Tyrannical Rules to Abide By:

[[DRD]china]

The goal of this forum is to have intelligent discussion on the interaction of heroes and items, and to ultimately probe and provide insight on overall balance. There should be no expectations in regards to having any suggestions or ideas actually implemented into the game. Any remakes or overhauls should certainly be directed to the Suggestions forum, as they will either be moderated out or simply ignored.

Remember, this forum is an exercise of possibility. First we must aim discussion at heroes that are worthy of discussion. Now, this isn't decided by popularity (whether or not there's a consensus that X or Y hero is well-balanced). There can be a thread on any hero, as long as the foundation for argumentation is strong. Define the weakness of a hero, or an overwhelming strength, and explain WHY it is broken.

The sole purpose of this forum should be to provide insight through intelligent analysis. (That means if you came here angry or teary-eyed because a hero raped you in your last game, you will be warned.)

Lastly, all the stuff below still applies. Some things reiterated for the inept.

• Follow all of the Forum Rules
• Threads must first be approved by moderators. Hope that moderator is not me.
• The game is balanced around Normal Mode.
• Do not create a thread about a particular hero or item if there already exists a thread for it.
• Try to base conclusions on a multitude of games, and not solely on the anecdotal experience of a single game.
• Practice > Theory.
• Post the current version number as the front of your title eg. [2.0.20] Fayde.
• This is not the suggestions forum.
  
  • If your post contains more in way of suggestion than balance insight, you're doing something wrong.
  
  
• Fun not allowed here.
  
  • Fun is an attribute of design, and thus the value of which is much more influenced by subjectivity. Fun cannot be balanced.
  
  

I'll try my best to make these forums readable, but if I miss something stupid, feel free to PM me about it and I'll see if I agree with you.

Also, Vahn's rules are nicer than mine.

This section is for having intelligent and insightful discussion on the balance of all aspects of Heroes of Newerth. Balancing an aspect of the game doesn't mean completely remaking it, it means small tweaks to improve it.
Anyone wishing to suggest a complete remake of an aspect of the game should post their ideas in the suggestion section instead.

The following applies to everyone in the section.

• All the Forum Rules still apply.
• Threads created in this section are moderated.
  
  • This means a moderator needs to approve it before it can be seen.
  • Threads not showing any insightful balance arguments will not get approved.
  • Some moderators are stricter than others, so please don't PM us saying "Why wasn't my thread approved when this thread was".
  
  
• Please remember that the game is balanced for Normal mode 5v5 play, threads on balance for 3v3 play or Casual mode will not get approved.
• Ensure you have played several games with the topic of discussion. Theory crafting doesn't make insightful discussion, having experience does.
• Please include the current patch version at the start of your thread title when making a thread.
  
  • e.g. [2.1.1] The Dark Lady
  
  
• There will only be a single thread on each aspect of the game at a time, so if there is a current thread on the topic you wish to discuss please use that thread instead of creating a new one.
• Early access heroes threads will not be approved as majority of the posters will not have access to the hero which means they won't have any experience in using them.
• Should a thread not receive a post for over one month it'll be archived to allow users to create a new thread on the topic, should a user believe bringing the old thread back again to be the best idea please PM me with why.

All users need to remember to argue their point without being rude or insulting towards other users, there is absolutely no reason for such things to happen as anyone can make an argument without being insulting towards the person(s) whom they are arguing against.

Should you find a post which breaches the forum rules please remember to use the report a post function to bring said post to the attention of the moderators.

If you have any questions please feel free to send me a PM about it.

Feel free to leave angry or gleeful comments about having a DRD member moderate your forum below.

[[eR]Ekamo]

About time you made the 2.0 version of your old post.

<3

[Anakha]

1700 practice > 2000 theory?

[pewpewstar]

Excellent. Could we also have a line about balancing for the highest level of play?

[[Poni]Octavia]

Here is some game theory to help you think about how you should really run this forum.

1. All game elements are an initial state of being balanced. Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, all game elements should be considered balanced.

2. Competitive play is not a be-all end-all to balance. Most competitive players are not even close to perfection. A player would need to reach a point of transcendence to make objective, irrefutable claims, hence:

3. Objectivity is impossible. You cannot prove without doubt something is balanced or not balanced, hence:

4. Opinions are the only thing that matter. All balance is entirely subjective, hence no argument can ever come from theory -- only practice. Attempting to use theory to explain opinions from practice is attempting to find evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. If you tried doing this is any scientific or judicial endeavour you'd find yourself laughed out of the room.

