifts in the meta, which won’t ever happen without a big enough competitive scene.

@Arghore
I might be reading you wrong, but I kind of get the impression the way you’re using the term Perfect Imbalance seems more like the concept of Rock/Paper/Scissors and less what I think the video was saying.

I think maybe the word Fairness might be a more clear way to describe the concept in the Perfect Imbalance video. Like it might make more sense to say; a Perfectly Balanced system is Fair, a Perfectly Imbalanced system is intentionally Unfair.

I think this is what the video is getting at when it shows that graph picture and talks about the Jedi Curve. The blue line on that graph is basically a representation of ‘fair’, and the developers purposefully put in a choice that deviates from that (the red line) in order to make people start thinking about how to counter it.

So as far I understand it;

Rock/Paper/Scissors is just a game structure where each choice has one weakness and one strength and a player can choose one. So say somebody made a rule that Player1’s Scissors can beat Player2’s Paper and Scissors. When Player1 want to consistently pick Scissors because it’s stronger, and Player2 responds to this by picking Rock; that’s Perfect Imbalance. When Player 1 starts responding to the fact Player 2 will consistently pick Rock, so he opts to pick Paper; that’s Cyclical Perfect Imbalance.

So, Rock/Paper/Scissors is about creating a game with weaknesses and strengths to give players choices. Cyclical Perfect Imbalance is about Devs manipulating those weaknesses and strengths to keep the Metagame fresh.

After reading some of these I think it is safe to say Guild Wars 2 is “perfect imbalance.”.

@Vox, I will pick out this part mainly because (in my views) it isn’t right

@Arghore
I think maybe the word Fairness might be a more clear way to describe the concept in the Perfect Imbalance video. Like it might make more sense to say; a Perfectly Balanced system is Fair, a Perfectly Imbalanced system is intentionally Unfair.

‘Full balance’ games are games where all the options are equal in strength, and often the game is symmetrical. All sides have access to all the options, and no option is inherently worse then the other, but they may well differ a lot in function (f/e the shotgun and the sniper in a shooter). As such the game is fair. The design of the map usually dictates the best option, or has a best location for a certain option…

‘Perfect Imbalanced’ games are games where not all the options are equal in strength, and often the game is a-symmetrical. Every side has access to a limited set of options, and some options are inherently worse then others, they can also differ a lot in function. BUT! every side also has the availability of counters (be it passive or active) against the options it usually doesn’t have itself. As such the game is fair.

The deviation from the ‘jedi curve’ is not to create unfairness, it is to create imbalance between each option (sometimes even between each colour of Magic), and while the example in the video showed a card deviate in positive ways, you will often also find cards that deviate in a negative way. The whole deck that is released for a certain colour then ‘could’ be considered balanced. Because else the decks released would cause an unfair and totally unbalanced game, and more then likely all hell would break loose in the Magic world…

Rock/Paper/Scissors is the bare bone of a ‘perfect imbalanced’ game, at least how I understood it from the ‘extra credit’ video. Now obviously R/P/S is not an online game format, and as such the ‘perfect imbalanced’ game has evolved to a more complex system. But, as @Vargamonth above here clearly described, a ‘perfect imbalanced’ game can suffer from the inherent problem of R/P/S, mainly, after you picked (in a game your class, and build – or in RPS either of them), the outcome is set. Now in RPS the game is over once you open your hands. And ‘perfect imbalanced’ games CAN (not saying its always the case) feel a lot like that when playing, aka. once it is clear which team has which builds, compared to the builds of the other teams, no matter how one plays the outcome is set.

Now personally I do not always think this is the case, execution of the skillset also plays a part, but given equal skills and equal execution: the outcome of a ‘Perfect Imbalanced’ game relies heavily on the skills and counters in play, and thus playing will in 99% of the times played, give the same outcome…

Depending on the complexity of the ‘Imbalanced’ variant and the skill of the players, the timeframe it takes to ‘calculate’ the best builds can differ. But when the meta is established then yes, the only thing that the Dev team can do is to rebalance the skills to let a new meta arise.

The main question I can’t seem to entirely figure out (also more then likely because of the complexity of the details), is if there could be a hybrid. And what the rule set and requirements of such a hybrid would be. Why?

Because the ‘full balance’ game obviously has the issue of choice linked to it, in it’s bare essence there is none. There is just the illusion of choice, you will more then likely not choose a sniper rifle in a close quarters fight, or choose the shot gun in the open field. On the other hand, this game format is ALL about skill, seeing that all the options are available to all the players ‘may the best player win’ !

