Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.


A Radical Proposal to Solve the Class Balance Problem

Class balance is hard. Especially when you have to juggle arena concerns with those of constructed and, of course, constructed takes priority because it is the game mode that far more people play, generates the most revenue and the eSports scene is centered around. Recently we have seen a fair bit of effort from Blizzard to work towards class balance in other ways, with bans and 50% reductions and now then new 'micro adjustments' and you know what - it isn't great. I have just listened to ADWCTA and Merps rant for 45 minutes straight about how much they hate the new changes and how they are confusing and clunky for new and veteran players alike. And in two weeks the meta will reset and the whole process will have to start again.

 

So here is a radically different proposal - something way outside the box of anything that has been considered before I think. What if instead of micromanaging the card offering rates, you micromanage the prizes?

 

How it would work is like this. First off, get rid of all the current balance adjustments - all the banned cards, all the 50% offering, all the individual card micro adjustments etc. Then from Day 0, every class starts with a coefficient of 1. Every time someone chooses that class for an arena run, the coefficient drops by some very small amount and those of the other 8 classes all rise by 1/8 that amount (so the average of all coefficients always equals 1). Then at the end of each arena run the gold and dust rewards you receive are multiplied by the coefficient for that class. So if you would have received 100g but you are playing a 1.2 coefficient class, you would get 120g instead. The prize level would be completely transparent and up front, so when you picked your class it would show super-imposed over the character, something like:

 

Mage - 0.8x Prizes; Priest - 1.1x Prizes; Warrior - 1.7x Prizes

 

This sounds a bit wacky, but think about the benefits:

 

It requires little to no effort from Blizzard to maintain

Once the original code is written (which isn't really that complicated) no effort will be required from Blizzard to maintain the system - it is entirely self-regulating, even across expansions, rotations and other major meta shifts. This frees up time for other projects and gives them one less thing to worry about. While they will still need to think about arena balance when designing expansions, the penalty for getting things a bit wrong are significantly reduced.

 

It is fully transparent from the player's perspective

We won't have to remember which cards are banned, which cards have 50% offering rate and which are micro-adjusted to what level - everything you need to know is shown on the class select screen. This will help new/casual players and min-maxers alike make informed decisions.

 

It enforces class diversity

In the medium to long term, every class will be picked almost exactly evenly. Because if one class is ever picked more, its coefficient will drop to make it look more unattractive until parity is restored. Of course, when you get to higher win levels the better classes will still be seen more, but not to the extent they are now and at least the earlier games will be a good mix.

 

It encourages class specialisation and innovation

Everyone has their favourite class, or one they feel they are better with compared to other people and this will allow you to exploit your proficiency with a class into better rewards without feeling like you are gimping yourself. This in turn will encourage players to fully explore every class to try and find an edge. Right now there is little incentive to figure out how to squeak out an extra 0.5 wins on average with Warlock as it will still be worse than Paladin, Mage or Rogue so you will rarely pick it anyway. But if prizes for Warlock were double that of those other classes, it suddenly becomes very worthwhile.

 

It allows payers to choose different arena experiences

Do you really want a challenge? Or do you only have an hour or two to spare? Choose a worse class, and go for the big rewards! Really want to try for 12 wins, or going for the top 100? Choose a better class to give yourself the best chance. Want to do some kind of challenge that involves playing every class? Or maybe as a streamer, your audience want to see you play more different classes? Go ahead, you won't suffer for it.

 

Overall, while at first glance it sounds a bit crazy, but in the long term it is just like having 'easy mode' and 'hard mode'. And once players get out of the mindset that all classes are supposed to be equally good and into one that "classes are not balanced, but that's okay/part of the structure of the game" maybe it will lower the salt level a little bit.

 

Thoughts?


  • Iksar

    Posted 6 years, 10 months ago (Source)

    By "direction", do you mean the idea that cards should be adjusted, or that such adjustments should not be transparent (or as currently stands, actual misinformation from Blizz)? Blizz hedged on transparency by giving an opaque range... and then exceeded thier disclosed adjustment range by 400%.

