Balance vs. Imbalance -- An Essay About Strategy

[Blitz]

What is Balance?
I have found that in the course of making, beta-testing, and reviewing maps, a subject that is often broached is balance. "Good" balance is often perceived as a map where players all have equal chances of reaching critical power-ups and weapons, and where there's no area of the map that a player can camp out and hold an overwhelming advantage. I will deal with this slight misperception later, as good balance can be difficult to spot. Most players/mappers have an easier time recognizing the opposite. For example, suppose your map includes a narrow corridor with lots of shock ammo on one end. A player might camp the end of that corridor spamming combos with little danger to himself. I will call this "poor" balance. With that in mind, let's try to figure out what "good" balance really is.

What Good Balance Is Not
Good balance is not a matter of measuring distances between weapons and power-ups to make them all even. Let's call that concept "fairness". As a mapper, you need to be reasonably fair to all your players, but acheiving this merely avoids poor balance; it doesn't create good balance. To make this point, consider the most "fair" gameplay there is. An instagib arena. Everyone spawns with the same weapon and unlimited ammo and they just have at it. Would you say such a map has good balance? No. It is merely fair. Good balance is more than this.

What Good Balance Is
Good balance is an approximately even potential between the strategic and tactical characteristics of a map.

In other words, the players can use strategy to overcome the tactical imbalances of the map. For example, in UT's classic Deck 16, players often camp the sniper roost at the top of the main atrium. The player on top has a tactical advantage of higher ground, a long-range weapon, and easy movement to avoid missiles. To overcome this, opponents could use several strategies. A player might try charging in with a short-range weapon like a flak cannon, or he might try lobbing a redeemer blast to force the sniper to leave. He might get directly below and try to catch him with a shock combo. The sniper might employ strategy as well. He may vary his position, sniping from different directions, or he may make frequent treks to the shield belt to give himself more staying power.

What is important to realize is that sniping is tactical. Putting yourself into position to succeed is strategic. A well-balanced map needs potential for both. When players can develop strategies (rushing the sniper with a flak cannon) to overcome tactical advantages ("that guy up there keeps taking my head off"), then the map can be said to have good balance.

Why is Good Balance Important?
Good balance is what makes a map fun. What's more fun than cleverly conceiving of a needed course of action and then summoning all your skill to bring your vision to success? As players, we all do this without even thinking about it. Every gametype has this interplay, in fact every sporting contest in the world has it as well. If a sport has an offense and a defense, then you can bet that each side is trying to exploit its strengths while minimizing those of the opponent. The more evenly matched the sides are, the more interesting the contest. But keep in mind what we've learned so far. "Even" does not mean the same. Take basketball. One team might have a strong inside game while the opponent has great outside shooters. Who wins? The answer is that it's the team who can use strategy to put itself in position to exploit its tactical advantage (great shooting/strong inside game).

Back to gaming. If your map is merely fair, then players rely on their tactical skills to gain victory. If your map is balanced, then players can develop strategies to overcome their opponents' tactics, and to help their own tactics succeed. The successful (or unsuccessful) execution of these strategies is what makes the game.

Better Balance Through Imbalance!?
Ironically, it is tactical imbalances that give us the balance we crave between strategy and tactics. Remember the instagib arena? With no tactical differences, it's hard to develop a successful strategy beyond dodge and shoot. But a well-balanced map with a variety of "tactical features" leaves us with many strategic possibilities. A tactical feature is some advantage that you might be able to exploit if you develop and execute the correct strategy. The sniping roost in Deck 16 is one example. Remember the corridor example at the beginning? I said this was poor balance, but that's not exactly true. It's merely a tactical imbalance. There's nothing wrong with a strong tactical feature, as long as it is balanced with strategic potential.

The more different tactical features you have, the more strategic possibilities you create. Every feature should have at least one or two ways it can be exploited and one or two ways it can be overcome. When you have players using strategy to attempt to overcome their opponents' tactics, you have achieved strong balance. It doesn't matter if the strategy succeeds, as long as the strategic potential is there. Remember a strategy that always succeeds is just as boring as a tactic that always succeeds.