The ‘perfect imbalanced’ game though, has a high risk of running into a fixed outcome problem, and as such no real choice either. If a>b>c>d>a then the right choice entirely depends on what your opponent choose, whose correctness of choice entirely depends on your choice. But once you choose, there is no way back, and ultimately no need to fight. The bright side is though, that in a perfect imbalanced game you can have a lot of diversity and in a sense ‘real choices’ (even though that choice can pre-fix the outcome). Also, fights between B&D and A&C often turn out into a game based on skill, because both don’t have the defining counter against the other that fixes the outcome.

I wonder if well designed counterplay vs. uniqueness can create a fully balanced game, that still feels like it’s being a ‘perfect imbalanced’ game. Or whether that would just mean I still have a ‘perfect imbalanced’ game, which is just well balanced in it’s imbalance. :S

It would mean that all professions would be say 80% the same, with access to the same options and skills, and that each profession has a 20% reliance on a unique feature that other professions do not. These other professions though, would all have a counter against the uniqueness of the other professions.

Hmm I think that would indeed just be the definition of a well designed ‘Perfect Imbalanced’ game. Especially if you give each class a limited amount of space to take these counters, meaning one would have to choose. Meaning you will negate the special abilities in some cases, and in others you would not, leaving a large part of the outcome still set after the choice has been made.

In which case you should ponder how one can make ‘full balanced’ play that ultimately has no real choice, besides the choice between ‘short-bow/pistol/throwing axe’ and particle effects, interesting enough for that choice to matter enough to the player.

Giving them a limited space for the options, may be a good place to start. Picking 2 out of 8 weapons that are all equal to each other but perform differently. And are geared to putting out 2/3 of the DPS, then taking 3 choice skills to do 1/3 of the damage. Where the balance is achieved in a set of synergetic options, that are reinforced by mutual exclusiveness of the different sets in something like a trait system. Meaning that ultimately the choice for those doesn’t really matter, and it will just be the way in which the options are conveyed to the player. and the ‘choice’ is sort of forced upon the player due to the fact that they cannot gear towards all sets. It’s best to gear for one set, and ones you do so, you will likely take at least 2 of the set if not 3, meaning you will be balanced against any other player taking a different set.

If one writes it down like that, it almost already reads like the GW2 skill system, with the difference that in GW2 now, the sets are inherently different, and that weapons within professions, let alone between professions, are not at all balanced this way.

And of course there is the audience RPG’s are geared towards, making an RPG a full balance game with high to total symmetry. Sure it would totally go with ‘play how you want to play’, but on the other hand, as all professions are symmetric and there is no ‘real choice’, how well would that go over with the players?

R/P/S is a Symmetric game.

As far as I understand it; When you’re talking Symmetry and Asymmetry, it’s from the perspective of the Player, not from the perspective of the mechanics interacting with eachother.

This why Extra Credits says “Chess is Symmetrical, so by definition, it’s Balanced” in the Perfect Imbalance video. It doesn’t matter if Rocks and Rooks are strong and weak to things, it matters if Player1 and Player 2 are strong and weak to things.

If it’s any consolation, I initially found the concept confusing too.
And it doesn’t help that Extra Credits doesn’t go into this very deeply. But I did come across an article a while back that explains the idea more fully: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions.html

@Vox, lol, well I can see where you are probably right on RPS, but, that doesn’t negate the negative effect in ‘less then Perfect Imbalanced’ games, where an RPS like effect appears. See RPS is a fun game due to it’s choice. Games are fun due to their play. When the outcome of play is set due to it’s choice, it ceases to be fun to play it.

I will read the article tomorrow, right now I’m gonna play some actual GW2, instead of the GW2 forum game … tnx, for more input though

