What Exactly is "Balanced"

[elitebeatk]

While looking at the new Heroscape:Legacy system, a thought came to my head. The 'scape community has always been into balance. many games fall into a routine of power creep. With each new release bringing newer, more powerful units into existince, you have to buy the new pack. While Heroscape had never fallen into that mindset, I have to ask the question: What is balance?
Which unit can we declare is the "Most Balanced Unit in the Game" in a system like this? I've always considered it to be Seargent Drake. He almost seems to be the figurehead of the game, and thus I have always felt the pricing system should be based around him. But is that true? Imagine how different the game would be if every unit was based around the KMA's point cost. Or Runa's, for that matter.
But that leads us into another one of my theories. In my small, insignifigant mind, there are two types of bad units.

The Overcosted Units
These are figures that were just priced wrong. Nothing more to really say. Taelord is a perfect example here.

The High Variance Units
This is where it gets tricky. These units are priced about right, but involve too much luck. You have to price them on the fact they can single-handedly destroy your opponent's army. Most of the time, though, they won't. Runa, Sudema, and Dund go in this category.

What do you think?

[Devil's Advocate]

I think the Microcorp Agents are maybe the most Balanced

[CornPuff]

I'll accept that as a 'B' unit in the power rankings at 100 points (about the middle of the spectrum) the Microcorp are among the most balanced.

I think that James Murphy might be even 'more balanced' because the Microcorp have a dependence on water. That puts them a little in the "High Variance" category since there are some maps with high water they might dominate on. Its just another thing cartographers have to keep in mind.

There is another type of imbalanced unit which is the undercosted unit. Raelin is the most undercosted unit, and because of that she has defined the metagame. This isn't necessarily bad though. By costing Raelin low at 80 pts, she is guaranteed to be in a lot of armies. This is good because Raelin is a lot of fun to play with and play against.

By 'imbalancing' the game, designers encourage certain types of play which can make the game more fun. They can also discourage certain units such as Runa or the Obsidian Guard whose high variance could ruin tournament play if they were more prevalent. The high variance units that have a low power ranking are fairly balanced, because if they were A units it would imbalance the game.

Also the balance shifts in different scenarios. I'm assuming you are talking about 500 point games on BoV maps. If you talk 200 point games or 1000 point games the balance changes again. Heck, even if people played 400 point games instead of 500 the balance shifts significantly.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by CornPuff

I'll accept that as a 'B' unit in the power rankings at 100 points (about the middle of the spectrum) the Microcorp are among the most balanced.

I think that James Murphy might be even 'more balanced' because the Microcorp have a dependence on water. That puts them a little in the "High Variance" category since there are some maps with high water they might dominate on. Its just another thing cartographers have to keep in mind.

There is another type of imbalanced unit which is the undercosted unit. Raelin is the most undercosted unit, and because of that she has defined the metagame. This isn't necessarily bad though. By costing Raelin low at 80 pts, she is guaranteed to be in a lot of armies. This is good because Raelin is a lot of fun to play with and play against.

By 'imbalancing' the game, designers encourage certain types of play which can make the game more fun. They can also discourage certain units such as Runa or the Obsidian Guard whose high variance could ruin tournament play if they were more prevalent. The high variance units that have a low power ranking are fairly balanced, because if they were A units it would imbalance the game.

Also the balance shifts in different scenarios. I'm assuming you are talking about 500 point games on BoV maps. If you talk 200 point games or 1000 point games the balance changes again. Heck, even if people played 400 point games instead of 500 the balance shifts significantly.

I never think of units as balanced. I generally think of balance as it relates to armies.

http://www.heroscapers.com/community...68&postcount=8

[lefton4ya]

I like the idea of an evolutionary system to fix broken units. As I said, it may take a year of competitive play before it is realized that a unit is overpowered or underpowered. I hope some tournaments can start using the Legacy system to see its affect with the greatest players. I think changing points is a lot easier than what the CUC and others are doing and I can see that in about 10 or more years the system will evolve to a point to make all the 217 currently released units relatively equal to each other to the point where everyone is just as likely to bring any unit as another meaning THERE IS NO METAGAME - the definition of total balance.