If you consider every game element and their balance with respect to each other from an entirely transcendental point of view (note: humanly impossible to create), the game elements would be spread with normal distribution. The only things that need desperately to be changed are the outliers -- the elements on the far ends, the elements that can be found to be imbalanced without reasonable doubt by human experience. Changing these elements will tighten the curve, but it will always remain normally distributed, hence:

True balance can never be achieved.

At this point there is no reason to actually debate balance: only to give opinions on the matter. Balance threads should only contain sharing of opinions. Fun and design should be a serious topic of consideration in this type of discussion as well. Stating that fun is not a concern is being incredibly naive. Every game element is responsible for the overall success of the game. Balance and fun are so intertwined you cannot discuss one without the other. If not, then this forum should be renamed to "Game Design", as a balance forum is not actually necessary. Opinions about the game can be obtained from GD without the necessity for arbitrary moderation.

I'll stop here. I'm not interested in discussing balance of heroes in difference brackets, but my point of view is that balance for all brackets is necessary.

[PzKw]

True balance can never be achieved.

Basically correct, slightly off though. Should read: "Perfect balance can never be achieved."

True balance can be achieved, but it is not perfect, and the game benefits from going through cycles of some things being more powerful than others - that's one of the big things that forces players to evolve playstyles and helps to prevent stagnation of the game.

I'll come to discuss it with reference to your quote below, but if you imagine everything fitting into a graph of Strong vs. Weak, the intent is not to have everything sitting on the same line, it's to have everything within an accepted range. Because the descriptors for the power can sometimes be fundamentally different or asymmetrical, it is difficult to directly and objectively compare them (but it can be done).

3. Objectivity is impossible. You cannot prove without doubt something is balanced or not balanced, hence:

4. Opinions are the only thing that matter. All balance is entirely subjective, hence no argument can ever come from theory -- only practice. Attempting to use theory to explain opinions from practice is attempting to find evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. If you tried doing this is any scientific or judicial endeavour you'd find yourself laughed out of the room.

These are outright wrong. Let me give you a simple example to prove the second is wrong: A hero is introduced called Pyromaniac - he is pyro, but his ult now does 2x the damage with an extra 500 range, all other stats are the same. Now, if in accordance with our overarching design goals (a list of rules by which additions to the game are objectively checked against as being "good" or "bad"), Pyromancer is balanced, then Pyromaniac is clearly too strong. It can be very, very easy to objectively show that certain things are over or underpowered when you define your terms of reference, and are comparing overmatches.

With regards to the first one. If you are trying to make an epistemological statement, then we're going to have one of two arguments; a pragmatic one where I demonstrate that the assumption of objective truth is a useful and necessary starting point for any discussion intended to be anything more than purely academic - ie. it is an inherrent ethical obligation if you are in any role intended to produce a tangible outcome that you believe in the actuality of the meaning and existence of that outcome. Either that, or if you want to have a purely academic discussion about it, we'll have a chat (in another forum) and we'll discuss it in terms of applying that same principle to itself, ie. you cannot discount the possibility of objective truth either, making the conclusion you move to from it (ie. the second point, refuted by thought experiment above) equally invalid, or rather, an example of "Attempting to use theory to explain opinions from practice [or] attempting to find evidence to support a predetermined conclusion..."

Yes, I do get angry when people try to use existential theory to support... Well... Anything at all...

[[Poni]Octavia]

These are outright wrong. Let me give you a simple example to prove the second is wrong: A hero is introduced called Pyromaniac - he is pyro, but his ult now does 2x the damage with an extra 500 range, all other stats are the same. Now, if in accordance with our overarching design goals (a list of rules by which additions to the game are objectively checked against as being "good" or "bad"), Pyromancer is balanced, then Pyromaniac is clearly too strong. It can be very, very easy to objectively show that certain things are over or underpowered when you define your terms of reference, and are comparing overmatches.

My third point should have been impossible within reason. This is in accordance with the point outlined earlier that there is an objective scale by which hero strength can be measured, but we cannot possibly make it within reason. If a hero was objectively more powerful than another, it would have already been changed such that it was no longer objectively more powerful than another -- there's no point using fringe cases in an example because they'd never exist sans for the developers not actually caring about balance (e.g., if Pyromaniac was a pay-to-play hero). You can't construct legitimate comparisons between different real heroes in theory because you'd be comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes.

With regards to the first one. If you are trying to make an epistemological statement, then we're going to have one of two arguments; a pragmatic one where I demonstrate that the assumption of objective truth is a useful and necessary starting point for any discussion intended to be anything more than purely academic - ie. it is an inherrent ethical obligation if you are in any role intended to produce a tangible outcome that you believe in the actuality of the meaning and existence of that outcome.