This is a bit too wide.
Where problems start in gw2 is the level at which, lets say, one should choose between two or more options.
Whereas the balance (be that full balance or perfect imbalance) is decided either on top level (eg every class has a set of skills they semi-permanently learn and they can use any of them at any time) or the very bottom level (amount of skills is limited, but you can choose any combination of them according to what you will face while you will not be able to change them).
In GW2, though it is clearly oriented to the second one, one point is amiss – instead of choosing options themselves you can only chose between sets of options. Problem lies in the fact that no matter how balanced those very sets of options are, they were never considered for the balance of the options those sets contain.
Instead of optimizing their own skills bar (and thus preserving the said “balance”) players are forced to, sometimes, take a whole sets of skills because a single option they actually need is not available in any other set. So instead of choosing the best option – one you would benefit from the most (and game is clearly balanced around the said use of best options) people are choosing the set of options that would hinder their abilities the least (and game is nowhere near even being considered to be balanced in that regard).
For example, lets take support engineer.
First, choosing one of three weapon sets.
1) P/P – 1: pointless, 2: debatable, 3: pointless, 4: pointless, 5: debatable
2) P/S – 1: pointless, 2: debatable, 3: pointless, 4: good, 5: debatable
3) Rifle – 1: pointless, 2: debatable, 3: pointless, 4: debatable, 5: pointless
So out of 3 sets we choose one for the sole reason that it contains ONE skill that we can unconditionally benefit from.
Half of skill bar is filled with one skill. 12 balanced skills, 3 imbalanced sets.
Well, engi was used as an example because of how little should be written about it.
Now try to imagine how many skills can a typical elementalist consider unquestionable beneficial when he select a single set of 20 skills.
I won’t even mention thieves that, on top of selecting 2 out of 5 sets, at any given time in combat can use only ONE of 10 skills that they have already selected.

See RPS is a fun game due to it’s choice. Games are fun due to their play. When the outcome of play is set due to it’s choice, it ceases to be fun to play it.

Well, we might agree to disagree on other things, but I agree with this.
I think if GW2 is really going to work as an ActionRPG, it needs to make sure you have meaningful choices before battle while building your character (RPG) and meaningful choices during battle (Action).

I really do recommend the article.
You may find the other parts interesting too, as once it establishes definitions in Part 1 it goes on to talking about Variety/Balance/Counterplay. It’s right up the thread’s alley, now that I think about it.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-2-viable-options.html
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-3-fairness.html
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-4-intuition.html

People may argue but i do think some things are just broken. Game can be “perfectly imbalanced” as long as classes have trade offs. Right now there are certain classes that just have little trade off while other have way too high trade off. Rock -> scissors > paper doesn’t work atm. And that is the issue.

I have been summoned here!

As for hybrid models: there is no such thing. A game is either balanced, or it is not balanced. Perfect imbalance is more or less something that happens when a game isn’t balanced, but isn’t fully broken. The hardest part about making a game that doesn’t rely on perfect balance is that it can very easily delve into the broken state. Let me explain how this works:

There is a saying, I don’t know exactly how it goes, but it amounts to this: The protagonist is only as magnificent as his antagonist. Basically, the value of any tactic, item, or character is the sum of what it counters more than what it does. As per the videos example: champion A is valuable because it beats most things, but champion B is valuable because it beats champion A. The more things that champion A beats, the more valuable champion B becomes.

Something is broken when either Champion A doesn’t have any practical counters, or champion B has so many drawbacks that it can’t be compensated for by the fact that it can beat Champion A.

While this is interesting in game design, this is not always a good thing. There are two terms that arise when a game is in the “perfect imbalance” state, and neither of them are really good:

#1: Dominating. This is the overt prevalence of a particular tactic. The problem with a game that is being dominated by one class, one tactic, or one item is that this comes at the detriment of everyone else. For people like to who play Champ A it is fun, and for people who like to play Champ B it is fun, but Champ C, Champ D, Champ E… it is a miserable experience. It is important to consider the shifting meta of a perfectly imbalanced game as a point of widespread exclusion for players with preferences.

#2: Hard Counter. AKA build wars. Ultimately, in any multiplayer game the players want to have a certain level of agency in determining the outcome of a match. A player playing Champion A still wants to be able to beat Champion B, even while at a disadvantage, should they make the right choices or if the other player makes the wrong choices. This agency can only exist in a “perfect imbalance” state if it isn’t that imbalanced at all.

But failure to adequately adjust these mechanics leads to forcing balance by instituting a hard counter. The problem with a hard counter is that this takes control away from the actions of the player, and instead makes combat into an elaborate guessing game where you hope your opponent doesn’t have the thing that will always beat you.

Failure in adequate balancing is actually the subject of my formerly highest rated post. There was a thread awhile ago called Constructive Necromancer Thoughts, which was essentially Phantaram calling for necro nerfs and subsequently getting them, but in this thread I laid out exactly what the problems with necros were. The short version is this:

“The biggest problem with necros, and condition necros in general, is that both their offense and their defense is ultimately not in their own hands. "

Hard counters and blatant dominance are not fun things to have in a game. A player needs to have their victories and defeats be meaningful, and be readily understood as something in their control. The more balanced things are, the more in control the player becomes to the outcome of the game.

