作者：Max Seidman

平衡并非公平

平衡经常被当成是调整数值以确保游戏公平的过程。这经常需要承担着摆脱“主要策略”（即当被选择时，策略能够帮助玩家更轻松地获胜），并确保没有一个组件远超于其它组件的责任。平衡通常也包括一些调整，就像确保首个玩家不会比其他玩家拥有更多优势等等。

这是关于平衡角色的一个非常局限的视角，主要存在一个主要原因：为了公平的公平是不必要的。我们很容易想象一款完全“公平”的游戏是一点都不有趣的，例如：“所有玩家滚动一个骰子。不管谁，只要滚到最高值就算获胜。”这样的游戏是完全公平的，但结果却是彻底无聊的。这一理念也可以延伸到特别的组件中—-如果《万智牌》中的所有纸牌都是一样的（或者功能相似），玩家将不再拥有任何有意义的选择，游戏便会非常无聊！

fork-in-the-road(from blogspot)

什么是平衡？

最近在社区中有一些关于平衡游戏策略的文章，即专注于如何做到公平。尽管获得公平是平衡的结果，但平衡并不是关于避免提供给玩家超越别人的优势。平衡这一词指的是不去平衡玩家获胜的可能性，同时也不是在平衡纸牌的能量：这是关于平衡玩家所作出的选择。从核心来看，策略游戏是关于选择的紧张感：我想要做A或B，但我却不能同时做这两件事。我们平衡了这些决定去确保玩家总是会拥有其中的一种紧张—-如果所有的这些选择是不平衡的，那么这种紧张感便会消失。平衡是调整数值（游戏邦注：资源，可能性，选择等）去确保玩家在轮到自己的时候至少拥有两个有趣且同等吸引人的选择的一种行为。

就像我所说的那样，这种对于平衡的理解也仍然能够实现公平。例如，想想玩家正在选择纸牌。如果任何纸牌都比其它有利，那么玩家便没有有意义的选择。

这样的理解存在怎样的实质性差别？

让我们以《万智牌》为例。如果《万智牌》的研究开发团队将“平衡”理解为“创造所有公平的策略，”那么他们便会基于任何特定的设置将5个颜色的万智牌设计为你的桥牌的平等选择。如果是将平衡理解为“平衡玩家的选择，”《万智牌》的设计团队将创造一个带有一些较棒的单独纸牌但却能量不足的颜色。从选择平衡框架去思考这一设计，这将很容易创造出一个有趣的选择：想想一个玩家打开他们的第一个游戏包但却只发行一张普通的红色纸牌（红色是这一设置中可以选择的一个强大的颜色），以及一张真正强大的白色纸牌（但是在这一设置中白色是一个相对较弱的颜色）。对于玩家来说这绝对是一个有趣且有意义的选择，并且是我能够称为平衡的内容（假设一个选择并没有比其它选择好多少），不会强迫策略（颜色）或独立组件（纸牌）足够平等或“公平”。

关于平衡你的目标是仔细考虑玩家在游戏过程中所面对的选择点，即每个点平均有2至3个有意义的选择。有时候一个选择（或没有选择）是合理的，特别是在游戏一开始。超过3个选择也是可行的，特别是在游戏伴随着高重玩性，或在之后的游戏过程中（从基本上来看，更多选择的出现也就意味着玩家必须更加清楚他们在做些什么，如此才能避免被选择所淹没）。

在这里，有意义的选择（或者错误的选择）的理念是相对重要的。通常情况下，表面上玩家会遇到许多选择，但却只有其中的一些选择是有意义的。让我们再次以《万智牌》为例，如果我决定创造一个红绿色桥牌，那么我必须从一个纸牌包中选择15张纸牌，但通常情况下只有6张纸牌是符合我要的颜色（让我能够忽视白色，黑色和蓝色纸牌的错误选择）。在这6张纸牌中，也许只有2至4张将是最棒的选择，在这之后我必须做出决定。拥有这些错误的选择并不是糟糕的设计，因为它们也能让玩家的体验便等更轻松，且创造出重玩价值。然而，设计师必须意识到两点内容：首先，每个决策点拥有平均2至3个选择是忽视错误选择的做法，其次，错误的选择看起来像是有意义的选择会混淆新玩家。

