I keep hearing people talk about balance, and it's frequently used to mean different things. I had an interesting conversation with @Sethiroth, and he told me that he defines balance as all playstyles being equally viable on any map. But sometimes, we make maps that champion one style of gameplay because we believe it will result in a better experience, like when we make maps that are meant to be played very aggressively; or to be played with much coordination with team members. I thought our conversation was pretty interesting, so I'd like to keep it going. Is a map balanced if it allows one team to gain a cascading advantage? Would you use a different term to describe this phenomenon? How do you define balance? How do you use the word? Does balance make a map better? Does it make the experience more enjoyable?
What would be an example of such? In my head it's currently "taking the entirety of the sandbox and mechanics and molding them into 1 complete fluid motion"
there is no completely fluid motion in a sandbox that allows random directional changes that force wider pathing --- Double Post Merged, Aug 27, 2017 --- in fact biggest problem with Gravitas is apparently its cramped too much for duels because I don't want to make every playspace into a room tough to balance this ****
To me, balance in forge and level design equates to fairness. It's not necessary or desirable to have everything be equal. There just needs to be a reasonable opportunity to overcome whatever imbalances exist. When I'm 'balancing' a map, my goal is to create imbalance while maintaining fairness. The moment a map becomes unfair, it's no longer balanced.
I view balance in level design with two definitions: The first definition more accurately translates to "balance of difficulty". Here's the good ol' bell curve: The most "balanced" or accessible maps fall in the middle. These appeal to the widest playerbase possible. On the left hand you have maps that have a low learning curve and allow anyone to find success, and on the right you have maps with a high learning curve and require repeat playthroughs to learn your way around them. This isn't necessarily a "casual vs competitive" situation, although they often intertwine, nor is it a matter of depth or meta. All that needs to be taken away from the bell curve in this example is that maps with wider target audiences could be said to provide an experience "balanced between extreme ends of the spectrum." The second more accurate definition though refers to a map's "checks and balances" within its actual design, or how fair the map is. I think a good map is a map with imbalances, because that is what creates flow. You move from a place you don't want to be to a place you do because it's better than where you were. If everything was of equal importance, your map would have no flow, and the geometry would take a backseat to all the weapons or spartan abilities on it (and that'll of course skew its target audience to people who prefer chaos). More on that later. Instead, you force players to decide whether they want to stay where they are or move somewhere by introducing Checks, or tradeoffs. The place they want to move will either have better sightlines or safer, more controllable sightlines; an important pickup item; better spawns for you and your team and worse spawns for the enemy; or more height than where they are (which is the easiest way to create flow because players flow upwards naturally). Alternatively, if where they are is already good, you can add something opposing them that gets them to move. Therein lies a problem many designers will encounter, and that is the delicate act of making an area penetrable and counterable while still desirable. There are plenty of philosophies to address this: The 1up philosophy lets players constantly trade advantages until they run out of floor space and cycle back Rock-Paper-Scissors is a similar self-balancing method of definitive counters and works well for larger playspaces Pyramid Balancing gives players on lower levels more options and cover than players on the top Balancing with interactive elements such as teleporters, lifts, and scripted geometry is commonly used as well Regardless of what method is used, the key aspect is checking an area. Letting players approach an encounter, assess the situation, and make an informed and fair decision is how the imbalances of a map are tuned to work together. I really like the Penrose Method, or the act of infinite balancing based on conditions. Here's how it looks in practice: Situation: I want to be top mid because it's better than where I just spawned Condition A: But top mid is exposed Condition B: But it's hard to get out of top mid Situation: I want to flush players out of top mid by using a position above it Condition A: But this position is checked by a hard or soft route that flushes it from above or flanks it from the side Condition B: But this position has shitty spawns for my team Situation: I want to sit in the checking position Condition A: It doesn't have much floorspace Condition B: You're forced to commit to it Condition C: Something else checks it Condition D: It has limited sightlines Condition E: You can get pinched from multiple angles Condition F: You'll lose all the pickup items I should mention that most of this is self-evident and loosely defined until it needs to be. Think about it, but don't overthink it. Yea, don't sit there and do this on your map. The last thing I'll mention is something that is a bit controversial, and that is the idea of balancing with pickup items. Pickups in Halo encourage map movement and serve as counters, but they don't create those things. They are complimentary to the map's design, unless the map is designed specifically around making them