[MUD-Dev] Some random thoughts on balance

[Matt Mihaly]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Azeraab wrote:

> The PvE game, by it's very nature, is unbalanced.

Define what you mean by balance? It's not clear.

> Like a single player game, while there may be setbacks, eventually
> the player will "win."

That is dependent on the game design. A PvE game where the player
"loses" would be easy to do. It's not a function of being a PvE
game.


> PvE is not a competitive activity, but episodic entertainment,
> much like a sitcom.

PvE is most certainly a competitive activity. You're either
competing against yourself and/or against the system and/or against
other players. Ever notice the bragging rights players feel entitled
to if they aer the first to a new level, for instance? Or the first
to do a new quest?


>  When you watch Gillgan's Island > you know the castaways arent
>  going to succeed in getting off the > island, much the way you
>  know you are going to win when you battle > an Orc in whatever
>  game you are playing. No true competition > exists.

Oh, it most certainly does. You're looking at a player vs. orc in a
very limited way, and ignoring the context in which the battle takes
place. If you ignore the context of the larger game then sure, there
isn't much real competition involved in the single battle of player
vs. orc, but you're also not talking about MUDs in that case, as
they involve other players and a larger context.


> But winning every time isnt fun either.  Players demand some sort
> of fake competition, a chance to lose.  If they win 100% of the
> time they will be as unhappy as if they never win.  PvE only works
> properly if it is imbalanced. But players who excel at the game
> quickly find PvE to be utterly unchallenging and boring.  The
> players who are not the best at the game will tire of PvE as well,
> just not as quickly.

I'm not sure what you mean by imbalanced. It's hardly a scientific
term, but when most people in MUDs talk about balance, it's to refer
to the relative capabilities of various groups (classes, races,
etc).

I also don't think that your statement reflects reality. The many
people who spend thousands of hours playing PvE games like
Everquest, in which you mainly just bash monsters, do not seem to
"quickly" find PvE to be utterly unchallenging and boring. 20+ years
of MUD history seems to say that PvE is quite enjoyable to many
people.

 
> The PvP game, is balanced.
 
> It is a zero sum game.  For everyone who wins, there is someone
> who loses.  It is balanced.

That's a pretty limited way to look at balance. In Achaea, for
instance, whether PK is a net-negative, net-zero, or net-positive
game depends on how you define balance, and what elements you are
weighing.

You CAN simply look at "Who killed the other person." but that's a
simplistic way to look at PK, and doesn't reflect what's really
going on. In that sense though, yes, Achaea's PK, for instance, is a
zero sum game.

On the other hand, that's not how players look at PK, and thus as
far as I'm concerned, that's a fallacious description of PK. I could
choose to look at experience gain and loss, and comparing them as a
definition of 'balanced.' In that case, PK in Achaea is a net
negative sum game.

Or, perhaps I'd look at whether it is balanced in the sense of
"fun." In this sense it could be a negative, zero, or positive sum
game, depending on the exact situation. If neither player enjoyed
the combat at all, it was probably a negative sum game. If one
really did, and one equally did not (a pretty unlikely case, and
pretty darn hard to measure in any case) then it could be a zero sum
game. I, of course, prefer to look at it as a positive sum
game. Both players hopefully had fun. That's the ideal. Everybody
wins.

Of course, there are any number of other ways you could look at PK
"balance" in the sense that you're using it.



> Players automatically gravitate away from things that are
> ineffective to the few most effective things, and eventually the
> single best thing, the final balance being total equality.  This
> gravitation does not necessarily occur in the PvE game because by
> separating the basic functions of combat (dealing damage, healing,
> taking damage, etc) among a group of players you can create a
> number of equally essential roles.

Again, I think that's an unwarrantedly simplistic view of balance.


> The pvp system only works properly if it is balanced.  But players
> do not want to win 50% of the time, they want to win more often
> than not, and they are extremely unhappy if they lose more often
> than they win.  So the better players enjoy pvp and may never tire
> of it slowly, while the poor players hate it and leave quickly.

You know, when I used to play online Quake, I used to lose almost
every time I played. I played a LOT though. Mainly, I just enjoyed
using the grappling hook (I think it was some sort of mod?) to get
into weird places where I could get a rocket shot off. I always
found it extremely amusing to do that, even if I inevitably got
blown up a few times before getting into another such spot.

Winning isn't everything to every player, and what constitutes
"winning" is entirely subjective. The notion of winning requires, it
seems to me, some sort of goal to reach. That goal could be fixed or
relative. What that goal is can't be defined by other people unless
you choose to accept it though. For instance, let's say we are
playing Achaea, and we go at it. Let's say you are an uber-combatant
with knowledge of every detail of our combat system, whereas I am a
happy-go-lucky druid who mainly enjoys lots of nekkid forest
orgies. When we fight, you might consider a 'win' for you to be
killing me. I might consider a 'win' for me to be simply lasting 10
seconds against you, or maybe just fondling you a few times while
you kill me.

Winning is a state of mind.
 
> Building a PvP game on top of a PvE game is a mistake.  To take
> something that is inherently imbalanced and try to to make it
> balanced isnt going to work.  Creating a balanced PvP system, then
> introducing MOBs to it with the abilities of the mobs being
> unbalanced will be much more successful.

I'd like to comment on this, but I still don't really understand how
you're using the term balance. It's not clear.

--matt

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev