TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Needs Help: Competitive Balance

Go To

Deadlock Clock: Mar 2nd 2013 at 11:59:00 PM
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#76: Sep 22nd 2012 at 2:28:01 AM

I don't see any reason why not to make a Game Balance>>>Competitive Balance-Cooperative Balance tree of subtropes. Tyoria said it best: despite a large amount of overlap, the difference between Competitive and Cooperative Balance is that Competitive Balance tries to make sure that opposed units (whether it be a person or an entire party) are capable of efficiently winning a game by themselves. Cooperative Balance tries to make sure that NO individual can do so, because there would otherwise be no point in teams.

Tyoria Since: Jul, 2009
#77: Sep 22nd 2012 at 2:46:04 AM

I was trying to make a point in the earlier post I don't think came across well. I wondered if I could use a cheap visual aid to better effect. I like the idea of a Game Balance supertrope a lot, but I was wondering about structure. I think as Zeal proposed it, things would look kind of like this

(Edit: ha! That doesn't format well. Okay, I think Zeal's proposal looks like the first image. But because of the way Competitive Balance relates to "Cooperative Balance" I wondered if it wouldn't be more like the second. Because most of the archetypes within Competitive Balance seem to overlap with Cooperative Balance, although the reverse is not true.)

edited 22nd Sep '12 2:48:12 AM by Tyoria

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#78: Sep 22nd 2012 at 5:16:49 AM

That's not true, though. Videogames tend to have a goal, even if it's to win against a computer-controlled character or accomplish a specific task. All such games have Competitive Balance tropes to facilitate the challenge: Attack, Defense, Speed/Support. Even Super Mario Bros has it: Mario's greatest advantage over opponents is his ability to run and jump (speed/support). The first enemy you meet in the game is a single goomba; an enemy that has impervious defense and a 100% attack power rating (it kills small Mario in one hit). All Mario has is the ability to move and then jump. Mario will either jump over and avoid this enemy or jump on top of them (its only vulnerable area).

The entire game is like that: it compensates for Mario's unmatched maneuverability by putting him against enemies with vastly superior attack power and defense. Mario's greatest weakness is that he's a One-Hit-Point Wonder (0 Def) with low attack power (he can only kill enemies from above) while every enemy can kill him just by touching him and is impervious except in one location. Some enemies (spikes, fire) can't be killed at all. Mario can pick up powerups to help his weaknesses (Mushroom doubles his defense, Flower "doubles" his attack, Star makes both unstoppable—although it will still lose to a bottomless pit).

So no, Competitive Balance tropes do not mostly fit into Cooperative Balance. Cooperative merely creates a number of unrelated tropes so that one character cannot do everything efficiently by themselves.

EDIT: I just realized that Arkanoid still counts. It's basically single-player Pong, so your character is basically 100% Defense (a small paddle) against 100% attack (the ball). The balance is changed by giving the ball more speed and making something other than you (the bottom of the screen itself) the ball's target.

Tetris, however, is perfect model of Cooperative Balance: everything in that game is actually trying to help you. The goal isn't to clear the blocks away—the goal is to achieve a high score. You "cooperate" with the blocks to do this. You can't win without the blocks, and the blocks can't do anything without you. Your only enemy is essentially a time limit.

edited 22nd Sep '12 5:33:18 AM by KingZeal

shiro_okami Since: Apr, 2010
#79: Sep 22nd 2012 at 12:07:03 PM

You couldn't really ignore it if you were to make a supertrope. Even if not... most, if not all, of the Competitive Balance tropes do operate within the proposed Cooperative Balance tropes.

Despite the title of the thread and the scope of everything that falls under Competitive Balance, the tropes we were talking about initially could have come under the far narrower umbrella of Necessary Drawback. I'd be fine with it if we wanted to narrow our scope to that, but I admit I like Zeal's proposed supertrope.

I am not at all opposed to making a new supertrope, I just don't think it's necessary to fix Competitive Balance. Why do we need to make Cooperative Balance before fixing Competitive Balance? Why not do both at the same time? Let's not draw this out longer than necessary and not make things more complicated than they need to be.

Tyoria Since: Jul, 2009
#80: Sep 22nd 2012 at 6:06:55 PM

If we define "competition" as "anything the game throws at you as an obstacle" then every game is "competitive". Or every game with a win condition. (Tetris, in its most known form of play, lacks a win condition — you play until you lose.)

