游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

分析师谈如何避免游戏平衡中的“灭霸谬论”

发布时间:2021-08-23 15:58:26 Tags:,

分析师谈如何避免游戏平衡中的“灭霸谬论”

原作者:Glyn Fairweather 译者:Willow Wu

(本文作者是Fundamentally Games的游戏设计分析师。他研究“服务型游戏”已经十年了,曾经跟Jagex,Space Ape和 Loveshark等团队合作过。)

游戏设计师和开发者们肯定对“平衡”(balance)这个词再熟悉不过了,无论是从自己还是别人口中总会听到这个词。当别人围绕着不同的游戏说起这个词时,我们感觉自己本能地就能理解这个词的含义。

但我们真的理解了吗?让我们先来明确定义:

balance(from pocketgamer.biz)

balance(from pocketgamer.biz)

balance

名词

1. 对立的各方在数量、重量等方面相等或相抵。
2. 用来实现等量的东西

平衡的概念是非常简单的。我们脑海中马上能想到的释义图就是一组天平,物品可以放置在两边。如果两边等量了,平衡就实现了——这是质量相等的平衡。

但是平衡还有其它含义。它有物理意义、伪意义和情感意义,你得考虑到它的多面性,还有语境、主观性的影响程度,以及观众的偏好和感知。

你在为谁做平衡?

作为设计师,你首先要考虑的是玩家体验。

你很容易就会陷入到为自己做游戏的漩涡中,所以为自己平衡游戏同样也是一个愚蠢的想法。

每当我谈论起游戏平衡时,我都会想到跟洗澡有关的隐喻/例子。因为这是一个大众容易理解的类比。

在泡澡时,浴缸里水的平衡状态客观来讲应该是:

· 有水
· 没有溢出来
· 水温不会太冷
· 水温不会太热

如果浴缸的水量足够且人浸入水不会溢出,温度又足够温暖让人感到舒适,那么泡澡体验是否达到了平衡状态?

这回答要取决于泡澡的人。我的妻子喜欢非常热的洗澡水,而且喜欢浴缸里放很多水——44摄氏度的水温,水要放到浴缸的四分之三。浴盐不一定要有,但蜡烛是必须的。如果太冷,水就是不平衡的。对我的幼子来说,这样的泡澡体验是不平衡的,他会觉得太烫了,虽说他喜欢在深水里“划船”。

我在这里想引入的主题就是用户对平衡的主观性。这一点你在平衡游戏时一定要考虑到。不同的玩家有不同的期望、看法。

了解你的用户能够在一定程度上帮助你应对这种情况——当你在调整平衡时,你的脑海中要考虑到某个玩家群体。问题就是他们是谁?

为什么要平衡?

你非常了解自己的游戏,你比营销团队更了解你的用户。如果游戏中存在平衡问题——你会准备好一切工作,能够执行最佳调整方案,让观众满意。

但是你有没有停下来问过自己是否应该这样做?你改游戏的动机是什么?

游戏平衡这个短语/概念不仅是开发者在工作会用到,玩家也会使用。或许已经有玩家告诉你说游戏中存在平衡问题。也许玩家说有个东西需要“加buff”(变得更强大)或者“削一下”(降低实力)。

作为一个游戏设计师,你要做第一件事就是分析这种观点。为什么玩家会有这种感受?问题的症状是什么,根本原因是什么?

虽说顾客永远是对的,但顾客也确实不知道自己想要什么。就如Steve Jobs的那句名言:“知道自己想要什么并不是客户的工作。”

重点是你要在行动前做好调查。你很容易就会下意识地去改变什么东西,胡乱下手,尤其是KPI受到影响的时候。但是游戏设计师们得保持冷静,找到正确的解决方案又或者……只是静观其变?

