Tyrannical Rules to Abide By:

[[S2]Dawnbringer]

You would probs create a thread on that hero regarding why you think they aren't balanced and add a tiny thing: One of the things I feel would make him better is _____ but this isn't the suggestion forum, don't go overboard.

[[IaF]Skyve]

Suggestion.

Here, you create threads to enlighten people about the overall balance on heroes, and discuss what's wrong and what could be done, and possibly back up what you say with arguments, because otherwise there really wouldn't be much point to discussing something.

[[Poni]Octavia]

Fun is subjective. Balance isn't.

Balance is only objective if every player is playing at maximum proficiency. Otherwise it is subject to our own experiences and abilities.

[[GeCo]SniperNinja]

Im not going to make a thread about it, rather a post in a thread that is inevitably going to pop up here sooner or later.

Ofc i'll explain why this would contribute to the hero and how it would affect the balance. im just unsure if it would be looked upon here or if it is going to be ignored/overlooked in this part of the forum.

[[IaF]Skyve]

Balance is only objective if every player is playing at maximum proficiency. Otherwise it is subject to our own experiences and abilities.

So basically you're saying that balance changes depending on who plays a game. That makes no sense.
Balance doesn't magically alter itself just because another person looks at it.

[[Poni]Octavia]

So basically you're saying that balance changes depending on who plays a game. That makes no sense.
Balance doesn't magically alter itself just because another person looks at it.

Assume at maximum proficiency Magmus is equally as strong as Behemoth. Now assume that the general populace performs much better with Magmus than Behemoth, i.e., players are better with Magmus than Behemoth. (Note: this could be a bi-product of Magmus being more fun to play than Behemoth.)

To the players, Magmus appears to be stronger than Behemoth. However, this perception is incorrect as per the first assumption.

[[IaF]Skyve]

That doesn't mean that magmus is stronger than behemoth, and really has nothing to do with the heroes balance.

[[Poni]Octavia]

If you concede that point is true you concede my point earlier contrary to yours that balance is not objective. Hence, your statement that balance differs from fun based on its objectivity is incorrect and hence fun is just as an integral part of game design as balance is from the human perspective.

[LegoPirate]

That doesn't mean that magmus is stronger than behemoth, and really has nothing to do with the heroes balance.

it means that magmus is easier to use, which one could easily argue fits under "stronger"

alot of the terms used here are too vague to be used successfully. you need to be more specific about what you mean by strong, and then the claim becomes much easier to disect. just overall "stronger" can mean a multitude of things.

tho ease of use is very important to hero balance. theres a reason swiftblade isnt as powerful as other heroes that require more then an R click to get kills (swift is actually alot more complicated and alot harder to play then people give him credit for, but thats not the point)

[[Poni]Octavia]

it means that magmus is easier to use, which one could easily argue fits under "stronger"

alot of the terms used here are too vague to be used successfully. you need to be more specific about what you mean by strong, and then the claim becomes much easier to disect. just overall "stronger" can mean a multitude of things.

tho ease of use is very important to hero balance. theres a reason swiftblade isnt as powerful as other heroes that require more then an R click to get kills (swift is actually alot more complicated and alot harder to play then people give him credit for, but thats not the point)

It was already stated that in this scenario both heroes are objectively equal in strength. What you define as strength doesn't factor into this at all, the only thing that matters is the assumption presented by my scenario. If Magmus is indeed easier to pick up than Behemoth, their strength equivalence might be a cause of some other contributor to overall hero strength. The scenario stated that people perform better with Magmus, what this is a factor of is also irrelevant.

More realistic cases of this point (that balance is subjective) are present in the history of the game -- Electrician, Wildsoul, Pollywog Priest, Kraken -- heroes that went from underused to priority bans without any changes. The competitive scene is not even close to a level at which we can say their play objectifies hero strengths. Considering this, I maintain that fun is something that should be considered over balance. True balance, and even perceived balance, is very difficult to achieve, and the game doesn't need to be balanced to be fun. That this forum disallows discussion of fun is ludicrous.

[[GM]Cyber_Kun]

Lock this bloody thread.

I want my sticky to be on the top but that is never going to happen with this discussion going on. Jerks!

Also, balance =/= fun. However a good dev team can get both done at the same time.

[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.

[PzKw]

Deliberate double post.

That is also why there badly needs to be a premium balance forum that you have to be selected to post in, so that properly reasoned and supported discussion isn't drowned out by pages of assertion and QQ.

Publically viewable, posting by selection only, viciously moderated.

[LegoPirate]

It was already stated that in this scenario both heroes are objectively equal in strength. What you define as strength doesn't factor into this at all, the only thing that matters is the assumption presented by my scenario. If Magmus is indeed easier to pick up than Behemoth, their strength equivalence might be a cause of some other contributor to overall hero strength. The scenario stated that people perform better with Magmus, what this is a factor of is also irrelevant.