But that's what I'm trying to say. The "Cooperative Balance" tropes are getting labeled so because they aren't Competitive Balance, but really the Cooperative Balance tropes incorporate the Competitive Balance circle. It makes it difficult to distinguish them as a true sister trope because of that.

Are there "Competitive Balance" tropes that cannot be incorporated within a concept of "Cooperative Balance"?

edited 22nd Sep '12 6:09:05 PM by Tyoria

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#81: Sep 22nd 2012 at 7:30:03 PM

Not every game is competitive, but most of them are.

And your second question is rather irrelevant until we decide on what Competitive Balance is.

Tyoria Since: Jul, 2009
#82: Sep 23rd 2012 at 12:28:54 AM

I'm kinda confused by the turn the conversation's taken. The definition of Competitive Balance wasn't a matter of dispute until just now. It related to the strengths and weaknesses of the various selectable characters. If it's defined as any "competition" between the forces marshalled by the computer and the character given to the player (whether or not they have any choice in selection), then it's a very different, and much broader, trope than the one we've been talking about until now.

I did say earlier that Competitive Balance tropes required the player to be able to win with a single character, but I didn't mean that was the only condition. Any selectable character should be able to defeat the other selectable characters, as well as the unselectable bosses, and racing characters should be able to complete all races even if some are geared against their weaknesses.

edited 23rd Sep '12 1:06:52 AM by Tyoria

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#83: Sep 23rd 2012 at 8:05:45 AM

The way we've been using Competitive Balance is: "a number of character builds which make sure every character has strengths and weaknesses". It's meant to apply to multi-player, but I was simply using single-player games as an example of how it isn't just a subtrope of Cooperative Balance. There are other tropes which are exclusively related to competitive gameplay, but nearly all of them depend both on the type of game.

For example, let's look at a tag-team fighting game, like Marvel Vs Capcom, Street Fighter X Tekken and Tekken Tag Tournament 2. They have tropes which are ONLY competition-based, as well as tropes which are ONLY cooperative-based.

Stratadrake Dragon Writer Since: Oct, 2009
Dragon Writer
#84: Sep 23rd 2012 at 10:37:52 AM

Jumping in, I always thought the concept behind Competitive Balance was like a Tactical Rock–Paper–Scissors between characters. E.g. that guy hits hard but he's slow, this guy's fast but can't take a hit. Or in a racing game, that spiked turtle goes faster in the straights but the green dinosaur takes his corners sharper.

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#85: Sep 23rd 2012 at 11:01:32 AM

It never works out that way, though. No archetype is "advantaged" against another inherently.

Stratadrake Dragon Writer Since: Oct, 2009
Dragon Writer
#86: Sep 23rd 2012 at 12:27:05 PM

Yeah. They're not advantaged against each other, but their different strengths cater to different playstyle strategies.

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#87: Sep 23rd 2012 at 1:09:48 PM

Even that's shaky, because it completely depends on the capabilities of the players and how exploitable the game system is.

Tyoria Since: Jul, 2009
#88: Sep 23rd 2012 at 7:26:23 PM

The way we've been using Competitive Balance is: "a number of character builds which make sure every character has strengths and weaknesses".

There's nothing in that description that distinguishes balance between the player and his competitors or the balance between members of a team.

That's a nice simplified principle we might want to apply to the supertrope, but it hasn't been how we've been using Competitive Balance in this thread or we never would have started up the entire digression that led to a notion of Cooperative Balance.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#89: Sep 23rd 2012 at 8:50:15 PM

As I said, that's the way we've been using the trope. As the entire purpose of this thread is to discuss how good/bad that definition is, it was necessary to point it out.

I did not say it was the way we should define it.

Tyoria Since: Jul, 2009
#90: Sep 24th 2012 at 12:34:49 AM

I believe you are conflating the term Competitive Balance with the tropes "underneath" Competitive Balance. This thread has been about the latter, and it started up talking about the possibility of "missing tropes" that covered different builds within a speed-defense-offense triangle.

