|
(This article is a repost from my personal blog at www.rationalgamedesign.com)
This is going to be the first post in a longer series of articles I
want to write about the balancing of weapons in shooters via gameplay
situations. I was rather frustrated about the lack of information I
found about this topic, may it be balancing at large or the balancing
of weapons specifically, so I thought it could be a good idea to write
some of my thoughts and approaches here and maybe create a forum for a
more detailed discussion and exchange on this matter.
Let me start with a short list of the most interesting resources I found on the web:
Dave Sirlin on Balancing Multiplayer Games.
Dave Sirlin, game designer of Streetfighter 2 Turbo HD Remix,
has written a very deep and interesting four part series on the matter
of balancing multiplayer games and I am seriously thinking about
getting his book.
Part one: Definitions, Part two: Viable Options, Part three: Fairness, Part four: Intuition, Overview (Handout, PDF)
Brandes Stoddard on Balancing Weapons
Brandes Stoddard is System Designer for the upcoming MMOFPS Fallen Earth and shares some of his experience in this Dev. Journal.
Part one, Part two
Eric Heimburg on Balancing for Awesome
Eric Heimburg wrote an article called Balancing for Awesome
describing the problems of system design and why you should try to
balance for awesome and not for the sake of your excel sheet.
Tom Cadwell on Techniques for Achieving Play Balance
Tom Cadwell was apparently working for Blizzard on WC3 and WoW and has written a good article on balancing.
Techniques for Achieving Play Balance
If you know some other good resources please tell me and I will
update the list. But for now let’s continue with the approach of
balancing weapons via gameplay situations. First I think you can split
the way to balance weapons into eight single steps.
First Step: Define your weapon system.
This is the first step you have to make. How should the weapon system work? The most important question is the limitation of weapons a single player can carry.
Can he carry all weapons at the same time like in a classical shooter
(Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, etc.) or is the number of weapon slots
limited like in most modern shooters? (Gears of war, Dead Space,
Resident Evil 5) This will determine how valuable a single weapon
should be and in how many gameplay situations one weapons must be useful.
If the player can carry all weapons, each weapon can have a single
purpose because the player can switch between weapons and adjust his
equipped cannon to the specific situation. If you’re weapon system is
limited either by the number of slots, inventory space or weight than
each weapon must be more useful in different situations because you
want to avoid that the player can’t overcome an obstacle because he
hasn’t chosen the right equipment. (Even if you provide the right
weapon in front of the challenge, a player could still decide to go
with his old armory because he invested too much money in upgrades or
simply because he likes them)
Another important point is the way player gain new weapons and ammunition.
Do you have a shop system, a weapon upgrade system or does the player
need to search rooms and loot corpses? There are a lot of different
options to choose from and I think the decision depends on the way you
want to reward the player and the restrictions of your game world. (A shop system in a WW2 shooter can easily break the immersion of a game)
Second Step: Define your goals
The next step I took was to define my balancing goals. An important matter for me is that I don’t want to have a dominating weapon, meaning a weapon which is better than all the others in every situation and I also want to avoid dominated weapons, which are worse in all situations than at least one other weapon. Based on this system I think you can create two categories of weapons. The first category I called special weapons, which are the best in at least one situation but also the worst in others. The second one I defined as mixed weapons,
which are good in a lot of situations but also crap in others. When you
think in these categories all weapons should be useful in the game but
in different situations, challenging the player to choose the best weapon for each situation and by this creating depth to the gameplay because you cannot just rush with the weapon of your choice through the game.
The next point I would describe as aiming for maximum difference.
The player should really feel that each weapon feels and behaves
differently. This means that the differences between the ingame values
should not be in a small percentage area because than the player will
not notice them.
I also decided that I want to balance my weapons internally,
which means for me that the balancing is not based on global variables
set by the level design a.k.a. the ammunition available. A lot of games
feature dominated weapons but force the player to use them because the
ammunition he finds for better weapons is rather spare which sometimes
work in survival horror games but I personally think it limits my
choices as a player and takes away room for interesting decisions.
I also want that all weapons should work the same in multiplayer and singleplayer modes, because I think the system gets intransparent for the player if weapons behave differently in each mode.