Ok, Now What?
If you've come this far then, you should have some idea how to implement these ideas in your maps. Did you make your item layout completely fair? Hmmm, sounds like there might be a lack of tactical imbalances there. You might want to push two of those more powerful items closer together. Now what if your players start camping that area? Hmmm, maybe you should put in another route where opponents can sneak in from behind and smear the campers. Maybe you should create some more imbalances in other areas of your map so that players don't all flock to the same one. Sounds like fun? If you do it right, it will be.


---
Comments welcome...

[Scourgem]

Some very good points.

Personally, I think that "simple" balance is a viable route in many cases, because it is easier to measure (and hence easier to pull off). Gameplay design based on "tactical imbalance", as you call it, requires either very careful and planned design or (as is probably the case with e.g. Deck16) a lot of luck. In fact, taking a look at Epic's maps, a lot of them are based on it, and as we all know, few of them have stood the test of time.

[HortonsWho]

Bloody brillaint post.

I'd like to hear from you a few examples of successful tactical imbalance.

Of course, in some sense, enjoyment of such a map on a public server mioght (often) require a good ense of teamply. Otherwise, a map that depends on strategies to overcome, might easily be a lopsided washout should one team hold the "advantaged" side and the other have no sense of teamplay or lacks a player so good that they can overcome the odds singlehandedly.



<sticky!>

[Blitz]

Thanks guys.

Scourgem: I contend that strong maps always have good balance (equal potential between strategy and tactics). How it is achieved may vary. Luck, as you say may play a part in it, or it may come about from playtesting. Players bunch up in one area, so put a nice power-up somewhere else (creating a new tactical imbalance). etc. Also I suspect many good mappers use these ideas due to innate understanding of these concepts rather than spelling it out as I do here.

Hort: Remember that good balance means approximately even potential between strategy and tactics. A strong strategic map may be tactically boring. I think the best maps are the ones where both exist. I'll work on a list of examples...that's a good idea.

[Dorkorama]

Originally Posted by HortonsWho

Of course, in some sense, enjoyment of such a map on a public server might (often) require a good ense of teamply. Otherwise, a map that depends on strategies to overcome, might easily be a lopsided washout should one team hold the "advantaged" side and the other have no sense of teamplay or lacks a player so good that they can overcome the odds singlehandedly.

I think this is where CTF-433 shines. No tactic is perfect, but most have more stengths than weaknesses. It's a map that doesn't tilt itself toward any one strategy, in my opinion, so that it becomes hard to monopolize, even with varying player strengths.

I think that's what Blitz was driving at, though I'm not totally sure.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Dorkorama

I think that's what Blitz was driving at, though I'm not totally sure.

Yep, I think you got it.

[SuperApe]

Excellent essay.
Well said.
I'd like to link to this from the wiki. (Map Design)

[radio667]

Originally Posted by HortonsWho

Bloody brillaint post.





<sticky!>

I So Agree with Horty on This one , 100 %

I Believe St. Blitz has Written the Gospel on Balance vs. Imbalance WOW !!!

sticky!!!

[Superchaz]

Aye, i agree. Nothing is worse than finding that, after time, a map is clearly centered around one style of play.

I like what you're saying though, and it has really reminded me to look over all of my maps being currently developed with a fine toothed comb. Honestly, it is very very hard to make a map have a perfect balance. Hell, some maps that i have made look as if they would require a complete makeover. Well.. they probably do, hehe.

Overall, yea, great post Sir Blitz. Great balance between the two not only make for a fun maps, like mentioned, but also makes for timeless maps that seem to still be played by tons of players sometimes even years after being created.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by HortonsWho

I'd like to hear from you a few examples of successful tactical imbalance.

In Deathmatch tactical imbalances can be turned into advantages by controlling key areas of a map. Opponents use strategy to attempt to overcome these advantages.