[dok]

A high variance unit is not necessarily a bad unit. Braxas and the Fen Hydra are both high variance units, and they are both "A" units.

I'll throw the Mohican River Tribe out as a card that's pretty close to my Platonic ideal of "balanced".

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by lefton4ya

I like the idea of an evolutionary system to fix broken units. As I said, it may take a year of competitive play before it is realized that a unit is overpowered or underpowered. I hope some tournaments can start using the Legacy system to see its affect with the greatest players. I think changing points is a lot easier than what the CUC and others are doing and I can see that in about 10 or more years the system will evolve to a point to make all the 217 currently released units relatively equal to each other to the point where everyone is just as likely to bring any unit as another meaning THERE IS NO METAGAME - the definition of total balance.

I don't think your "total balance" can be achieved, but it is a worthy goal. Although there is no unit that would not be viable if priced properly (Dund at 50 points anyone? ), making the relative prices, between and among all the units in the game, make sense is much more difficult (see the issue of Bonding squads and heroes, above). What can be achieved is a situation where, if you have a unit that you've been dying to play, you can be sure that including it in your army will not require you to play "casually." In the broadest sense, if you want to play "bad" units, they will be cheap enough to make up for their "badness" in numbers, just as, to play "good" units, you must pay!

[winonavampire]

Originally Posted by elitebeatk

While looking at the new Heroscape:Legacy system, a thought came to my head. The 'scape community has always been into balance. many games fall into a routine of power creep. With each new release bringing newer, more powerful units into existince, you have to buy the new pack. While Heroscape had never fallen into that mindset, I have to ask the question: What is balance?
Which unit can we declare is the "Most Balanced Unit in the Game" in a system like this? I've always considered it to be Seargent Drake. He almost seems to be the figurehead of the game, and thus I have always felt the pricing system should be based around him. But is that true? Imagine how different the game would be if every unit was based around the KMA's point cost. Or Runa's, for that matter.
But that leads us into another one of my theories. In my small, insignifigant mind, there are two types of bad units.

The Overcosted Units
These are figures that were just priced wrong. Nothing more to really say. Taelord is a perfect example here.

The High Variance Units
This is where it gets tricky. These units are priced about right, but involve too much luck. You have to price them on the fact they can single-handedly destroy your opponent's army. Most of the time, though, they won't. Runa, Sudema, and Dund go in this category.

What do you think?

I really don't want to derail this into a "Taelord Costs too Much" thread, but I really have to argue against him costing too much.

The problem with Taelord costing "too much" is the same problem with Raelin costing "too little".

If Taelord was 80 points, he would be in every army and people would be complaining about him being too cheap.

The cost of Taelord is not on an individual basis for his unit, but what he can do for an army.

Taelord will never personally kill 180 points worth of figures. However, every Taelord boosted Sniper, Viper, Stinger etc has to give some of it's points earning to Taelord.

Look at this Army:

Taelord: 180
Stingers x2 120
Omnicrom Snipers 100
500 Points

If you put one OM on Taelord to move him into position and then every other OM on the rest and proceed to gat everything down with your Taelord boosted attacks. Taelord will be responsible for every kill those squads made. Now, it is pretty impossible to determine what his specific value to the army kills were, but that is why it is easy to throw your arms up and say he costs too much.

His cost does not represent what *he* is worth, but to restrict what else can go with him and what he can do to the army as a whole.

*steps off soap box*

I honestly think the heroes at 100 +/- 20 tend to be the most balanced. Raelin is probably the exception there. But even if she were to increase in cost, I don't think it should be more then 20 points (and keeping her in the 100 +/- 20).

When you get much cheaper then 80, things have the potential to get too cheap (rats) and when you go over 120, things start getting into the too expensive/risky to invest in. Charros is a good example. He is a really good, powerful unit, but you are investing alot. 220 points is alot of points to invest in one figure. If he goes down fast, you have lost a large chunk of your army.