不平衡也是一种玩法

我并不是在表达自己对不平衡的喜爱,而是说在规模更大的平衡格局中,不平衡或许是一个令人觉得有趣的元素。

在谈到游戏平衡的好坏时,《街头霸王》系列通常就会被拿来当作典型例子。角色会定期调整,并根据他们当前在列表中的位置安排在核心meta中的“戏份”。

大家认为最初被先创造出来的是隆,一个各方面都很完美的角色。他的技能可以应对任何情况,而并非在某一个方面过于强大。

其他角色的设计和平衡都是参照隆,即基于软对抗/硬对抗方法去创造一系列具有关键优势和弱点的角色,形成互补或者相克关系。

如果《街霸》中的某个角色被认为是过于强大,社区就会分成两派:一边想要游戏实现平衡,另一边觉得这么强大的角色玩起来更爽。

这种情景你不只会在多人竞技游戏中看到,还有合作游戏、单人游戏。这是源于玩家对力量的幻想和对成功的渴望。

最有意思的是,当类似的事情发生时,玩家的meta常常会转向寻求互补。

就比如说桑吉尔夫突然成为OP(overpower)角色,玩家就会寻找合适的对抗者。比较擅长“zoning”(保持对手在最佳立回距离)的角色,比如达尔锡就会成为玩家的热门选项。但是达尔锡现在也OP了吗?

浴缸实例:假设我成为了硬对抗,我儿子会在一个不平衡的泡澡体验中里享受到一段美好时光。

灭霸谬论

那个在游戏中拥有最强大武器的家伙说: “所有事物都应该是完美的平衡……”

想要平衡游戏这本身就是一个足够高尚的想法了。你想要玩家能够享受到最好的游戏体验,能够参与到所有你为他们精心设计的系统和玩法循环中。

你想要移除所有可能阻碍玩家享受游戏的壁垒,想要让玩家高兴。没有玩家应该感到痛苦。每个人都应处于一种满足的状态中,所有玩家都是平等的,即使技能也不能颠覆你已经实现的平衡。但你要怎么才能实现呢?

《魔兽世界》开发者想要创造一款包容且平衡的游戏,即使等级/技能不同,PVP和PVE玩家也能够和谐共存,玩家可以玩任何他们想要的职业/种族,不会后悔自己的职业选择或嫉妒其他玩家的技能。

于是他们创造了各种奇幻的职业。跟2004年的《魔兽世界》相比,如今游戏中不同职业之间已经没有什么明显区别了。经过了15年的平衡,开发者表示他们所做的就是职业同质化。

《光环4》是该系列平衡性最好的多人游戏之一。获胜者必须是第一个拿下五杀的人。玩家为了获得更好的武器或探索战车的使用策略而战斗,游戏中不存在“实力金字塔”。

与之相反的是《军团要塞2》,这是一个既平衡但又不平衡的游戏。每个兵种都有OP元素,但是在一定程度上被弱点所抵消。这是一款将弱点视为特色的游戏,但是游戏有个规模更大的平衡格局。然而代价就是有些无法意识到这一点的玩家就会受挫沮丧然后弃游。

国际象棋是一个平衡性非常完美的游戏,前提是你是先手。

我要说的最后一个例子就是剪刀石头布。一款完美平衡的游戏?从示意图中来看的话,肯定是的。但是在现实中呢?并不是。

由于人们并不擅长制造真正的随机,所以剪刀石头布还是有一些大家熟知的获胜窍门。赢的方法很简单,上一次赢的是什么手势,这一次你就出能够打败它的手势。

你也可以利用心理学提高你的第一次获胜机会,因为有男子气概的人更倾向于选择“石头”,而其他大多数人则会出“剪刀”。从统计学上看,先出布(最不可能的第一选择)你就能打败对方的石头(最可能的第一选择)。

剪刀石头布的玩家在推特上对你大肆抨击,告诉你(大约有2000年历史的游戏设计师)你的游戏是不平衡的!他们说石头就是OP,得削!你查看了石头的胜率,确实比其它两个手势明显高了。

这意味着你应该去“平衡”游戏吗?