You've only demonstrated that objective truth is attainable within reason if an element was designed such that an objective truth is obvious.

Either that, or if you want to have a purely academic discussion about it, we'll have a chat (in another forum) and we'll discuss it in terms of applying that same principle to itself, ie. you cannot discount the possibility of objective truth either, making the conclusion you move to from it (ie. the second point, refuted by thought experiment above) equally invalid, or rather, an example of "Attempting to use theory to explain opinions from practice [or] attempting to find evidence to support a predetermined conclusion..."

My fourth point would only have to change to "Opinions are the only thing that matter for human balance." Until you can show a real example where you can justify your opinion that some intended game element (currently or previously) is objectively too strong or weak, I'll continue to uphold this point. Objective truth of imbalance is possible (I already admitted that in previous posts), but not attainable within reason, sans for intended imbalances.

[PzKw]

My third point should have been impossible within reason. This is in accordance with the point outlined earlier that there is an objective scale by which hero strength can be measured, but we cannot possibly make it within reason. If a hero was objectively more powerful than another, it would have already been changed such that it was no longer objectively more powerful than another -- there's no point using fringe cases in an example because they'd never exist sans for the developers not actually caring about balance (e.g., if Pyromaniac was a pay-to-play hero). You can't construct legitimate comparisons between different real heroes in theory because you'd be comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes.
You've only demonstrated that objective truth is attainable within reason if an element was designed such that an objective truth is obvious.My fourth point would only have to change to "Opinions are the only thing that matter for human balance." Until you can show a real example where you can justify your opinion that some intended game element (currently or previously) is objectively too strong or weak, I'll continue to uphold this point. Objective truth of imbalance is possible (I already admitted that in previous posts), but not attainable within reason, sans for intended imbalances.

I'm going to cut to the chase here; analysing possible situations, grading them into likelihoods, and using them to develop models for comparing elements of a game against objective design goals isn't impossible - it's not even particularly hard. It's the first step in discussing anything balance related with any real authority.

If you want an example of how wrong you are, go and read the last HotBL thread, where I finally cracked the shits and posted a comparison of HotBL against other EHP sources, and used it to demonstrate that HotBL was too cost effective. For another example, look at the discussion in the last MoA thread about why his displace is objectively underpowered compared to his stun (which is further shown to be overpowered in the context of the rest of the abilities and the context of similar abilities on other heroes).

Taking a step back, working out the actual capabilities of a given gameplay element, and then trialling it in a variety of typical situations on paper works just fine for establishing beyond reasonable doubt whether the elements are able to function as intended within the framework of the design goals.

Objective truth in balance is normally a white elephant in closet, just waiting for someone to stop lazily asserting things about it, and put the work into actually opening the door and showing it for what it is, using numbers and examples.

This is why there are people paid in companies to do the balance. If you want to do it really well, it's a full time job that usually requires a team.

[[S2]Dawnbringer]

Good, please be tough. Some of the threads that slipped through in your absence were... disturbing.

[Hubaris]

Good, please be tough. Some of the threads that slipped through in your absence were... disturbing.

Like that awful Rampage thread?

Question: How many mods work on this forum and approve threads exactly? Is it just you china?

[[S2]Dawnbringer]

Like that awful Rampage thread?

Question: How many mods work on this forum and approve threads exactly? Is it just you china?

3: Yawning, China and Rordarak.

But any GM's can approve. Yawning is a little lenient with what he lets through :3

EDIT: And that Rampage thread was soooo bad. Deteriorated into about 15 pages of people telling SirVH how Rampage wasn't brokenly imba and SirVH calling Rampage OP along with every strength hero. *facepalm*

[Mediocre]

Balance in all brackets can be achived by ''smart'' hero design (skillshots etc..).

[[IaF]Skyve]

Balance in all brackets can be achived by ''smart'' hero design (skillshots etc..).

That makes no sense. Just because a hero has skillshots doesn't make him balanced...

[[DRD]china]

I am th- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4UfAL9f74I

[Rordarok]

^Not every 'GM' can approve. Game Masters don't have any special powers on the forum anyway.

[Anakha]

Global Moderator*

[[S2]Dawnbringer]

^

Whoops, sorry. I always use GM for global mod and I keep forgetting about the game masters :/

[Ezili]

Could you point me in the direction of the "Fun" forum then? Because I can point out a lot of awfully not fun heroes.

[[IaF]Skyve]

Not fun for you maybe. Pretty sure every hero has people that like them.

[[UmUb]Anthrxx]

Not fun for you maybe. Pretty sure every hero has people that like them.

Vindicator makes games less fun ... FACT