DM-Rankin

The open atriums and z-axis in this map lend itself to hitscan weapons, particularly the shock and lightning gun. These weapons are actually placed fairly close together, and what's more there's a damage amp right in between. Control this area and you are formidable. However, opponents can attempt to sneak up from behind with a short range weapon, they could camp the damage amp, hiding in the corridor around the corner, or they could try the map's other hitscan weapon, the minigun, from medium range. They could wait for the enemy to go low before sneaking in and grabbing the LG, etc, etc.

So the tactical imbalance of placing two powerful hitscan weapons near the damage amp creates strategic tension that actually drives the action in the map.

In Onslaught, you actually create tactical imbalances through strong teamplay. A successful attack relies on creating a tactical imbalance and then using strategy to turn it into an advantage. Your opponents may be working toward the same advantages, or may be using other tactical imbalances (by choosing another route, for example) to create their own advantages. The correct strategy is one that supports your advantages while minimizing your opponents'.

ONS-Spiffengrad
(One of my favorites from my ONS mapping contest.)

The tanks are absolutely deadly in this map. Control both tanks and there's little resistance your opponents can muster. However, such a strategy requires an investment in time. You must hold at least 3 nodes to control both tanks while your opponent only needs to hold 2 in order to launch a counter-attack that will undermine your advantage. You need to defend 2 points that are spread out while your opponent can defend two that are closer together.

The tactical imbalance created by the tanks leads to the strategy of holding both tank nodes. This leads to other strategic decisions on both sides, such as whether to attack or defend, whether to face the threat directly (taking back the tank nodes) or indirectly (taking the opponents first node and undermining the tanks). They're all playable strategies, but the possibility is created by the tactical imbalance of the powerful tanks.

Challenge

In capture the flag, tactical imbalances can be created by setting up strong defense points and alternate routes. This leads to varying strategies for attacking and defending.

Can anyone tell me what the tactical imbalances are in CTF-Citadel?

[JoystickMonkey]

"Every feature should have at least one or two ways it can be exploited and one or two ways it can be overcome."

Exactly.

[harryhash]

Originally Posted by Blitz

Can anyone tell me what the tactical imbalances are in CTF-Citadel?

Prevalance of hitscan weapons and lots of wide open, low-down spaces?

[G-BUS]

Nice post.

I myself think that in the end, balance and flow are very similar, not to say identical.
Many people seem to think that good flow is when players move through the map in a cyclical motion. I never really got this though: if everyone's just running around in circles, how do you force confrontation?
According to me, good flow takes you to all corners of the map, with the vital difference that it "pulls" multiple (or all) players to a same area at the same time. And this is where the (im)balance part comes in: you pull people towards an area by tilting the scales (say, the DD spawns), causing everyone to slip towards one end. Damn that was a fine metaphor.
In this way, you force confrontation. When the DD has been taken, it's time to go get the 100S, at the other end of the map. There can also be permanent pull factors, ie weapons (provided weapon stay is on of course).

I think that by providing imbalances (which are basically anything, weapons, powerups, etc), you promote the right kind of flow: not the kind that takes you in circles, never meeting each other, but the kind that takes you across the map, and towards each other.

I'm actually experimenting with this a bit, by placing all pull factors on the edge of the map, and having a central area that will only be used for getting somewhere. It might result in very cyclical flow, only time (and testing) will tell.


Summary: I totally agree with Blitz.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by G-BUS

I myself think that in the end, balance and flow are very similar, not to say identical.

Similar, but not quite identical, IMO. Good flow could be seen as the result of good balance.

But I agree with all your other points, and I love the fact that you're experimenting with it.

[EDIT]
Harryhash: That's one, good job!

[Hawkwind]

very nice post Blitz. a good discusion is better than a good arguement anytime.



flow, to me means having at least 2 choices of where to go, all the time to escape or attack/get advantage over the other players. of course, you should have to give up this right to get the 100 shields or DD . flow also involves spreading the ammo around a bit (give them the flak down low in the tunnels, but put the ammo up high in the middle of a bare room, or versa-visa)
@G-Bus, making those 2 desires meet in the middle while they are vulnerable (near out of ammo and health) is perfection.