So, I was reading the BGG news written by Richard Garfield 2 days ago called “Balancing Act” It’s really insightful, and a lot of it felt to me like it was written for Hots. I’m quoting the parts I found the most interesting, but it’s totally worth the read.
There is a school of thought that preaches balancing games for the top-level player. If we had subscribed to this, we would have had to weaken the Cleric and strengthen the Necromancer.
Would the game have been better then? Maybe for the expert, who then might be able to play the Necromancer without feeling at a disadvantage. However, since many players already felt the Necromancer was overpowered and the Cleric underpowered, for them this would have made that imbalance even more extreme. It would have made the game worse for them.
Advocates of this approach would argue that this is temporary, and players would grow to appreciate the balance for experts. There are two problems with this approach. First, players won’t hang around to become experts if they aren’t enjoying the game. Second, and I think more importantly, many players didn’t evolve to an expert level of play despite playing for a long time. They lacked either the interest or the capability of playing at “top level”. In this case, changes would have driven off players who were having a good time with the game by playing the way they wanted to play.
I think this is the main reason Samuro seemed to be given a blank check for so long, and why Medhiv and TLV don’t get nerfed despite how powerful they are. Or why they were ok with adjusting Zul Jin, despite him not showing up at all at high levels. They are ok with them because of the differential between skill levels.
The option cards were, to me, spice rather than a central feature of the game. Many players didn’t view it that way and commonly introduced variants that would get more option cards into play. When playing without these rules, players often had to face the decision: “Should I do what is fun or try to win the game?” Of the several changes introduced by newer versions of the design, one of the most important is that all players will get access to option cards over the course of the game, even if they are completely focused on making correct plays.
When you make something, like say Nazeebo’s built in quest very polarizing, players will focus on that rather than what you had intended for them to have as main goal. You should find a way to make them coexist so as not to take away player enjoyment, but in a Team based game like HotS, that just doesn’t seem to work. It turns into:
Team: Hey, come help us win the game.
Player: I’m busy with my side objective.
The idea that there is an ideal balance based on the best players misleads not only designers, but also players. Inexplicably, these players often believe they are among the best long before they have played enough to qualify even as a beginner. I have had industry professionals offer balance advice for games designed over the course of years literally five minutes into their first play! I find this shocking — but the disrespect it shows to the designers, developers, and playtesters pales in comparison to the disrespect it shows the whole field of games, where a single game can absorb lifetimes of study and exploration.
Enough said I think.
An interesting phenomenon of modern game culture is the belief that publishers should adjust balance to the players rather than the players adapting play to the demands of the game. Since each play group will have its own ideal balance that will change over time, this often doesn’t even make sense. Following this player pressure can lead to games made for the noisiest players rather than accommodating a broad community.
Nail hit.
This is not entirely a bad thing, but overreliance on adjusting game balance means that when players have challenges, they won’t try as hard to overcome them — and monumental game achievements will be removed from the table. For example, one season in Magic the card “Necropotence” was dominating play. Many players wanted the card banned, but the team at Wizards of the Coast who manages the banning decided not to ban the card. The world championships had a field full of Necropotence decks, but the championship went to a secret weapon, a Finnish deck (I believe) called “Turbo Stasis”. Had Necropotence been banned, this mountain wouldn’t have been there to climb. If players can rely on a publisher adjusting their game in this way, why would they invest a lot of energy into solving a game-related problem? They expect the game to change, but their play to remain the same.
Now, I’m not presenting this as a blanket statement for HotS. I think the changes they made to cloaking was the right call. But things like nerfing Sylvanas’ “Unfurling Shadows” quest during PTR, before anyone had a chance to really play against it, created a talent that was bad from the start, because its original data were based on damage dealt to players who didn’t even realize she was stacking. (Or that the talent existed)
Or the second change made to XP globes that severely reduced the reward for skill in lane.
The term “balance” is somewhat unfortunate because it implies there is a single correct place for the final game.