Third Step: Define your weapons’ attributes
In the next step one should make a list of all attributes concerning
the behavior of weapons. I will write more about this step in the next
part.
|
This is my biggest complaint about current FPS games, which gives rise to the bunny hopping run and gun scenarios rather than realistic combat tactics.
As for CS, that is the best example of balanced guns. AK47 is king once you learn how to use it, but a noob that picks it up can miss someone that is 3 feet away from them. M4 is usually better than the AK47 in mid to close quarters unless the AK47 user is a pro. MP5 is a headshot machine for a rusher at close quarters, and is viable at mid to far range, but not advised. The TMP/Mac10 is a beast in close quarters in the hands of a good player. Often times given the same skill level the right gun wins for the range used. The SMGs usually win close quarters even against the AK47 while the rifles will always win at far distances (if the SMG user is dumb enough to even try to fight someone like that). Those guns I mentioned are all pretty balanced, but then comes the useless guns like the UMP and scout (due to existence of awp). Overall though I feel the guns in CS had a lot more personality than many shooters today. For instance most of the time in shooting games today as long as it's an automatic rifle it does the job just as good as anything, making all the other guns unnecessary unless they offer some extra functionality (sniper, or secondary effect as is the case in games like Resistance).
Even players of regular FPSes where the sniper-rifle can one-shot-kill someone can understand this. You die and you had no chance to retalitate. It's alright if it happens only rarely but if it is a common occurence, then that just ends up bugging the hell out of me.
And regarding weapon realism - I think the industry has been to keen on following the (practical in that it's "tried and true") certain form of first-person-shooter abstraction of gunfights, brought on since games like Quake. Someone slightly creative could work out different abstractions and game systems, creating new dynamics or game procedures. For example cover-heavy weapon-based conflict systems and traditional wild-west gunfights have yet to see a bright and awesome real-world implementation (unless I'm missing a significant title here).
Thanks a lot for the comments. Highly appreciate that you are interested in the subject.
@the realism debate
I personally think that the grade of realism depends on two factors. First the setting. The scenario your game takes place defines in which borders you can create your weapons and how they must work. A realistic setting will not allow that your enemies will take a lot of bullets but it will also prohibit that you're weapons have special abilities. The difference between weapons will not be strong because they have to operate within tight rules set by your scenario. Otherwise you will destroy the immersion. The other factor is you're target group. The higher the grade of realism the more skilled your players need to be to actually handle the weapons. This doesn't mean that a realistic approch is less fun, it just means that less players will be able to solve your challenges. A multiplayer game based on competiton can have a more realistic appraoch because competition is all about personal skills. But a singleplayer game where you aim at a high FLOW experience for the player should have a skill level which suits there skills so they are not too frustrated or bored.
@Martin
I agree with you but I think you also have to destinguish between realism affecting the behavior of enemies or the player. It is totally ok to be able to kill an enemy with one precise shoot. But if they con do the same thing to you it is highly frustrating. If a player has no information to foresee a failure he had never the chance to make the right decision. The problem begins when you design for a multiplayer mode because than you want to avoid that players can die without a warning without taking away this ability for skilled players. I think the only chance is to have a fair match-making system.
@Luis Guimarães B.N. and John Mawhorter
I agree in regards of UT which has very different weapons where each one is the most effective in certain situations but I tend to agree with John Mawhorter on CS. Im my memories CS weapons were balanced between the different types of weapons but within these categories most weapons are dominated and are not used by the players.
@Jakob Berglund Rogert
The problem is when the limitiation is so strict that the game forces you to use a weapon so that you have less interesting decisions. Most games have such strict limitations because their weapon design features lot of dominant weapons which are better than the rest. Resident Evil 5 is a perfect example for this. Most weapons are clearly dominated by another weapon but you still will use them because you want to save ammunition for a situation later in the game which maybe harder than the current one. You cannot use the weapon which would be best for the situation because you don't have enough information and you fear that if you use this weapon now you will struggle later. I am always frustrated at the end of such a game because I end up with lot of health items, ammunition, grenades and whatever which I could have used in earlier situations but saved for the credits. I know you can take weapons into the next session but I think you cannot design a game with the premise that the player will play it twice.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanielHelbig/20090705/2233/Weapon_Balancing_based
_on_Gameplay_Situations_Part_two.php