Something else I think is being neglected is the field of play. All of this I wrote above, along with I assume what other people are writing, is all from the perspective of a vacuous sPVP circumstance when comparing one class to only one other class. But, that isn’t the case for most circumstances. I see so many threads pop up talking about balance, but they almost never specify what they are talking about:

Solo PVE
Group PVE
1 vs. 1 WvW
1 vs. X WvW
X vs. X WvW
1 vs. 1 sPVP duel
1 vs. 1 sPVP conquest
1 vs. X sPVP conquest
X vs. X sPVP conquest
Which conquest map

This leads to a lot of muddying between goals.

Would I say that GW2 is perfectly imbalanced? Off hand, no. I can’t be much of an authority on sPVP, since I’ve mainly PVEed for awhile now. However, following the complaints of the standard poster hasn’t changed much over the past 7 months:

Condi spam
Petting Zoo
CC spam

has been going since the beginning of July. The mark of a perfect imbalance would be shifting trends, but trends aren’t shifting.

@Vox, tnx for those articles, even though they are not strictly about RPG’s, if you read between the lines they surely clear up a lot. One thing that struck me most, is that some of our miscommunication may well be because we use different definitions for similar concepts. This is also because ‘extra credits’ introduced ‘perfect imbalance’ as a concept to me, opposing ‘full balance’. When, if you read the use full articles you linked, the author there uses ‘Symmetrical and Asymmetrical’ for these concepts.
If you were to read my posts, and everywhere I used ‘perfect balance/full balance’ or ‘perfect imbalance’ and check if you can substitute them with ‘Symmetrical or Asymmetrical’ instead. I think in most cases you will find that doing so makes it more clear what I am getting at.

Or in other words. It appeared to me that, in a sense, I view ‘full balance’ as a ‘symmetrical game’, and view ‘perfect imbalanced’ games as an ‘Asymmetrical game’.

@Red Arachnid, the above also applies to your reply, because when I speak of a ‘hybrid’ I seem to have actually meant a more ‘symmetrical or a more asymmetric’ game. Now obviously there is only ‘Symmetrical’ games, and any game that is not symmetrical is ‘Asymmetric’, but beyond a shadow of a doubt one can argue the grade of Asymmetricality (lol, if that is even a word).

The concepts of ‘symmetrical and asymmetrical’ I think are better than ‘full balance and Perfect imbalance’; mainly because the symmetrical ones are better explained on a sliding scale. A game can be more or less Asymmetrical but still be balanced, while ‘imbalance’ almost always leads to the assumption that the game is unfair.
I may change all the posts I made here to replace these concepts in the text, when I have a bit more time.

I agree on these pointers when speaking of balance in a more detailed fashion of balance. And yes, these concepts should certainly be part of the notion of balance as far as the balance forum goes. For now though, my intention was to look at GW2 and professiondesign and balance in a more general sense, and whether the game offers the needed mechanics for the game it is.

This mainly means figuring out where on the ‘Asymmetric scale’ GW2 resides, whether or not GW2 offers enough valid play styles and linked to this the amount of choices the player has in these (the variety within professions), and ofcourse whether or not these playstyles are ‘fair’ (in the sense of the definition given to fairness, in the articles Vox linked).

A part of this are indeed the ‘pitfalls’ of Asymmetric games, being the ‘Dominance’ and ‘Hardcounter (or R/P/S)’ pitfalls. And I think (after reading those articles) that perhaps included should be the ‘Godmode’ and ‘Worthless’ tiers for article 3 mainly. And for the balance community specifically, the notion mentioned in article 3, that instead of asking for nerfs for very strong abilities, it may be better to ask for buffs of low tier options instead. And/or where applicable, that asking for some (or more) way(s) to counter a specific ability will lead to more viable game play, and more enjoyment on both sides of the issue. Mainly, if there are counters, then a nerf may not be needed at all, and the addition of the counters increased the options of action/response on both sides of the issue.

Hmmm, guess you can’t have it all… I was hoping for some more discussion on this topic, but I guess the ‘nerf/buff’ game is just more interesting.

This does make me wonder though (and one of the reasons why I made this thread), seeing GW2 is an Asymmetric game with a goal to thus be ‘perfectly imbalanced’. If you check the calls for ‘balance’, wouldn’t people rather have a ‘symmetric’ game?

