Is competitive balance good or bad for games?

[Johannes]

Which changes nothing about how you play.
Except if the scoring system was so bonkers that you'd not just go for victory but do some other weird shit in order to rake in maximum points even if you should lose. Which would be a bad idea if that other weird shit gets in the way of winning.
I really don't see the practical difference here.

Think hockey or football. If a league is based on goal difference only, and not the win record of matches, obviously it changes how you play and plan your games a ton. Even when winning games is obviously linked to scoring goals.

I have no clue about hockey rules, so I can only comment on football.
In football (and I'm talking about the real one, what US people wrongfully call soccer, not that stuff barely involving feet) there actually is a scoring system, it's just not fine grained (and definitely not balanced ). A victory nets 3 points, a draw 1, a loss 0. So there are at least not only win and loss.
Anyway, if a league was based on goal difference only (as in a ratio of scored to received goals), then each team would try to make as many goals as possible while receiving as few as possible. Which is exactly what happens now, so no difference there. All the different strategies, like walling up after scoring a 1:0 or 2:0 or going all in or being extremely defensive if you are already in the lead league-wise would still be valid.

No, it wouldn't be the same at all. If only goal difference at the end of the season matters, you have zero incentive to play differently based on the situation of the current game. Scoring a 3-0 goal is just as valuable as scoring a 4-0 one.

I also don't think just using scored and received goals as a substitute for an actual score as I supposed in an RTS is the same thing. Such a thing would have to include % of time owning the ball, precision of passes, etc. I'm really no sports expert, so I hope you get what I mean anyway.

That'd be way worse than the league based on goals. A goals-based league would be pretty different than a normal Football league, but still fun I'd reckon. Whereas if you start handing points for possession and passes, it gets really gay - what's the purpose of possessing the ball currently? To score goals, and prevent the enemy from doing so. If these secondary measurements become goals in themselves, it makes it quite retarded - how is a win where you possess the ball a minority of the time, supposed to be worse? It reduces variety by incentivising everyone to maximize these secondary stats.

Even worse in a strategy game with a compounding economy and indefinite playing time. In a football-like sport, or strategy game, where the pieces and/or time is limited, you can somewhat easily come up with a system that's at least not ridiculous - still doubtful if you should do so.

The basic point is: There is no change in overall strategy. You still try to win each game using the same methods as before in the same way.

Horseshit.

 

[thesheeep]

Think hockey or football. If a league is based on goal difference only, and not the win record of matches, obviously it changes how you play and plan your games a ton. Even when winning games is obviously linked to scoring goals.

Anyway, if a league was based on goal difference only (as in a ratio of scored to received goals), then each team would try to make as many goals as possible while receiving as few as possible. Which is exactly what happens now, so no difference there. All the different strategies, like walling up after scoring a 1:0 or 2:0 or going all in or being extremely defensive if you are already in the lead league-wise would still be valid.

No, it wouldn't be the same at all. If only goal difference at the end of the season matters, you have zero incentive to play differently based on the situation of the current game. Scoring a 3-0 goal is just as valuable as scoring a 4-0 one.

That doesn't even make sense.
4-0 is obviously more valuable than 3-0 if placement is determined by a ratio of scored goals to received ones.
But if you already lead 3-0, you could decide to go on the defensive to keep that nice ratio instead of risking a 3-2 to get a 4-0.

I also don't think just using scored and received goals as a substitute for an actual score as I supposed in an RTS is the same thing. Such a thing would have to include % of time owning the ball, precision of passes, etc. I'm really no sports expert, so I hope you get what I mean anyway.

That'd be way worse than the league based on goals. A goals-based league would be pretty different than a normal Football league, but still fun I'd reckon. Whereas if you start handing points for possession and passes, it gets really gay - what's the purpose of possessing the ball currently? To score goals, and prevent the enemy from doing so. If these secondary measurements become goals in themselves, it makes it quite retarded - how is a win where you possess the ball a minority of the time, supposed to be worse? It reduces variety by incentivising everyone to maximize these secondary stats.

Only if maximizing these secondary stats and losing would lead to a better score than winning. Yeah, that would be strange as fuck.
Which it doesn't, at least when you assume equal team strength. Winning always results in the best possible score, only if you lose those other stats are used to determine what % of the maximum score you get, as I wrote before.

The basic point is: There is no change in overall strategy. You still try to win each game using the same methods as before in the same way.

Horseshit.

Bullshit.

Also, please don't quote me directly after posting. I have the terrible habit of editing my posts a shitload of times.

 

[Ocelot]

Okay, so I've been having an argument with Matalarata and thesheeep about this in the Age of Wonders 3 thread. It started with me arguing AoW 3's new Necromancer class was poorly conceived, overpowered, and in need of competitive rebalancing, and immediately getting responses from these guys arguing that somehow it was a good thing for the Necro to be broken because that makes the game more fun somehow. It is their opinion that competitive balance is necessarily reductive and homogenizing and bland and evil, and it is my opinion that good asymmetrical balance can be achieved and that games are more fun when the balance is done well. Since the argument has been derailing the thread and turned into a sprawling argument on whether or not 4X games should be designed with balance in mind, I'm making a new thread for it now.

Good asymmetrical balance is possible. Dota does it. What these guys are afraid of is "League of Legends way" of balancing which is homogenizing everything by removing or neutering cool and radical abilities (e.g: Abilities with global range). It works but it tends to remove and discourage new and fun things from happening.

Competitive balancing IMO works when you keep what makes a character "broken" intact. And if that character requires nerfing, you nerf their weakest spot, so it can be more exploitable. Not all games do that, however.

 

[Matalarata]

Dota does it. What these guys are afraid of is "League of Legends way".

Nope. I just said 4x (and I only talked about 4x) are mainly single player affairs and, as such, they should be balanced around that. It's more fun to have a broken, OP mess than bland, grey and samey shit when playing alone. I never spoke about DOTA or LoL, except to express my disdain for MOBAs in general. Since he can't exactly counter this argument by bringing up the 'scene' of those playing competitive AoW, he's trying to shift my argument on balance in general and competitive multiplayer games. Which was never the case, I don't speak about things I don't know.