Balancing the Unbalanced
42
Balancing the Unbalanced
description
Balancing the Unbalanced. The Challenge. RTS Level Design Conventions Even Teams Symmetrical / Opposite Starting Positions Equal Opportunities Challenge: 2 vs. 3 RTS Level Design. The Result. 12 Warcraft III Maps 4 Company of Heroes Maps Our Candidate Maps: Warcraft III Invasion - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Balancing the Unbalanced
Balancing the Unbalanced
The Challenge
• RTS Level Design– Conventions
• Even Teams• Symmetrical / Opposite Starting Positions• Equal Opportunities
• Challenge: 2 vs. 3 RTS Level Design
The Result
• 12 Warcraft III Maps• 4 Company of Heroes Maps
• Our Candidate Maps:– Warcraft III
• Invasion• Caravan / Tug of War (Short)
– Company of Heroes• Defensive Forest• City
Invasion
• Balancing concept– The third player on the 3p
team is kept out of the fight at the beginning
• Resources (all maps)• 3p team spread out (all maps)
Caravan / Tug of War (Short)
• Balancing concept– Moved the target of
units from bases to the caravan.
– 2p team closer to caravan
• Resources (all maps)• 3p team spread out
(all maps)
Defensive Forest
• Balancing concept– Easier to defend
– 3p team spread out (all maps)
– Resources (all maps)
City
• Balancing concept– Limited access
to city at first for 3p team
– Resources (all maps)
– 3p team spread out (all maps)
A Theory of Level Design
•Our approach
•Theory available–Byrne, Co, Crawford –Not genre agnostic
A Theory of Level DesignTools of analysis
Descriptive
General Our analysisHooks Balancing conceptObjects of interest Iteration and TestingStrategies Level of conventionsBalance Conclusion
A Theory of Level Design
Conventions
•General•Game specific•How we used conventions
–Level design elements–Focus
A Theory of Level Design
Conventional maps– Less workload
– Less testing
– All about player skill (You know it’s balanced)
– Meets player expectations
Non-conventional maps– Bigger workload
– More testing to establish if the map is balanced
– Difficult to assess if balance has been achieved (because of player skill)
– BUT can make for more interesting maps.
A Theory of Level Design
•Analysis tool–Positive feedback–Other elements
•Patterns or Heuristics
•Agnostic?
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
Hypothesis:Tester would play this map as we played it i.e. go for the caravan
Us:• Played the map as it was intended (game mode)• Seemed balanced• Even fight
Them:• Played the map as the game was intended
• Destroyed bases rather than go for caravan• Revealed imbalance• Some complaints about ”this is not warcraft”
–Player expectations
Subsequently the map is no longer considered a candidate as a balanced map.
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
Hypothesis:Testers will play this map as we do, discovering new tactics and shortcuts as they get to know the map.
Us:• Played aggresively• Used shortcuts• Used a wide range of tactics
Them: • Didnt use shortcuts (never saw them)• 2P team won on attrition once
• Used a wide range of tactics
Map seems balanced all the way, but is essentially a 2vs2 fight for a while.
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
HypothesisTester would play this map as we played it, see illustration.
Us• Divide the map in the middle• Go for bridge destruction• Lots of artillery• Lots of pushing back and forth
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
Hypothesis:Wrong.
Testers:• Split the town the ”other” way• Lots of infantry• Lots of pushing back and forth
–Shifting sides
Overall the map lead to hectic intense fighting and is deemed balanced by testing results
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
Initial movements by All
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
Us – Big pushesPushing past defensive lines
No fighting for points
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
Us – Big pushesPushing past defensive lines
No fighting for points
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
Hypothesis:Testers will go for big pushes as well
Wrong.
TestersLot of small back and forth fighting
No pushing past defense
Fighting for points
Playing styleHow testers played differently from us
Showed us valuable lessons
Balancing for best-tactic means balance for regular players
Valuable to witness other ways of playing maps that we know well
New ideas spawn from this
Improving the levels furtherImprove collision areas
Lot of fighting in the blue zone
Flat terrain.
Should improve to enhance the battle – collision
To allow 3P to get closer
To allow 2P to get further out
Improving the levels furtherTweak resources.