    I think you missed the point of the rant entirely if you came away from it thinking I didn't like the "direction". Blizz just has to actually go in that direction, not just say they're doing it but then go somewhere else.

    Or maybe you're attributing Merps and Isher's thoughts to me too. Either way, I'm pretty sure I made as much if not more positive sentiments about the direction than negative ones. Assuming by direction you mean micro adjustments with correct (and preferred transparent) disclosure, and not what's currently happening (false, and opaque).

    The largest adjustments were around 9-10%. Most cards were completely unchanged, and the cards that were changed were normally in the 2-5% range.

    We were pretty modest this time around, and the win-rate results have also been modest (but positive).

    In terms of transparency, there is nothing to hide from a design perspective, but to specifically detail this change would mean listing 500 cards and their micro-adjustment rate. Also, because we're in more of an experimentation phase, those 500 values would likely be changed within weeks. I know there are some people who would disagree with me on this, but I don't think seeing a list of 100's of values that say 'X card now appears 1-8% less' is a list that gives someone any information they should action on.

  • Iksar

    Posted 6 years, 10 months ago (Source)

    Not trying to sound offensive, but I don't think it's up to you to decide whether players want or should act on these changes. Aren't people just entitled to know the rules of the game they're playing? Sure, lots of people probably won't care in the slightest, but that's not the point. All of this is so unnecessarily opaque.

    It's not offensive at all :). Ultimately we're just trying to do the thing that results in the most players having fun. Along with that comes experimentation with a variety of solutions that sometimes met with positivity and sometimes met with displeasure. Both of which exist in most design decisions (and in this thread for that matter). As we've said in the past, this is a long-term issue to address rather than something that we're trying to meet with a quick fix and abandon. Any feedback is useful whether it be positive or extremely negative. We try and absorb all it, from hardcore sources (like this one) and less engaged sources, then try and come up with the solution that works best for everyone.

  • Iksar

    Posted 6 years, 10 months ago (Source)

    9-10% is not 1-5%, which is what's in the patch notes. It's double the max disclosed.

    If I submitted something at work with 2x the disclosed change... I'd probably get sat down and a nice lengthy talk about professionalism.

    Especially bad because Team 5's pitch to the community on this was "We're not going to tell you exactly what the variance is, just trust us that it'll be appropriate and in the 1-5 range".

    Sloppy work is sloppy work. 1-2% may not need much disclosure, 3-5% is impactful enough that a decent % of the hardcore crowd would care, but 10% on a few similar cards is actually gamechanging on a gameplay strategy level (not just in draft), and I'd wager most hardcore Arena players would care.

    If you're building your system on trust, messing up the very limited disclosure you provide (also missed Faceless Summoner from exclusion list AND didn't mention the 50% offering rate multiplier on neutral classic cards)... it's pretty bad for Trust.

    Just because we can't do much about it doesn't mean Team 5's not screwing this up in a serious way. I don't think you guys realize how bad all of this actually makes you look to the hardcore community.

    My above post was a little unclear, I editing some of the wording. Based on all the changes we made, including the numbers behind rarity distribution and set distribution, some cards had changes from 8.2 --> 8.4 in the 10% range. The secondary layered adjustment outlined in the end of the arena post in the patch notes was almost always 2-5%. There are of course exceptions, though... like Fledgling, Flamestrike, Quest Cards, Abyssal Enforcer, etc.

  • Iksar

    Posted 6 years, 10 months ago (Source)

    My above post was a little unclear, I editing some of the wording. Based on all the changes we made, including the numbers behind rarity distribution and set distribution, some cards had changes from 8.2 --> 8.4 in the 10% range. The secondary layered adjustment outlined in the end of the arena post in the patch notes was almost always 2-5%. There are of course exceptions, though... like Fledgling, Flamestrike, Quest Cards, Abyssal Enforcer, etc.

    Also the missed note of Faceless Summoner and 50% offering multiplier on Neutral Classics was an oversight on my part personally. Somewhere in some email I mixed Faceless Summoner with Void Crusher so that's my fault. We are going to get a place for general arena rules to live on our official forums so people don't have to go back and look at these patch notes.




Tweet
ODYN
0 Users Here