Let me present you a little balance dilema on wich I would like to hear your opinions and how this could be sorted out. Let's start by imagining 4 ''classes/races/etc single player game 1v1. as we might all agree. Balance should usually be done looking at pro play. Yet here comes a little dilema. There is one class that's used by the topest of top players the best of em all, the champ of that game atm, but this race is generally considered ''harder to play and slightly weaker than the others. Even by some pro players and mid-pro players. Yet if this guy is winning how can it be true for this ''race'' to be UP? and then why are all the other pros still not able to win with this race? what if there is one guy so amazingly good that even if other pros copy his every move it still seems impossible? like, so good he should win every match he is in and rightfuly so but unreachable for other ppl (see it as a Usain Bolt of gaming), This brings the following, is it that this ''race'' is simply not UP and if done correctly you should win? or is this einstein of gaming making it impossible for other players of this ''race'' to win against the other ''races''? Even for the other pro players who generally agree on there being an imbalance. If this ''race'' got a buff it's obvious that this pro player would only be even more impossible to beat. What to do ?
Do nothing. Obviously the other top players are just on a lower level, they need to practice harder or some new blood needs to come into the scene. Once that happens, then balance can be discussed again.
Single player high score or 1v1? So far I'm leaning this way, but there are a couple cases where things would still need to be done.
sometimes guys are just too good at things, practice all you want you won't get there, this happens 1/20 times but it can happen. Also, this isn't really balance anymore.. but don't forget that mid-high tier players aren't able to do **** with this race. Also, 1v1 game not scores
What's often the case in these situations where one player absolutely destroys all other players and is the uncontested champion - and these situations have happened in various games - is that he either had some sort of novel insight in the game, is a lot more dedicated than other players, or just plain more talented. If it's the first, then chances are that new pros will incorporate this insight into their playstyle and the former champion suddenly isn't all that special anymore. (see: the first guy who started thinking about control in Quake, Thresh, or the guy who started winning by basing his game on micro in StarCraft) If it's the second or the third, then somebody else will step up and be just as talented/dedicated, or the current 'king' will simply lose interest (usually happens if there's no real money in a game). In all cases, the level of play will rise.
the principle in question is called layers of domination. If he's on a higher level than everyone else he should beat everyone else 10/10 times.
We're forgeting something, it looks like this race is balanced, but is this guy so good that he just compensates somehow? It might be like this: Race one: 4 power Race two: 4 power Race three: 4 power Race in question: 3+2 power (the +2 being added by the outstanding performance from the player, so even tho he still wins the race he is playing is at it's core UP.)
the question is not wether he should win his matches, it's obvious he should win them, as i posted he's on ahigher level, but his performance is affecting the balance of the race/class he is playing.
I'm still in favour of my solution. Wait until the rest of the scene catches up on this guy, or he grows bored, then start making balance adjustments again. If neither happens, then either leave it as is, or buff the up race. If that guy is that much better than the rest, than they should lose against him anyway.
There should be no adjustments unless race XYZ in an equal skill environment loses significantly more than Races 1 to 3. Seeing as the baseline for such assertions is the top level of play and according to your premise there simple isn't anyone at his level it follows that, until the level of play rises high enough for my aforementioned situation to occur, there should be no adjustments.
This is already happening. Yet races 1 to 3 disagree due to this person in the top of the game, and devs ''Don't want to rush things'' probably due to this top player. Even though it has been like this for long-ish (of course this is just a case scenario, though the devs opinion on the game is taken from a real example)
The other "top" players, if that is indeed the case, are exhibiting what we commonly refer to as scrub syndrome then. They can't get good enough so they ask for nerfs. My aforementioned situation can't be happening if that other guy has no equal, and he would be the baseline in this scenario (until better players come along) -- provided you only want to take actual players into the equation instead of a theoretical performance limit. It quite simply seems to be a case of bad players being bad.
Pretty much this. Although depending on the game, I might consider having a bad character choice a non-issue. Handicap characters have been around for ages, there's nothing wrong with them existing if the character is indeed worse.
By: ''The other "top" players'' you are reffering to the other X race players right? Is it really fair to call them scrubs/bad if as you mentioned ''in a equally skilled match'' race X loses more, but yet this master exists and wins all the time? Should it become the norm for X race players to have to put alot more effort into it to win? Thats not really balance is it? (the whole 4,4,4,3+2 thing) This race just simply ''being a weaker race, ignore it'' is not an option. as this is in no way balance
You seem to misunderstand my scenario that involves equally skilled parties. During no time should any party that is less skilled than the most skilled person in this game be considered for such a scenario. Now as you claim this person is outright better than anyone else, it follows that my earlier scenario still counts as valid. It also still stands that everyone else just needs to get good. Also please try to not mix up balance, as in game design, and personal skill; as your 4,4,4,3+2 comment blatantly does.
If it is clear that this one player is simply better than everyone else, which you have corroborated, then you can't balance around that. Unless it is literally impossible to beat him, say he can permanently stunlock you with absolutely no way for you to escape or counter (which I highly doubt is the case), a nerf shouldn't be issued until there are people to match his level.
It's also important to remember that players simply like to blame their losses on everything but themselves. So one unit of one race would be called "OP" for a period of time until someone finds a way to counter it, and then that new thing gets called "OP" for a period of time. A lot of cases I find is that things that are "OP" are actually just strong and can be prevented if you just stop the other person from doing it. Case in point: from the likes of DOTA, people often call Phantom Lancer or Drow Ranger OP because people keep picking them and doing well with them, getting easy kills and avoiding death at every moment. Half the time, the people that call these things OP fail to realize that instances like this are easily avoidable if you just shut that player down. Say PL gets free farm in a lane, he'll get easy gold and easy experience. If you just ignore that and let him continue then it's your fault, not his. PLs are exceedingly easy to shut down, as well are the likes of Drow. Denying farm, taking farm, being aggressive... it's all possible and it can hurt these heroes a lot. However heroes like Nyx and Batrider on the other hand are just genuinely strong heroes that can probably hurt you quite a lot if you give them a tiniest chance. In terms of SMNC, people used to call Captain Spark OP all the time, and then they used to call him really OP when his buff came around. The problem with this is that even if he could deal a butt-load of damage, he is still squishier most other pros. So you just stun him and focus him down, easy kill and no trouble at all. SMNC is heavily team focused and a lot of the time people would forget that. There was cases where you had to be positioned to attack the enemy team but also be positioned to keep yourself in a good defensive area as well as being available to aid your team mates should ol' Sparky come up and try to pick off your Support. At any rate, the vast majority of Commandos are just "pubstars" and wont do anything worthwhile in a evenly balanced 5v5. So basically, OP things tend to just be players finding a way to blame their inept skill or knowledge of how to stop something from completely rolling over them. From then on, it's mostly just metagaming.