Increase map size a little
Improving the levels further
WCIII maps are hard to improve further…
Caravan
• Caravan speed
• Access to bases
• Distance
• Spread out 3P team
• Caravan path
Invasion
• Defensive capabilities of the 2P team
• Utilize middle area
Level lessons
How our level design evolved through the project
First levels
• Defense was important
• Aggression in WCIII
• The strength of a joint 3P team– (”dungeon” & ”easy defendable”)
• Lessons– Player styles– Spreading out
Our influence
• The early levels showed which playstyle the group favoured
• Spectrum of play styles (attack in WCIII)
• Cater to the rush players– Bring in rushers for testing– But balance has priority
RusherBasehugger
Joint forces
• The ability to join forces is VERY important
• Spread out 3P team
• Make ”one” base for 2P team
The 2P team
• The difference of 3vs2 in WCIII and CoH
• 2P team advantages– Bridges– Asymetrical icecrown– Kill the monkey
Considerations
• Spread out the 3P team
• 2P needs many advantages
• Defense is difficult
• Consider all play styles
Testing & IterationIntroduction
• Finding balance through quantifiable testing
• Constraints– External vs. Internal testers– Comparable skill– Testing environment– Time!!
Testing & IterationWorkload
• More than 300 manhours spent testing before deadline
• Tests spread out between the 4 phases
• Number of beta tests Lack of (quantifiable) results
Testing & IterationFurther beta testing
• The 4 candidate maps are tested even further
– Caravan (WCIII) 4 Beta tests (14 tests total)
– Invasion (WCIII) 3 Beta tests (10 tests total)
– City (CoH) 4 Beta tests (8 tests total)
– Forest (CoH) 2 beta tests (8 tests total)
Testing & IterationBeta results – WCIII Candidate Maps
CARAVAN Games Winner Score Balance Rating
Session I 2 3P 1, 2, 4, 3, 2 2.4
Session II 2 3P 3, 2, 3, 3, 2 2.6
Session III 1 3P 3, 2, 4, 1, 1 2.2
Session IV 2 3P 1, 3, 3, 1, 1 1.8
INVASION Games Winner Score Balance Rating
Session I 2 3P/2P 3, 4, 4, 5, 4 4.0
Session II 1 3P 4, 3, 4, 3, 4 3.6
Session III 1 2P 3.5, 3, 3, 3, 2 2.9
Testing & IterationBeta results – CoH Candidate Maps
CITY Games Winner Score Balance Rating
Session I 1 2P 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3.0
Session II 2 3P 3, 3.5, 4, 5, 4 3.9
Session III 1 2P 4, 5, 2, 3.5, 4 3.7
Session IV 1 3P 3, 3, 5, 2.5, 4 3.7
FOREST Games Winner Score Balance Rating
Session I 1 2P 3, 4, 3.5, 5, 3 3.7
Session II 1 3P 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 5 3.5
Testing & IterationConclusion
• First indicator of balance
• Very hard to achieve the initial criterias for entry and exit– Misinterpretation of questions asked
– Subjective ratings
– Most games are situational, which spawns irregularities
– First time as test managers
• Added level of detail for further tests
Editting Tools
• Mutual interest in learning RTS editors
• World Editor (WCIII)– User friendly, easy to learn– Supports
• Level building• Unit modification• Game constants modification• Scripting – triggers
Editting Tools II
• World Builder (CoH)– Technical, steeper learning curve– Purely a level builder
• Attention to aesthetic detail and interactive environments (cover)
• No method of scripting events built-in• Mod tools such as Corsix’s Mod Studio
(http://www.corsix.org/cdms/) allows for unit modification
• Movie-making support
Game Modes and Balance• Classic RTS
– Annihilation• Resource management• Level/terrain considerations (chokepoints etc.)• Starting positions
• WCIII – New methods to obtain balance– Caravan
• Shift of focus to caravan and teamwork– Caravan speed– Caravan path length/shape– Co-op tactics
– Kill the monkey• Emphasis on attack or defense
– Position and abilities of NPC– Timer– Enhancement of defensive capabilities
• CoH – Victory Points
• Spread out battles becomes advantageous for 3P team• Time pressure
Choice of Games
• Considerations– Starcraft– Dawn of War– Age of Empires III
• Reasons– Similarity/differences– Editor availability– WCIII
• Heroes, number of races, air units– CoH
• Strategic points/resources system, doctrine system, interactive environments
The Future
– Adjustable unit cap (Supreme Commander)– No assumptions about size of armies (3 large armies VS
2 large armies)
– XP: resource/unit/special abilities boost (AoE3)
– XP rate and rewards
– Potential in further use of terrain– Interactive terrain
– Advanced teamplay / different roles
THE END