这里有五个建议可以帮助你避免灭霸谬论:

1.关注玩家所理解的平衡

相比绝对遵守原则,重要的是玩家的体验以及他们对机制平衡的看法。

2.留出解读的空间

关于最佳策略的讨论越多,游戏就越有可能达到平衡,重点是玩家很在意游戏体验。

3.利用游戏的不平衡来增加游戏的目标感

你可以搜一下Paul Krugman的热狗经济学理论。玩家有更多自主权且游戏能给玩家更多动力去提升他们的体验,热狗经济学理论就适用于这样的游戏(不仅是生存游戏)。

4.寻找应变式元素

应变式机制经常会产生意想不到的结果,能够让不同的行动/行为变得更有趣,特别是在组合使用的时候。拥抱它,而不是将它排除在外。

5.针对可拓展性展开实验

如果你提升了石头的实力,这对剪刀会产生什么样的影响?添加蜥蜴/史波克作为升级/奖励,对于不拥有它们的玩家来说就失去了制定策略的意义。你如何能够通过一种让所有用户的体验都受益的方式应用这些元素?

本文由游戏邦编译,转载请注明来源,或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Glyn Fairweather is the game design analyst at Fundamentally Games. He is a game designer who has been focused on ‘Living Games’ since 2011, working with teams such as Jagex, Space Ape and Loveshark.

Designers and developers use and hear the word “Balance” all the time.

We feel we know instinctively what is meant by that word when someone uses it in the context of various games.

But do we really? To find out let’s start with a definition:

· Balance

noun

1. a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etcetera.
2. something used to produce equilibrium; counterpoise.

Balance as a concept is simple enough. The go-to image in our minds is a set of scales, objects placed on either side. If equilibrium is achieved, then we have achieved balance. This is balanced in the context of equality of mass.

But balance has other meanings. Physical, pseudo, and emotional meaning; multifaceted and dependant on context and subjectivity, as well as the audience preference and perception.

Who are you balancing for?

Of all the vectors to consider, the player experience should in the front of your mind as a designer.

It is too easy (and a mistake) to design games for ourselves, so balancing them for ourselves would be equally silly.

Whenever I talk about balance in a game, my mind is drawn to bath related metaphors/examples. They are a good example as they are a commonly understood concept and have baked in context for taps/drains.

The balance of water in a bath objectively is:

· Not empty
· Not overflowing
· Not too cold
· Not too hot

If the bath is full enough for a person to get in without causing overflow, and the temperature is warm enough to be comfortable, then is the bath balanced?

The answer depends on who the bath is for. My wife likes a very hot bath with lots of water in it. A three quarters filled bath at around 44 degrees Celsius (112 degrees Fahrenheit). Salts optional, candles mandatory. If the bath was to be too cold, the balance of hot/cold water is not correct.

This bath would not be balanced for my young child. He would get burnt in this bath. Though he would enjoy paddling in the depth of the water.

What we are introducing here is the subjective context of balance created by your audience. This is important to consider when you are balancing your game. Different players will have different expectations and opinions on what it means for your game to be balanced, with great variance.

Knowing your audience allows you to mitigate this to an extent, by having a kind of player in mind when you balance. The only question then is which player do you balance for?

Why are you balancing?

So, you know your game like the back of your GDD. You know the audience better than the guys in the marketing team. If there is a problem with balance in your game – you are ready and able to implement the best change to your game balance and delight your audience.

But have you stopped and asked yourself if you should? What is the impetus for this change?

Game balance is not just a phrase/concept used and understood in development. The players use it too. Perhaps you have been told by your players that there is a balancing issue in the game. Maybe players say something needs to be “buffed” (more power) or “nerfed” (less power).

Your first step as a designer is to assess that sentiment. Why do my players feel this way? What are the symptoms of the problem, what is the root cause?

While it is said that the customer is always right, it is equally true that the customer does not know what they want. Like Steve Jobs famously said: “it’s not the customer’s job to know what they want”.

The important thing here is to investigate before you act. It is very easy to make knee-jerk changes and swing the nerf bat around. Especially if there is a KPI that is being affected. But the designer needs to keep their cool, and find the right solution …or maybe do nothing?

Imbalance is gameplay

This is not a love letter to imbalance.

More of a reality check that imbalance within a greater state of balance is something that can be enjoyable. This is a matter of scale.

Street Fighter games are often held as strong examples of good and bad balancing. With characters regularly being adjusted and moving into and out of the dominant meta based on their current place in the tier list.