The Competitive Balance tropes like Fragile Speedster are frequently used within a broader context of overall character balance rather than the more limited selectable character balance mandated by Competitive Balance itself. You could say, as in your example, that the original Super Mario Bros pitted a Fragile Speedster Mario against a variety of Mighty Glacier (or whatever) opponents. It's not a game about Competitive Balance.

So getting back to the main point, it's a little absurd to try and argue against the point I was trying to make about Competitive Balance v. "Cooperative Balance" by switching terms around so that Competitive Balance means something I wasn't using it to mean. Although ultimately does this mean we're not disagreeing on substance so much as term definitions? I'm saying Competitive Balance is narrower than its tropes and you're saying many or most games use a form of those tropes even if they aren't about Competitive Balance per se. Kinda sounds like two ways of saying the same thing.

I was asking if there were "Competitive Balance tropes" — e.g. the Fragile Speedster — that could not be applicable to games using "Cooperative Balance". Because I couldn't think of any. As far as I can tell "Competitive Balance tropes" are really "Game Balance tropes" and Competitive Balance uses a limited number of them. "Cooperative Balance" seems much less limited, in fact, it seems to be inclusive of Competitive Balance's entire circle, in exactly the same way as if Cooperative Balance were the supertrope and Competitive Balance its subtrope. Because tropes that can balance a player against his opponent are also pretty good to use to balance a team against itself.

edited 24th Sep '12 4:00:00 AM by Tyoria

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#91: Sep 24th 2012 at 6:01:53 AM

I believe you are conflating the term Competitive Balance with the tropes "underneath" Competitive Balance.

Okay, I'll bite: how am I doing this?

I was asking if there were "Competitive Balance tropes" — e.g. the Fragile Speedster — that could not be applicable to games using "Cooperative Balance". Because I couldn't think of any. As far as I can tell "Competitive Balance tropes" are really "Game Balance tropes" and Competitive Balance uses a limited number of them. "Cooperative Balance" seems much less limited, in fact, it seems to be inclusive of Competitive Balance's entire circle, in exactly the same way as if Cooperative Balance were the supertrope and Competitive Balance its subtrope. Because tropes that can balance a player against his opponent are also pretty good to use to balance a team against itself.

Again, no. The mistake there is limiting Competitive Balance tropes to characters—and not the purpose of gameplay. To turn your own question back around, there are only a few Cooperative Balance character tropes that I mentioned back a couple of pages ago that can't be used in Competitive Balance at all if we assume that every single character/element in the game is on their side. A Buffer that can improve or alter stats on anyone except themselves and a Logistics-type character with no ability to use the resources it gathers. And that's really it. These characters cannot exist in a solely-competitive setting (an environment in which every other character is out to kill them) unless there's a time limit or a goal other than combat.

On the other hand, there are a number of competitive character tropes that cannot show up in Cooperative Balance. But as I stated before, the tricky part here is that it completely depends on the type of game. For example: Interface Screw, Confusion Fu, and Shoto Clone. In a fighting game, these characters would exist solely to cause headaches for your opponent. Each one specifically exists to give you a natural weapon that the opponent has to figure out or avoid in order to win. No matter how much more skilled you are than your opponent, Modok can kill your character if you don't figure out how his jamming bomb works. No matter how much you practiced your combos, Eddy Gordo or Lei Wulong can beat you if you don't figure out what they're doing and how they do it. And no matter how much speed and power your character has, a Ryu and Ken can lock you down with fireballs from a distance and uppercuts if you get close.

These characters cannot exist in a purely-cooperative setting because there would be no reason for a team to intentionally want a character that screws with their ally's inputs, makes the ally confused, or keeps the ally locked down and unable to act.

But there are other tropes, just tropes, that have nothing to do with characters that are exclusive to Competitive Balance (for example, Comeback Mechanic and Rubber-Band A.I.).

edited 24th Sep '12 6:17:38 AM by KingZeal

Tyoria Since: Jul, 2009
#92: Sep 24th 2012 at 9:14:27 AM

Okay, I'll bite: how am I doing this?

"Competitive Balance tropes" like Mighty Glacier != Competitive Balance. Your point is correct about those subtropes being used to basically refer to any kind of character balance. But we weren't initially out to redefine Competitive Balance at all, we just wanted to add a few more Necessary Drawback tropes to fill in the blanks. The fact that we were using those subtropes in a broader way than Competitive Balance allowed is the entire reason we started talking about "Cooperative Balance" and "Game Balance".