使用这一框架

现在离Seth Jaffer写下一篇关于平衡游戏的具体步骤的文章（使用传统的“平衡”定义）大概过去了一个月。尽管这真的是一个很棒的参考内容，但它却漏掉了平衡最重要的一步—-即通过理解平衡作为确保玩家选择紧张感的重要元素的这一步。作为设计师，你必须先明确你的游戏决策点以及玩家将在这些点上做出的潜在决策。如此你才能知道如何分配数值和可能性去确保在每个接合点会有2至3个有意义的选择。

举个例子来说吧，我正致力于一款带有“否决选择”机制的游戏。在每个回合中，玩家将从桌上的一排纸牌中选出一张，并询问其他玩家她是否拥有那张纸牌。每个玩家都有机会拒绝纸牌，即通过支付一定的胜利点数。如果他们不这么做，便需要持有那张纸牌。如果他们这么做，便有机会去选择不同的纸牌。“我该问对手桌上的哪张纸牌是他所拥有的呢？”这是游戏中最大的决策点。玩家在那时刻的选择是：

1.“我是否该询问我的第一张选择纸牌，假设我的对手将会把它给我？”

2.“我是否该询问我的第二张选择纸牌，希望对手将花钱否定这一选择，然后我便能够选择我的第一张纸牌？即使他们并未否定，我也能得到一些好处。”

3.“我是否该询问一些我知道别人想要的，但是我却没有的，为了让他们能够支付给我VP，然后我们便能够获得我的第一个选择？如果他们并未否定，我是否会陷入一些糟糕的情况？”

4.“我是否该尝试我手中的一张纸牌？”

这一目标是让玩家能够在每个回合分布于这些选择中的2至3个，即伴随着偶然的1个选择回合或4个选择回合。一旦设计师在玩家的决策点上理解了玩家的决策，他便能够分析游戏去决定哪个游戏元素或数值可能创造出一些错误选择。在我的游戏中，这是一些可能导致上述某些选择失衡的内容：

每张纸牌的平均胜利点—-每张纸牌选择也会提供给玩家胜利点。如果一张纸牌可以获得更多胜利点，它便能够更轻松地让对手否定一个选择，如此玩家便更加不可能选择上述的第1个选择。这具有很大的风险。

适合分数方案的数字—-玩家为了获得更多点数尝试着收集带有同样套组的纸牌。当分数方案中拥有更多套组的，每张纸牌对于投入收集纸牌的玩家来说将更有价值，反之亦然。收集这类型纸牌与并未收集这类型纸牌的玩家间的区别越多，玩家便更加不可能选择上述的第3个选择，因为你将不得不接收一张你并未在收集的纸牌。

否定胜利点需要花费一定的成本—-如果玩家否定敌人最初选择的成本越高，他便越不可能去否定它，从而导致玩家越不可能选择上述的第2或第3个选择，因为在这两种情况下玩家更有可能面对一些不属于他们最初选择的内容。

手上的纸牌数量—-因为玩家有时候可以直接使用手上的纸牌，那么当玩家手上的纸牌数越多，他便越有可能具有一个明确的策略，如此他便越不可能挑选第3个选择，并且越有可能指向第4个选择。

这一游戏的核心平衡是否定一个具有足够吸引力且玩家总是会考虑到的选择，而不是玩家总是指望着自己的第一个选择被对手否定。牢记着这点，现在我便可以使用Jaffee的5个步骤去平衡游戏元素。