more than that. If you play the map designed without specific pickups in mind and people aren't moving in a natural way to oppose other players ( an unnatural way being run straight at them - regardless of whether it is smart to do so - because it's the only way to win), then perhaps the map has a geometric issue. Furthermore, if the pickups themselves are the main source of balancing, then they can just as easily be used in the problem spot unless there is an abundance of them placed throughout the map. There's nothing stopping a player from grabbing rockets and taking to the place rockets are supposed to keep them out of, except picking up an overshield and challenging them head on...assuming they don't have that too. (I mean, after a certain point, you just have to accept that you lost the game.) If you're a fan of balancing with pickups, you might end up throwing a bunch of weapons on the map to counter each other, making the map entirely about getting a better weapon than the other person. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that either, but consider asking yourself whether you are doing it intentionally, or doing it to hide a potential issue with the map's layout. You're not solving camping issues by putting explosives everywhere. Is Damnation balanced because a Rocket Launcher and Overshield spawn on the bottom of the map, or is it balanced because the weaker side has access to several geometric counters to the stronger side, which has controlled sightlines and less escape routes? Trick question - Damnation isn't balanced because Red Room is OP. The map would be broken without the pickups because Red Room doesn't have enough conditions applied to it, but the pickups make it "fair" for the team to counter that area.
I really like what @A 3 Legged Goat and @a Chunk have said about using imbalance in order to create movement. This seems pretty intuitive--imbalance drives everything in nature that I can think of. For example, imbalance drives objects down ramps; it drives temperature change; and it also drives people to learn new skills.
I think an important thing that's kinda been mentioned is to stop matches from going to the point of no return. This is why you can't really just balance a scorpion with another scorpion or something. As what if one team gets both or something. Then they may be able to totally dominate the map without giving the other team a chance.
I like that point. That "balance" should afford a player or team that is behind, to be able to pull it together and win, somehow, if they focus and have some skill. It shouldn't just be a snowball rolling downhill that you have no way of stopping. Something as simple as increasing the respawn time on a weapon can change everything.
I think the implications of the term "balance" seems to lead some people down the path of overloading maps with too many weapons, power points, etc to counter something that is overpowered. Like they take the analogy of weighting a scale too literally. But in level design there aren't just two sides to the scale, so taking that analogy too literally can lead you down a bad path. It's like "aesthetics", it covers most of the concept, but it doesn't describe it completely. As touched on by Goat and others, the "flow" of water and many other things in nature is only achieved via imbalance. I'm not saying I have a better term, but I do think the implications of the word 'balance' does make some forgers try to solve problems by adding to their maps, instead of subtracting from them. You have an OP weapon, so you try to balance it with another weapon, and now you have two OP weapons on your map. I think something to keep in mind is that weapons, etc should be balanced against a spartan that just respawned with no pickups, not against other pickups. One thing that I've been trying to do lately is to not let myself balance one element that is powerful with something from the same 'category' so to speak. If you take the rock paper scissors analogy for instance, nothing is balanced directly - rock never beats rock. Rock only beats scissors, scissors only beats paper, etc. So I've been trying to keep that in mind when building - if I have an OS, I'm gonna try to counter it by having it in a difficult position, making it vulnerable to multiple sight lines, something like that. I'm not gonna try to counter the OS by putting a plasma pistol or some other shield draining weapon on the map. Just a personal rule I've been adopting lately, especially with my 1v1 map. This is not to say that you can't make great designs in other ways, that's not true at all - but I find that I often learn the most important lessons and make better choices when I limit my options. So I've been trying to force myself into a constrained mindset. I try to liken it to pop songwriting - just like a pop song, a great forge map is a work of art but it also has to function as a piece of entertainment. There are a limited number of chords and you can have many different songs that use 'low hanging fruit' chord changes such as 1-4-5 or 2-5-1, what have you. Some people have a compulsion to write songs with the most complex changes possible, or the most hip time signatures they can pull off. More often than not this leads to a convoluted end product, or something that has a very narrow appeal. Really the true masters of the craft of pop songwriting can write an great song and innovate within those commonly used limitations. Similarly, I have the most respect for forgers who can execute on a design based around just a few interesting concepts, rather than maps that are overloaded with lots of weapons and paths, or try to break the mold with some out there idea. Simplicity and clarity...That's the kind of balance and design I aspire to build.
I always just figured it meant that the players can't be easily spawn-trapped. Here's what The Art of War says in chapter 10, Terrain. Master Sun Some terrain is easily passable, in some you get hung up, some makes for a standoff, some is narrow, some is steep, some is wide open. When both sides can come and go, the terrain is said to be easily passable.When the terrain is easily passable, take up your position first, choosing the high and sunny side, convenient to supply routes, for advantage in battle. When you can go but have a hard time getting back, you are said to be hung up. On this type of terrain, if the enemy is unprepared, you will prevail if you go forth, but if the enemy is prepared, if you go forth and do not prevail you will have a hard time getting back, to your disadvantage. When it is disadvantageous for either side to go forth, it is called standoff terrain. On standoff terrain, even if the opponent offers you an advantage, you do not go for it you withdraw, inducing the enemy half out, and then you attack, to your advantage. On narrow terrain, if you are there first, you should fill it up to await the opponent. If the opponent is there first, do not pursue if the opponent fills the narrows. Pursue if the opponent does not fill the narrows. On steep terrain, if you are there first, you should occupy the high and sunny side to await the opponent. If the opponent is there first, withdraw from there and do not pursue. On wide-open terrain, the force of momentum is equalized, and it is hard to make a challenge, disadvantageous to fight. Understanding these six kinds of terrain is the highest responsibility of the general, and it is imperative to examine them. So among military forces there are those who rush, those who tarry, those who fall, those who crumble, those who riot, and those who get beaten. These are not natural disasters, but faults of the generals. Those who have equal momentum but strike ten with one are in a rush. Those whose soldiers are strong but whose officers are weak tarry. Those whose officers are strong but whose soldiers are weak fall. When colonels are angry and obstreperous and fight on their own out of spite when they meet opponents, and the generals do not know their abilities, they crumble. When generals are weak and lack authority, instructions are not clear, officers and soldiers lack consistency, and they form battle lines every which way, this is riot. When generals cannot assess opponents, clash with greater numbers or more powerful forces, and do not sort out the levels of skill among their own troops, these are the ones who get beaten. These six are ways to defeat. Understanding this is the ultimate responsibility of the generals; they must be examined. The contour of the land is an aid to an army; sizing up opponents to determine victory, assessing dangers and distances, is the proper course of action for military leaders. Those who do battle knowing these will win, those who do battle without knowing these will lose. Therefore, if the laws of war indicate certain victory it is surely appropriate to do battle, even if the government says there is to be no battle. If the laws of war do not indicate victory, it is appropriate not to do battle, even if the government orders war. Thus, one advances without seeking glory, retreats without avoiding blame, only protecting people, to the benefit of the government as well, thus rendering valuable service to the nation. Look upon your soldiers as you do infants, and they willingly do into deep valleys with you; look upon your soldiers as beloved children, and they willingly die with you. If you are so nice to them that you cannot employ them, so kind to them that you cannot command them, so casual with them that you cannot establish order, they are like spoiled children, useless. If you know your soldiers are capable of striking, but do not know whether the enemy is invulnerable to a strike, you have half a chance of winning. If you know the enemy is vulnerable to a strike, but do not know if your soldiers are incapable of making a strike, you have half a chance of winning. If you know the enemy is vulnerable to a strike, and know your soldiers can make the strike, but do not know if the lay of the land makes it unsuitable for battle, you have half a chance of winning. Therefore those who know martial arts do not wander when they move, and do not become exhausted when they rise up. So it is said that when you know yourself and others, victory is not in danger; when you know sky and earth, victory is inexhaustible.