Balancing the Unbalanced

1. Balancing the Unbalanced

2. The Challenge • RTS Level Design • Conventions • Even Teams • Symmetrical / Opposite Starting Positions • Equal Opportunities • Challenge: 2 vs. 3 RTS Level Design

3. The Result • 12 Warcraft III Maps • 4 Company of Heroes Maps • Our Candidate Maps: • Warcraft III • Invasion • Caravan / Tug of War (Short) • Company of Heroes • Defensive Forest • City

4. Invasion • Balancing concept • The third player on the 3p team is kept out of the fight at the beginning • Resources (all maps) • 3p team spread out (all maps)

5. Caravan / Tug of War (Short) • Balancing concept • Moved the target of units from bases to the caravan. • 2p team closer to caravan • Resources (all maps) • 3p team spread out (all maps)

6. Defensive Forest • Balancing concept • Easier to defend • 3p team spread out (all maps) • Resources (all maps)

7. City • Balancing concept • Limited access to city at first for 3p team • Resources (all maps) • 3p team spread out (all maps)

8. A Theory of Level Design Our approach Theory available Byrne, Co, Crawford Not genre agnostic

9. A Theory of Level Design Tools of analysis Descriptive GeneralOur analysis Hooks Balancing concept Objects of interest Iteration and Testing Strategies Level of conventions Balance Conclusion

10. A Theory of Level Design Conventions General Game specific How we used conventions Level design elements Focus

11. A Theory of Level Design Conventional maps Less workload Less testing All about player skill (You know it’s balanced) Meets player expectations Non-conventional maps Bigger workload More testing to establish if the map is balanced Difficult to assess if balance has been achieved (because of player skill) BUT can make for more interesting maps.

12. A Theory of Level Design Analysis tool Positive feedback Other elements Patterns or Heuristics Agnostic?

13. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Hypothesis: Tester would play this map as we played it i.e. go for the caravan Us: Played the map as it was intended (game mode) Seemed balanced Even fight Them: Played the map as the game was intended Destroyed bases rather than go for caravan Revealed imbalance Some complaints about ”this is not warcraft” Player expectations Subsequently the map is no longer considered a candidate as a balanced map.

14. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Hypothesis: Testers will play this map as we do, discovering new tactics and shortcuts as they get to know the map. Us: Played aggresively Used shortcuts Used a wide range of tactics Them: Didnt use shortcuts (never saw them) 2P team won on attrition once Used a wide range of tactics Map seems balanced all the way, but is essentially a 2vs2 fight for a while.

15. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Hypothesis Tester would play this map as we played it, see illustration. Us Divide the map in the middle Go for bridge destruction Lots of artillery Lots of pushing back and forth

16. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Hypothesis: Wrong. Testers: Split the town the ”other” way Lots of infantry Lots of pushing back and forth Shifting sides Overall the map lead to hectic intense fighting and is deemed balanced by testing results

17. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Initial movements by All

18. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Us – Big pushes Pushing past defensive lines No fighting for points

19. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Us – Big pushes Pushing past defensive lines No fighting for points

20. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Hypothesis: Testers will go for big pushes as well Wrong. Testers Lot of small back and forth fighting No pushing past defense Fighting for points

21. Playing styleHow testers played differently from us Showed us valuable lessons Balancing for best-tactic means balance for regular players Valuable to witness other ways of playing maps that we know well New ideas spawn from this

22. Improving the levels further Improve collision areas Lot of fighting in the blue zone Flat terrain. Should improve to enhance the battle – collision To allow 3P to get closer To allow 2P to get further out

23. Improving the levels further Tweak resources. Increase map size a little

24. Improving the levels further • WCIII maps are hard to improve further… • Caravan • Caravan speed • Access to bases • Distance • Spread out 3P team • Caravan path • Invasion • Defensive capabilities of the 2P team • Utilize middle area

25. Level lessons How our level design evolved through the project

26. First levels • Defense was important • Aggression in WCIII • The strength of a joint 3P team • (”dungeon” & ”easy defendable”) • Lessons • Player styles • Spreading out

27. Our influence • The early levels showed which playstyle the group favoured • Spectrum of play styles (attack in WCIII) • Cater to the rush players • Bring in rushers for testing • But balance has priority Rusher Basehugger

28. Joint forces • The ability to join forces is VERY important • Spread out 3P team • Make ”one” base for 2P team

29. The 2P team • The difference of 3vs2 in WCIII and CoH • 2P team advantages • Bridges • Asymetrical icecrown • Kill the monkey

30. Considerations • Spread out the 3P team • 2P needs many advantages • Defense is difficult • Consider all play styles

31. Testing & IterationIntroduction • Finding balance through quantifiable testing • Constraints • External vs. Internal testers • Comparable skill • Testing environment • Time!!

32. Testing & IterationWorkload • More than 300 manhours spent testing before deadline • Tests spread out between the 4 phases • Number of beta tests  Lack of (quantifiable) results

33. Testing & IterationFurther beta testing • The 4 candidate maps are tested even further • Caravan (WCIII)  4 Beta tests (14 tests total) • Invasion (WCIII)  3 Beta tests (10 tests total) • City (CoH)  4 Beta tests (8 tests total) • Forest (CoH)  2 beta tests (8 tests total)

34. Testing & IterationBeta results – WCIII Candidate Maps

35. Testing & IterationBeta results – CoH Candidate Maps

36. Testing & IterationConclusion • First indicator of balance • Very hard to achieve the initial criterias for entry and exit • Misinterpretation of questions asked • Subjective ratings • Most games are situational, which spawns irregularities • First time as test managers • Added level of detail for further tests

37. Editting Tools • Mutual interest in learning RTS editors • World Editor (WCIII) • User friendly, easy to learn • Supports • Level building • Unit modification • Game constants modification • Scripting – triggers

38. Editting Tools II • World Builder (CoH) • Technical, steeper learning curve • Purely a level builder • Attention to aesthetic detail and interactive environments (cover) • No method of scripting events built-in • Mod tools such as Corsix’s Mod Studio (http://www.corsix.org/cdms/) allows for unit modification • Movie-making support

39. Game Modes and Balance • Classic RTS • Annihilation • Resource management • Level/terrain considerations (chokepoints etc.) • Starting positions • WCIII – New methods to obtain balance • Caravan • Shift of focus to caravan and teamwork • Caravan speed • Caravan path length/shape • Co-op tactics • Kill the monkey • Emphasis on attack or defense • Position and abilities of NPC • Timer • Enhancement of defensive capabilities • CoH • Victory Points • Spread out battles becomes advantageous for 3P team • Time pressure

40. Choice of Games • Considerations • Starcraft • Dawn of War • Age of Empires III • Reasons • Similarity/differences • Editor availability • WCIII • Heroes, number of races, air units • CoH • Strategic points/resources system, doctrine system, interactive environments

41. The Future • Adjustable unit cap (Supreme Commander) • No assumptions about size of armies (3 large armies VS 2 large armies) • XP: resource/unit/special abilities boost (AoE3) • XP rate and rewards • Potential in further use of terrain • Interactive terrain • Advanced teamplay / different roles

42. THE END