所以下次，当你准备平衡一款游戏时请记得：当你在平衡时，不要首先想着要让游戏元素足够“公平”。你的主要目标应该是确保游戏中的内容数能够在玩家的每一轮尝试中提供给他们有趣的选择。

公平并不总是件坏事，但它却有可能阻止你创造出更重要的设计，并且如果你不能有效使用它便可能最终破坏你的游戏。

值得注意的是并不是所有的公平形式都是源于我的平衡框架，即用于确保有趣的玩家选择。举个例子来说吧，确保玩家总是拥有有趣的选择并不一定意味着先走不是一个巨大的优势。这是我们应该考虑的关于公平本身的元素。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

BALANCE BEYOND FAIRNESS

by Max Seidman

What Balancing Isn’t

Balancing is usually understood as the process of tweaking numbers to make a game fair.  This often entails getting rid of ‘dominant strategies’ (strategies that, when chosen, make the player win more than their fair share of the time), and making sure no components are tremendously better than others.  Balancing also generally includes tweaks like making sure the first player doesn’t have an advantage over the others.

This is a very limited view of the role of balancing for one major reason: fairness for fairness’ sake is not necessarily desirable*.  It’s easy to imagine a completely ‘fair’ game that is no fun at all, for example: “All players roll a die.  Whoever rolls highest wins.”  This ‘game’ is completely fair, and consequently completely boring.  This concept can be extended to exception based components as well – if all the cards in Magic were the same (or similar in function), the player wouldn’t have any meaningful choices and the game would suck!

What Is Balancing?

There have been a few pieces written in the community recently on strategies for balancing games, with a focus on achieving fairness.  While achieving fairness is a result of balance, balance is not about avoiding giving one player an edge over the others.  The balance that the term refers to is not balancing the players’ likelihood to win, nor is it balancing the power of cards: it’s about balancing the choices the players make.  At their core, strategy games are about tensions in choice: I want to do A or B, but I can’t do both.  We balance these decisions to make sure that players always have one of these tensions on their turns – if all of these choices are imbalanced, then the tension vanishes.  Balancing is the act of tweaking numbers (resources, probabilities, options, etc.) to ensure that players always have at least two interesting and equally appealing choices during their turns.

As I mentioned, this understanding of balancing still achieves fairness.  For example, imagine players are drafting cards. If any of those cards is much better than any other, then the player has no meaningful choice.

How Is This Understanding Practically Different?

Take, for example, a Magic draft.  If the Magic R&D team had understood ‘balance’ to mean “making all strategies fair,” then they would design each of the five colors of Magic in any given set to be roughly equal choices for your deck while drafting.  Understanding balance to mean “balancing player choices,” however, could allow the Magic design team to make one color generally underpowered with a few really great individual cards.  Thinking about this design from a choice-balancing framework, this could easily result in fun choices: imagine a player opening their first pack to find a mediocre red card (but knowing that red is a strong color for draft in this set), and a really strong white card (but knowing that white is a relatively weak color for draft in this set).  This could definitely be a fun and meaningful choice for the player, and one that I would called balanced (assuming one option wasn’t much better than the other), without forcing the strategies (colors) or individual components (cards) to be equal or “fair.”

The goal with your balancing is to think through the choice points players encounter during the game, and to average 2-3 meaningful choices at each point.  One option (no choices) is occasionally alright, especially at the start of the game when more choices could be overwhelming.  More than three options can also be okay, especially in games with high replayability, or late in the game (basically, the more choices there are, the more players have to know what they are doing in order to not be overwhelmed).

The concept of meaningful choices (or not false choices) is a relevant one here.  Often times players will ostensibly have many choices, but only several will be meaningful.  Revisiting the Magic draft example, if I’ve committed to making a red green deck, a pack of cards from which I must choose might have 15 cards total, but usually only 6 or so of them will be in my colors (allowing me to ignore the false choices of the white, black, and blue cards).  Of those 6 maybe 2 to 4 will be decent choices, and after that it’s up to me to make the decision.  Having these false choices is not bad design, as they actually help make the player experience easier while allowing for plenty of replayability.  However, designers must realize two things: first, the average 2-3 choices at each decision point is counted after omitting false choices, and second, false choices that look like meaningful choices can confuse new players.