Do you think we should redefine it? If we are to make a Game Balance (should that be "Character Balance"?) subtrope and divide it into two parts, it does seem to make make more sense for them to be "the balance between the player and his opponent(s)" and "the balance between individuals on a team" rather than "the balance between the selectable characters" (i.e. Competitive Balance as it is currently defined) and "the balance between individuals on a team". Alternately, we could divide it into three.

Good point about the tropes that are meant to screw with a specifically human opponent. That isn't applicable only to PvP Competitive Balance, because you can give it to enemies to use against the player so as to shore up the defenses of an otherwise weak monster. But they don't make sense to balance a team against itself. Unless it's an enemy team...?

edited 24th Sep '12 9:22:02 AM by Tyoria

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#93: Sep 24th 2012 at 10:33:08 AM

Short answer, yes, but that will be opening a tremendous can of worms. Best thing to do is to expand the character types as originally planned while also figuring out how they fit into relevant supertropes.

Tyoria Since: Jul, 2009
#94: Sep 24th 2012 at 11:10:20 AM

Where does that leave us on the whole Speed/Defense/Offense thing?

The overall concept of Necessary Drawback probably applies to Character Balance on the whole, but some specific drawbacks might not.

edited 24th Sep '12 11:10:29 AM by Tyoria

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#95: Sep 24th 2012 at 12:31:00 PM

I've realized something about that.

Speed is really not a "thing". Speed is the ability to act first or have the greatest mobility, but it's only tangentially related to balance. Speed is a player agency; the speedy player can where the other players cannot, where "can" means anything the game system is built around.

That's not to say speed is not used for balance, but in competition and cooperation, it's only a utility for speed and/or defense.

EDIT: Except for certain racing/sports games. Hard to argue with speed in American football or Track and Field.

edited 24th Sep '12 9:04:01 PM by KingZeal

Tyoria Since: Jul, 2009
#96: Sep 25th 2012 at 2:28:13 AM

Well, it probably depends on the nature of the goal, and the nature of the opposition to that goal.

If the game is structured around a concept of "reduce the enemy to 0 HP without letting them do the same thing to you", Offense relates directly to the goal, Defense relates directly to the obstacles in front of that goal, and Speed is ultimately an indirect force that influences either Offense (damage per second) or Defense (evasion).

If the goal is "get from point A to point B within a time parameter", Speed is the direct variable. Your obstacles could be "without getting killed" in which case Defense is relevant and Offense is sort of indirect, as killing enemies only helps you to the degree it gets you to the goal faster or prevents you from being killed. But if the obstacles are "without letting the enemy get there first/letting them get to point C", Offense will matter directly.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#97: Sep 25th 2012 at 6:46:21 AM

Combat racing is another problem, because it's two combined levels of competition. The primary objective: crossing the finish line first, and the secondary objective: winning a fight. Offense in combat racing is still "the ability to win", but only in terms of the secondary goal. Defense is still "the ability to not lose", but only in terms of the second goal (and only tangentially the second). In racing, speed is ultimately the only stat that truly matters with the other two being support.

shiro_okami Since: Apr, 2010
#98: Sep 25th 2012 at 3:17:31 PM

Defense is about withstanding attack, while speed is about avoiding attack. In that sense, both defense and speed are "the ability to not lose".

I'm beginning to think that racing doesn't really fit into the attack/defense/speed mold we've been using. A racing Competitive Balance triangle would be more like acceleration/mobility/inertia.

edited 25th Sep '12 3:40:07 PM by shiro_okami

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#99: Sep 25th 2012 at 3:46:06 PM

No, that's only one definition of "speed". Evasion. It can also mean "priority", which means having a faster attack, or "range", which means covering a large distance.

WaxingName from Everywhere Since: Oct, 2010
#100: Sep 25th 2012 at 5:26:13 PM

So it's the definition of "speed" that's causing all the mess, then. I think what we need to do is agree on one definition of speed and make sure the rest of the wiki sticks with that. Maybe we need a crowner (don't entirely know how to set one up)?

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

SingleProposition: CompetitiveBalance
9th Dec '12 8:36:50 PM

Crown Description:

Vote up for yes, down for no.

Total posts: 334
Top