[Rich10]

When I think balanced, I think of the "B" type army. My favorite army to play might be Blade Gruts/Grimnak/Ornak/Tornak or Arrow Gruts/Swogs/Krug/Mimring. With enough skill (and luck), it is possible to beat a top tier army. Playing with armies in the C's and worse, luck (and whatever skill I can muster) typically isn't enought for me to beat a top army.

[InfraredFog]

Because there is no vacuum for games like these, figures can't be completely balanced 100%. There was a good podcast on the Three Donkeys podcast (possibly this one http://www.threedonkeys.com/blog/archives/299) where they mention that many game designers try to come up with these "magical" spreadsheets that each figure/card/whatever has values assigned to different categories in order to reach some kind of euphoria of balance, but it just doesn't work, no one can do it.

One man's "never gunna play Taelord 'cause he costs too much" is another man's "this guy is awesome look how he boosts my ranged guys I love him!"

You can try to balance a game for competitive play, but then you are forgetting another large portion of your audience.

[CornPuff]

Originally Posted by dok

A high variance unit is not necessarily a bad unit. Braxas and the Fen Hydra are both high variance units, and they are both "A" units.

I don't see Braxas or the Fen Hydra as high variance. Every unit is at the mercy of your rolls, wether its a D20 or combat dice. They have earned their 'A' status by consistently performing well.

A high variance unit is a unit that usually performs poorly, but occasionally performs amazing. These units will make you lose a tournament because their expectation value is poor, but they can also eliminate a good player because of map or luck.

I'll name Deadeye Dan as the most high variance unit. Its a unit with low expectation value that a low skill player can use to eliminate a high skill player. Braxas is a lot more low variance because of the amount of D20s you throw, the lower numbers you have to roll, and the fact you cannot target huge figs.

Originally Posted by dok

I'll throw the Mohican River Tribe out as a card that's pretty close to my Platonic ideal of "balanced".

Mohicans are a good pick. Melee and range, average power per figure, yet fun to play.

Originally Posted by kolakoski

What can be achieved is a situation where, if you have a unit that you've been dying to play, you can be sure that including it in your army will not require you to play "casually."

... if your army is well designed around that unit.

Originally Posted by kolakoski

In the broadest sense, if you want to play "bad" units, they will be cheap enough to make up for their "badness" in numbers, just as, to play "good" units, you must pay!

Try playing with 5 squads of omnicron repulsors and 3 squads snipers . Spoiler: it's a terrible army. OM management means that no price change will ever change a specialty, low power units into Bread and Butter style units.

Originally Posted by lefton4ya

THERE IS NO METAGAME - the definition of total balance.

Even rock-paper-scissors has a metagame. Metagames are about knowing your opponents and what they are likely to bring to the table. Even in a perfectly balanced system, different groups and different people have biases that will create an interesting metagame.

[kolakoski]

Well met!

The laws of supply and demand, applied here, will ultimately give us the desired result, in a free market. Those of us who advocate for change, through an evolutionary pricing system, want all units to be priced such that, if you want to play your favorite unit, you are not forced to play "casually." As our collective knowledge of Heroscape expands (most often through individual achievement) and grows, it also changes, and the system we use to evaluate and draft units and armies must needs be able to change accordingly. At the moment, the market is not free. Supply and demand are not permitted to determine what units are fielded, with certain units being subsidized, and others taxed, unfairly, in a rigid, immutable system called Official Heroscape. If this were not so, Taelord, using Winona's example, would find his level. It would not be 80, as you are right that he would be in every army, nor would it be 180, as he is currently played hardlyat all. It would be somewhere in-between, where he would appear in roughly the same percentage of armies as any other unit. At a guess, I'd say his price would hover around 120-160 points(just looking it up . . . Legacy has him at 170 ; maybe Winona is on to something of which I am unaware ; it happens ). Anyways, I think you take my point, just as I take yours. I've addressed this issue at length in my last blog entry, below.

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/blog.php?b=1658