We all want the game to be balanced, but not many people have taken the time to discuss what we mean by “balanced”. I think the arguments about the balance come mainly from a difference in its a lot, we prioritize every aspect of balance.
* Balancing rates of use *
We want the game to have ** variety **. Even if Royal Giant was balanced (I do not take a position here), nobody wanted to face him in every game.
The biggest problem with this is ** versatility **. Take a map like bats for example. In a Hog deck, it can be used to support thrust and allow the opponent to use additional resources to defend themselves. In a heavier deck, it can be used to speed up an otherwise slow cycle, and in a bait deck, they cause the Zap opponent to lose. In each of these cases, bats are not very unbalanced, but since they can be used in a variety of decks, they have a disproportionate rate of use. (Just a note: You can, however, argue that if it performs multiple roles in the * same * bridge, it is more powerful.)
In addition, some cards are ** easier / more fun to play **. Personally, I play a lot of decks that are not my best because they are just more fun. This could also be part of the reason why we see such a different use between classic and big challenges.
One last thing to note for measuring usage, especially on the scale is ** card levels and availability **. This usually means an under-representation of the legendary, who are often low-level and some people have not even unlocked. Even in tournaments and challenges, many people will use their ladder bridges, so things like level dependency and scarcity will skew rates of use.
Especially if we try to balance for an E-sport scene, watching the usage rates alone is not enough.
* Balance victory rates *
This is probably the most accepted way of dealing with balancing, but like usage rates, it has serious shortcomings.
First of all, there is the problem of having a varied and fun game. Of course, this could cause some cards to be spicy, but this would also lead to the misuse of other cards.
Also, what about the ** proficiency curves ** for each map? Who are we balancing? Granted, it is important to fully balance for the highest level of play, but this could also deter new players and ruin the game’s longevity.
Similarly, are ladder victory rates exactly the strength of a map? Consider this scenario: a YouTuber frees a guide on an average deck and exceeds it by one ton. Many players try this deck and, for lack of experience, lose most of their games. Then, they go to their main turntables, increasing the win rates for their normal cards. Suddenly, the victory rates for the cards in the YouTuber Bridge also fall.
Similar things happen with classic cards ** troll cards **. If people sometimes make fun of Giant Skeleton, for example, they will make his win rate look much smaller than it would be in the hands of the few players who use it well.
** Quests ** will also do the same thing. If people get a quest that makes them play cards they are not used to, then they will ruin their win rate and then increase the win rate of their usual deck. This means that the rates of winnings will be related to the rate of use of each card.
Finally, the ** meta ** can distort some cards. If P.E.K.K.A. is the meta, so the guards will have a higher victory rate than they should perhaps. A short and logical way to put this is that the win rate of a card is based in part on the rates of use of the cards that it counts (you can see it most often with spells).
Victory rates are, in my opinion, something good to look at, but they are not as foolproof of a measure as some people think.
* Balance the strength of cards *
In reality, most people try to balance the strength of each card.
This is the optimal way to balance a map, but it’s too difficult to define. “Force” is such an arbitrary term. Often it is a mixture of use and success rate, but it also strives to ignore the meta.
It also tries to include things such as synergies and ease of use. I’ve already talked about skill curves and versatility earlier, which are starting to cover these, so I’m not going to repeat myself here.
Honestly, if we want a good judge of what to do, I think Supercell should hire a team of professional players, give them a list of goals, and have them all work together to make a list of changes. balanced.
** I am curious to know what you think: **
* How can we help balance the E-Sport scene without alienating casual gamers who support the game?
* What is the reliability of victory and usage rates to measure the strength of a map?
* Should the offensive on defense be the goal of Supercell?
* Should maps be reworked to affect their skill curve?
* Does breaking the meta with the scale change a good idea, or should Supercell just wait for it to change and balance more theoretically?
* Is it acceptable that some cards are trash and others stronger?
* What cards do you disagree with the average person in terms of balancing?