Using This Framework

About a month back Seth Jaffee wrote an excellent article on concrete steps to follow in order to balance your game (using the traditional definition of ‘balance’).  While this was a pretty cool walkthrough, it’s missing the single most important step to balancing – the step that follows from understanding balancing as ensuring tension in player choices.  As a designer, you must first identify your game’s decision points and the potential decisions the players will be making at those points.  Only then can you know how to assign values and probabilities to guarantee 2-3 meaningful choices at each juncture.

As an example, I am working on a game with a “veto drafting” mechanic. Each turn, the player chooses one card from a row on the table, and asks the other players whether she can have that card.  Each other player has a chance to deny that player the card by paying her a flat number of victory points.  If they don’t, she gets the card.  If they do, she gets to choose a different card.  “Which of the cards on the table do I ask my opponents if I can have?” is the biggest decision point in the game.  The player’s choices at that point are:

1.”Do I ask for my first choice card, assuming my opponents will give it to me?”

2.”Do I ask for my second choice card hoping that an opponent will pay me to veto the choice, and then I can choose my first choice?  Even if they don’t veto, I get something alright.”

3.”Do I ask for something I know someone else wants, but I do not, in order to force them to pay me VP, and then I get my first choice? If they don’t veto, I get stuck with something crappy”

4.”Do I play a card from my hand?”

The goal is to have the player split between 2 or 3 of these choices every turn, with the occasional 1-choice turn or 4-choice turn.  Once a designer understands her players’ decisions at their decision points, she can analyze the game to determine which game elements or numbers could make some of the possible decisions false choices.  In my game, here are some numbers in the game that can imbalance some of the choices above, reducing player agency:

Average victory points per card – each card drafted also provides the player victory points. The more victory points a single card can score, the easier it will be for an opponent to veto a choice, and consequently the less likely a player is to choose option 1 above.  It would be very risky.

Number of suits in the scoring scheme – the players are trying to collect cards with the same suit in order to score more points.  The more suits in the scoring scheme, the more each card will be worth to a player who is investing in gathering that suit, and the less it will be worth to another player who isn’t.  The higher this difference between value for a player who is collecting those types of cards and the player who isn’t, the less likely a player is to choose option 3 above, because getting stuck with a card of a suit you’re not collecting is very bad.

Victory point cost to veto – the higher it costs for a player to veto an opponent’s initial choice, the less likely a player is to veto, and consequently the less likely a player is to choose options 2 or 3 above, since in both of those cases the player has a high chance of getting left with something that isn’t their first choice.

Number of cards in hand – since players can sometimes play cards directly from their hands, the more cards a player has in her hand, the more likely she is to have a defined strategy that she doesn’t want to step outside of, so the less likely she is to choose option 3, above, and the more likely she is to choose option 4.

The core balance goal of this game is to make vetoing an attractive enough option that players must always take it into account, but not so attractive that players can always count on their first choice being vetoed.  With that in mind, I can now apply Jaffee’s 5 steps for balancing game elements.

So next time you’re ready to balance a game, remember: when balancing, you don’t want your game elements to be “fair”** first and foremost.  Your primary goal should be to make sure the numbers in your game work to afford the players with an interesting choice every turn and beyond.

Fairness is not usually bad, but it can get in the way of more important design, and it can definitely hurt when misused.

It’s worth noting that not all forms of fairness will result from my framework of balance as ensuring interesting player choice.  For example, just making sure that players always have interesting choices doesn’t necessarily mean that going first won’t be a huge advantage.  This is where fairness for its own sake can be taken into account.(source:mostdangerousgamedesign)