The initial process is believed to be that first, Ryu is created, perfect in every way. An all-rounder with a move set that can handle any situation, but not overly strong in one area.

The other characters are designed and balanced outward from there, with a soft counter/hard counter approach to create a collection of characters that all have key strengths and weaknesses that complement and play off other characters in engaging ways.

If a character in Street Fighter is crowned as being overpowered, the community will split into those who want a balanced game, and those who like to play the overpowered characters.

This is a thing you will see not just in competitive multiplayer, but also in co-op and single player. It’s a result of the player power fantasy and the desire to succeed.

What is most interesting is that when this kind of thing happens, the player meta often shifts to complement it.

Sticking with Street Fighter, if Zangief suddenly becomes the OP character, players will look for the right counter. Characters strong in ‘zoning’ such as Dhalsim, will now move up the rankings as they put the Flavour of the Month, Zangief, in his place. But is Dhalsim now overpowered?

Bath example: my son would have a great time in an imbalanced (deep) bath, assuming I was there as a hard counter.

The Thanos Fallacy

“Perfectly balanced, as all things should be…” said the guy with the most overpowered weapon in the game.

The desire to balance a game is noble enough. You want your players to have the best time possible and be able to interact with all the systems and game loops that you have so lovingly designed for them.

You want to remove every barrier to enjoyment possible and know that your players are delighted. No player should feel pain or suffer. Everyone should exist in a state of plenty where all players are equal and even skill cannot upend the equilibrium you have achieved. But at what cost?

World of Warcraft wanted to create an inclusive and balanced game where PVP and PVE players could coexist in progression/skill harmony, and players could play any class/race they wanted without having to feel that they had picked the wrong one or be envious of other players abilities.

The cost was class fantasy. There is little difference between the different classes in World of Warcraft in 2021 compared to the launch in 2004. Through 15 years of balancing their community say that all they have accomplished is class homogeneity.

Halo 4 was one of the most balanced Halo multiplayer iterations. It was so balanced that the winner was determined by being first to shoot the other player in the head five times.

Gone was the ‘power pyramid’ where players would fight over better weapons, or experiment with vehicles.

Conversely, Team Fortress 2 is a game that is balanced while being very imbalanced. Each class has some overpowered element, that is somewhat offset by a weakness. This is an example of a game that celebrates its weaknesses as features, but also has a larger scale balance in play. The cost being that player’s who cannot see the bigger balance will get frustrated and churn.

Chess is a perfectly balanced game if you go first.

My final example is rock paper scissors. A perfectly balanced game? In a diagram: Yes. In reality? No.

Rock paper scissors has a known formula because people are not good at being truly random. Winning is as simple as playing the move that would beat the move that last won.

You can also use psychology to improve your chances of winning the first time as macho folks tend to go for Rock but most others go for Scissor. But that still means that statistically going Paper first (the least likely first option) beats Rock (the most likely first option)

Rock, Paper, Scissors players are blasting you on Twitter, telling you (the roughly 2,000-year-old designer) that your game is not balanced!

They say that rock is overpowered and needs to be “nerfed”. You check the data and rock seems to have a disproportionate win rate compared to the other two options.

Does this mean that you should “balance” it?

Five top tips to avoid The Thanos Fallacy

1. Focus on player perception of balance

What matters is the player experience and engagement the perception of mechanic balance is more important than absolute adherence to the principles.

2. Leave some room for interpretation

The more diverse debate there is about the best strategy, the more likely it is that the game is balanced but more important that players care about the player experience.

3. Use game imbalance to support the sense of purpose in the game

Google: Hotdog Economics. This kind of thinking applied in games (not just in the survival genre) gives players more autonomy and motivation to optimise their play.

4. Look for emergent properties

Mechanics often have unintended consequences that can make different actions/behaviours more interesting, especially when used in combination. Lean into it rather than fight it.

5. Experiment with extensibility

If you can add a power-up to rock what does that do to scissors? Adding lizard/spock as an upgrade/reward throws out the maths for players who do not own them. How could you apply these elements in ways that improve the overall playing experience for everyone?

(source:pocketgamer.biz )


下一篇: