Hello, all!
Since the game is still fairly early in its balancing stages (the first major balancing patch since 2.1 is still in the works), I think some things should be considered in terms of design philosophy when balancing. After seeing a certain RTS game I won’t name develop over the years, I have noticed some trends in the balancing of it that cause many to complain about its design (though the consensus is split for the game I speak of, it’s definitely not favorable to have so many people who don’t enjoy the design of it). As I love Homeworld, I would hate to see frustrating design flaws enter this game due to balancing in the wrong way, but I think they can be majorly avoided if certain guidelines are followed when considering each balance change.
Feel free to dispute these guidelines, and if you’d like to have any additional information about why I’ve put a guideline here, I’ll certainly be willing to answer. If you think anything is missing, please state it and explain why you think your guideline should be added. Civil discussion is welcome.
1. Balance changes should not be based around eliminating entire strategies except for the rare cases in which a strategy is too frustrating to deal with for many people and cannot feasibly be made less frustrating. (note: I don’t believe any strategies currently used in Homeworld are frustrating enough for the exception, but developments in the metagame have the potential to reveal such strategies. HMF spam is an example of something that is frustrating to go against for many players, but balance changes may make it less frustrating while allowing HMFs to retain enough strength to be competitive)
2. Balance changes should, if possible, allow for a wide variety of strategies to be used so the preferred playstyles of individual players can be competitive. (note: in many cases, this can mean that buffs to weak strategies are often a preferred option to use to balance out stronger strategies rather than stronger strategies being made weaker. There are exceptions depending on the situation, however, such as a strategy that makes several strategies too difficult and that would still be competitive if it was weakened enough to make the several strategies competitive)
3. As many possible solutions to an issue should be considered before proceeding with one. At times, it might be good to implement more than one solution for diversity’s sake, and at times only one solution might be a preferable one. The best option should be chosen based upon the possible solutions.
4. When balancing, the question should always be asked: “Does this make the game more fun, (or at least not decrease the game’s fun)?” The overall fun for both the players combating the unit or strategy being changed and the players using the unit or strategy being changed should be considered. (note: this is a good guideline to follow for avoiding situations where strategies are made overly frustrating as well as for reducing the existing frustration of strategies)
5. Game stage should be considered when making balance changes. A unit or strategy that is stronger in the early game may have different strength in the mid or late game, so how a particular change affects the unit or strategy in all stages of the game should be considered.
6. Asymmetric balance should not be based upon overall race strength in the game stage. For example, an asymmetric matchup should not be balanced around one race being stronger in the early game while the other is stronger in the lategame. (note: the game stage-based asymmetric design is a recipe for overly frustrating strategies that the exception in guideline 1 addresses)
7. A change should be considered in the context of entire compositions, not purely by unit vs unit, as compositions are used in actual games. (note: there are times when a single unit might be massed. A single-unit composition is composed of a single unit, but should still be considered in the context of combating any multi- or single-unit compositions that might be used to combat it. In addition, what must also be considered is how that unit is used in other compositions besides the single-unit one)
8. When balancing, the difficulty in executing strategies involving the change should be considered. The competitiveness of strategies should at least roughly scale with the difficulty in executing them. (note: different types of difficulty can exist, such as difficulty in individual unit micro, difficulty in timing, and difficulty in positioning. The overall difficulty should be considered as well as these and other possible types of difficulty, as this can greatly relate to individual playstyles. This relates to making a wide variety of strategies competitive, as mentioned in guideline 2)
9. When balancing, costs should be considered in relation to versatility and options, as costs are what limit how many of what units can be built for a purpose. Costs include but aren’t necessarily limited to: resources, time taking up construction slots, and unit slots (example: a Bomber takes up a fighter slot that could be used by an Interceptor). (note: as an example of the application of this guideline, Bombers and Ion Frigates are both anti-frigate options; things that allow a race both these options while remaining balanced include the units taking up both unit slots and production slots that could otherwise be used for units that do well against anti-Bomber or anti-Ion Frigate units, and the fact that X amount of RUs could be spent all on Bombers, all on Ion Frigates, or on a mixture, but only for as much as the RUs and unit slots allow for)
10. When determining how much a unit or strategy should counter a different unit, unit type, or strategy, the versatility of the unit or strategy should always be kept in mind. For example, a unit that is amazing at countering frigates should not typically also be hard-countering another unit type when costs as mentioned in guideline 7 are also considered. Extremely versatile units should not generally hard-counter anything, but rather soft-counter some things and/or be on par with multiple things. (as an example, someone in the 2.1 Balance Issues thread suggested that Light Corvettes should be a softer counter to fighters but also be able to combat corvettes, while Multi-Gun Corvettes should be a hard counter to fighters but not do as well against corvettes)
11. A healthy mix of hard counters and soft counters should be in the game to allow many strategies to be competitive. Typically, there should be just enough hard counters to allow for comebacks and surprise strategies, with plenty of soft counters and on-par units and strategies to allow for a diversity of compositions and rewarding of good unit control, which in turn allows for a diversity of playstyles. (note: if a high number of hard counters are in the game, they should at least be spread across different unit types and work in different ways to still allow for a diversity of compositions and playstyle competitiveness – however, it is easier to maintain such diversity when there are fewer hard counters and more soft counters and on-par units and strategies)
12. How different areas of gameplay are affected should always be considered when making a change. Areas of gameplay include but aren’t limited to: compositional strategy, build order strategy, tactical/positional strategy, in-combat unit micro, and resourcing.