More realistic cases of this point (that balance is subjective) are present in the history of the game -- Electrician, Wildsoul, Pollywog Priest, Kraken -- heroes that went from underused to priority bans without any changes. The competitive scene is not even close to a level at which we can say their play objectifies hero strengths. Considering this, I maintain that fun is something that should be considered over balance. True balance, and even perceived balance, is very difficult to achieve, and the game doesn't need to be balanced to be fun. That this forum disallows discussion of fun is ludicrous.

what you define as strength is 100% relevant to the situation.

saying magmus is stronger then behe is relevant when youre trying to select a str intiator. saying magmus is stronger then magebane is completely irrelevant, because magmus cant carry. the point of this excersize is to show that no hero is 100% stronger in every way then any other (for the most part). this is where we use the word "situational". why would i pick up pollywog over witchslayer? both are very strong heroes, and both probably in a relatively similar effectiveness level, but they excell at different things. using a broad term such as "stronger" simply oversimplifies the situation.

also, most would consider an easier hero to play inherently stronger. if 2 heroes are objectively equal otherwise, and one is easier to play then the other, then the easier one will be picked up more often because of this.

if they are equal given the fact that one is easier to play, then the opposite will be picked up instead, since that means that he is sacrificing ease of use for more actual effectiveness.

youre trying to sit in an ivory tower when we need real world applications. no 2 heroes in this game will ever be perfectly balanced, so supposing this situation is pointless.

[PzKw]

Lego, basically disagree. Any strength in one area can be described by a set of numbers, which in turn are converted into in game effects which are all definable. You can compare how all these numbers can be used in a variety of reasonable situations to get a very good (but not complete) snapshot of the factor's value vis-à-vis the game's win conditions, then compare that to other factors.

If it has an effect, it can be measured, if it can be measured, it can be compared with practical objectivity (not absolute for the wannabe Descartes I know is sitting in the rafters somewhere).

(Edit: Point is, you can compare carries to initiators and get something meaningful out of the process, but it's much quicker and easier to compare like with like).

[LegoPirate]

(Edit: Point is, you can compare carries to initiators and get something meaningful out of the process, but it's much quicker and easier to compare like with like).

comparing carries to initators is a useless prospect 95% of the time. if i want a carry, i dont care that magmus is a better hero, im gonna pick magebane.

there really are more intangibles that you cant measure with hard numbers.

people not running around without vision because of a devo/valk on the other team can have a huge effect on the game, and theres no numerical value you can attach to that. just the potential of a portalkey pollywog to pk onto a lone hero and pick them off and that effect on the mentality of the other team cannot be measured as a number.

yes, you can measure some aspects like dps, ehp and length/amount of disables, but this game is alot more then just numbers.

[PzKw]

No, it's just more numbers than are quick and easy to look at.

You could compare average reaction times to missing from lane vs how far back relative to creep position over games with and without roaming supports of your own, vs how complete your ward vision is of avenues of approach. Etc, etc, etc, etc. S2 has access to all of these stats for nearly all games. They just need to format it into something usable.

Anyway, if comparing initiators to carries or supports etc is mostly fruitless, how can you tell if there is a fundamental problem with the balance of a class of heroes?

[LegoPirate]

No, it's just more numbers than are quick and easy to look at.

You could compare average reaction times to missing from lane vs how far back relative to creep position over games with and without roaming supports of your own, vs how complete your ward vision is of avenues of approach.

Anyway, if comparing initiators to carries or supports etc is mostly fruitless, how can you tell if there is a fundamental problem with the balance of a class of heroes?

i dont think anyone has ever said any one class of heroes was ever unbalanced (range carries were/are only OP relative to melee ones). the fundamental point is that if all the carries in the game were nerfed tomorrow, then they would still be picked up at the same rate (unless the nerf was substantial enough that they arent as effective at carrying as a non-carry hero) and if that was the case, then its carrymagmus vs magebane, not our standard initatior magmus.

which also leads to the point that there really are no true hero "classes", only playstyles and item choices.

now youre either purposefully being ridiculous, or you are clearly not getting the point.

trying to measure the reaction times relative to hero positon compared to ward vision? you think thats a sane and perfectly worthwhile venture to figure out if a hero is balanced?

what if we arent around creeps at all? how far from well i am? or how far from some equally arbitrary point of my choice?

when theres a mental aspect to a game, then numbers alone will not suffice in game balance. the fact that i as a player need to make decisions based upon what information i have, and humans are by defintion unpredictable means that theorycrafting is almost worthless

realizing how broken HOTBL is or how ridiculous savage mace is yes, but only in terms of DPS

how do you measure the effect of the enemy team not ganking your carry because he picks up a hotbl? or an enemy diving because he got cocky and then getting tp'd upon and dying?