Or if not, and we accept GW2 as it is, what should change or be added to make sure the ‘perfect imbalance’ state is reached? Going over this I personally think GW2 needs:
- More skills
- More counters
- Better balance/symmetric between the non-Asymmetric parts.
- And/Or, a faster changing meta, with more regular updates.

- The ‘acceptable power level’ should be more clear, so that it is easier to determine if something is actually ‘unbalanced’.
- There should be more buffs of the ‘low tier’ and ‘worthless tier’ profession option, instead of the emphasis of nerf’ing anything that is slightly optimal.

Anything else?

You kidding me? That video says some guy from Riot (2nd worst balanced moba of all the garbage mobas out there) was the first to come up with counter-play? They severely lack perspective.

And they use World of Tanks as an example of good counter play?

I understand what you’re talking about OP, but this video is just hilarious.

@Dynnen, he was the first to use the word and explain the concept to these ppl, in such a way that it was usable as a means to convey a gameplay element. Because obviously counters and counter play have been around for years. Just in gaming theory there may not have been a clear word and a clear definition + requirements for them.

And yeah, that was a bit meh, but again, you may want to realize their target audience, which I think they view as gamers that have never thought about actual gaming mechanics. So they more then often take real bare bone and clear examples of mechanics so they can explain them…

Without that context I can see why you would cringe sometimes (even I do :P ) at some of the things they pose. On the other hand, due to the basic attitude they make often mixed up things somewhat clear, or in regards to ‘gaming theory’, pluck something apart so that one can better understand the parts of the mechanics and how they work together, or not.

Still it’s by no means the governing institute of game design, if you were to read through the thread you will notice that I switched ‘words’ at some point. Because what they call ‘perfect imbalance’ is better defined by using ‘Asymmetric’. Anyways, you got to understand what I am on about, which was the reason to use the vids

GW2 is clearly a mix and it is also not about balance. The game was made to cater to as many playertypes as possible. Balance wasn’t and will never be their biggest concern and this whole discussion will never even reach out to them (though I do enjoy joining for fun), so just don’t expect that anything to come out of this.

Whatever it has for variety and choice, wasn’t only meant to balance the game. One example here are how some of the classes are much easier to play and can still be as effective as other classes, so the game offers both: easy casual play and a challenge for more serious player.
‘Choice’ in gw2 evolves from the fact that every class is more or less capable of attending all and the same roles in a fight on the one hand, and that pvp in general and PVE in gw2 don’t require the player to pick a specific role on the other hand.
There are no tanks, healing specialists, or even extreme differences in two characters statsets wearing two completely different gears of the same level. (not like wow where a tank had like 3-4 times the hp/general def stats of dps spec’d char).
This is also the reason why we can have a melee only meta in WvW, which was absolutely impossible for a game like Warhammer online (almost exclusively ‘WvW’ but with very specialized classes, often unable to even hold themselves without being mixed up with other classes to counter their weaknesses- imbalanced type).
You can see GW2 has ambitions to be a ‘balanced’ game.

However, we have 3 different sources for damage: power, conditions, transformations (toughness -> power / condi etc). Despite the leading meta issue, in theory we would have to actively counter our enemies build in pvp. To have a chance against dire and rabid builds, we need conditions cleansing and some def stats on our own. Stunbreaker, invulnerabilities and traveling skills help us counter burstcombos with bonus crit damage. Everyone has to weight defense against offense, for that extra required hit on either party.

Additionally, while every class is capable of making such choices, there is no possibility to adapt during combat. If you meet a roaming Mesmer in WvW his build will most likely be aligned to current meta but it could just be anything in theory (and sometimes really is).
So let’s say you may already be spec’d to counter a bersi build, not expecting to meet anybody on your way to the zerg. Once he starts to hunt you down, there is no way for you to change that fact so you’re already counterplayed. There is no possibility to use your other utility spells (even untraited) because the game creates specialization out of nothing by limiting your hotbar slots.
This leads to the conclusion that we have counterplay and asymmetric during the actual encounters in a balanced game.

Imo, it wasn’t all balance reasons behind that design but let’s not talk about it. GW2 is a mix of both gametypes and therefor should be balanced as such. One thing that comes with such a mix is a much bigger variety of options to ‘balance stuff’ because if it just doesn’t work to balance 2 abilities so they’re equally strong, they can just change perspective and say it’s balanced relatively since ability #1 was made for an easier class or can be easier countered or belongs to an overall weaker set of abilities. It also covers quite a lot fundamental design flaws, which means they can run GW2 on a very very basic set of rules.