Many people want Next patch make game more balance. what is balance in your understand?

in this game

all characters have different hp

all characters have different speed

all characters have good or bad match up ******this point

i think balance never happen bad match up have to much effect

on match up 7-3 if both have same exp one guy have 70% to win

i think 70 % too high lose from characters

yes will be balance if all characters have same effect

but in fact characters have bad match up effect different

characters have bad match up effect to low high tier

characters have bad match up effect to high low tier

my understand balance is 50/50 , no good no bad, no high tier or low tier ,win or lose come from u skill

in 2D game hard to call game balance

STOP!!! RIGHT THERE!!!

The biggest misunderstanding of game balance is that it’s a) easily controlled, and b) it’s about everybody being equal.

In reality, this is the worst case scenario. Technically SF1 is a perfectly balanced game since there’s only two characters to play and they’re exactly the same. But nobody ever praises this level of game balance. Why? It’s boring. Having everything be perfectly equal is boring. Even Chess, which is almost perfectly balanced, isn’t taking the world by storm. Why? It’s boring. It’s essentially the same matchup, a lot of the basic strategies have been fleshed out, and it all comes down to execution. Only top level players or geniuses are able to develop anything new or innovative nowadays.

So really, what you want is a tight compression of tiers in a competitive sense. You want to eliminate seemingly unwinnable matchups, while keeping each character’s design in mind, but make it fun enough to create variety in balance. This is what people like. People like the idea that certain characters and matchups have their strong points and weak points. It’s fun fighting a tough matchup, but you don’t want the matchup so imbalanced that it’s oppressive.

A 7-3 matchup isn’t really all that bad in the scheme of things. A 30% win ratio is enough to pull through in a 2/3 set, and with enough player skill, a 3/5 set. It gets problematic when matches start to be pegged at 8-2 or 9-1. Fortunately, these really don’t exist in SF4, and even if they do, player skill is the ultimate determination of how your match will go. Tiers are extremely subjective and based on known variables that can’t possibly exist in the real world. There is no such thing as two players with absolutely equal skill. At the end of the day, one dude will always put in more work than the other guy.

While Capcom does their best to balance out these matches, all they can do is try. Even the most minor change to a character can completely shift their tier positioning in drastic ways, which is why they tend to do extremely minor tweaks and changes to their characters. I don’t even think their goal is to make the game better balanced. From a business perspective, they just want to reinvigorate the game with changes in order to maintain playerbase interest and prolong it’s competitive lifespan, they really don’t give two shits to game balance, that’s just a nice side effect.

I disagree. The reason that SF1 is boring isn’t because Ryu and Ken are equally strong, but because they are literally the same character gameplay-wise. The boredom results from a lack of variety. That being said, I’d love if SF4 was balanced in the way you describe, as long as the characters remained as unique as they currently are. I realize this is very unlikely to achieve, however; we just gotta settle with “close enough”.

I mentioned ‘lack of variety’ being a cause of boredom as well later on in my post. I should’ve made it more prominent I suppose. Even if they were different in design, it’d be nearly impossible to have their matchup be 100% perfectly balanced due to the disparity in their strengths and weaknesses as part of their design. Whereas you can make this notion in the case of chess or SF1, because each side has access to the exact same options available to them.

The thing with ‘balance’ is that you’ll never ever achive it, but you should strive to attain it. You’ll never make everybody 100% with your design choices, but you do your best, and leave these minor disparities in matchups up to individual player skill, which is FAR more important than what it says on paper.

Ok I’m going to start by addressing my biggest issue with your post: Chess.

Chess IS taking the world by storm. It has been for 1600 years. There is over 500 MILLION people who play chess regularly around the world. The reason chess isn’t “popular” in the same way soccer or basketball IS popular isn’t because of the game being “boring” it is because the game simply isn’t a good spectator sport. It is generally somewhat slow paced even with a move clock, and the concepts being displayed while playing the game are intentionally not obvious because if what you or your opponent was attempting to do was obvious then it would be easy to counter it. Imagine how popular world poker tournaments would be if the game were played with open hands. The strategy is not obvious to the layman or even many experts and THAT is why it’s not a popular spectator sport.

Now as for the “balance” argument. Having two people with equal chance to win doesn’t inherently make something “balanced” from a gameplay perspective. Let’s use one of the oldest games in the world: Rock, Paper, Scissors, as an example. This is balanced not because both players can throw all 3 options but because each option specifically counters 1 option and loses to another.

If we change the rules of RPS so that it looks like this:

Rock - Beats Paper loses to scissors
Scissors - Beats Paper
Paper - loses to rock and loses to scissors.

Guess what? Now there is a distinct advantage to picking scissors every time. Both Rock and Paper lose to scissors. The best you can hope for in this scenario is a draw. Despite the fact both players have access to all 3 options and can use all 3 options at any time the game is not balanced. There needs to be risk vs reward and action vs counter for a game to be balanced.

Coin flips aren’t really balanced from a gameplay perspective either as there is no skill involved and it is strictly a “game of chance” instead of a game of skill which means that you can’t influence the outcome so your game play itself doesn’t matter.

i find more information about balanced and see this

good information about balanced

I called it, Fuerte and Seth are broken as fuck

White vs Black in Chess is at least a 7:3 matchup in favor of white thanks to being able to start first.

A fair assessment. Perhaps I went in a bit harsh on chess. The point I was trying to make is that game balance isn’t the sole determining factor that will make a game fun or enjoyable as it relates to the fighting game community. You cannot focus solely on game balance, since traditionally, balanced fighting games aren’t what make a big splash in the scene. ST, 3s, MVC2, CVS2, all great game series that have enjoyed a fairly healthy competitive lifespan during their peak, aren’t all considered the most balanced fighting games, but they contain a unique set of characteristics that keep people wanting to play the game and running tournaments for it.

RPS is a bit of a flawed example to use, since it’s essentially a really balanced game that contains only 10-0 matchups. It is, however, a base archetype for ‘balance through variety’ most commonly seen in very well-designed and balanced games, such as any of Blizzard’s RTS series. All three races have a unique set of traits, advantages, and disadvantages, especially in regards to certain stages in the game, but those games are a prime example of varietal balance in games with multiple characters or races. Do they hold slight advantage over other races? Yes, but they’re rarely so severe as to completely nullify the use of a race, and if it does, Blizzard is quite to adjust gameplay mechanics to get the balance back in order.

But I agree that there needs to be a risk v. reward element in the strategy of the matchups, especially in regards to counters to certain system of attacks.

I don’t think it’s that drastic. I thought white’s advantage is more like 55%?

in match up
zangief vs sagat only reward for sagat
itabashi zangief he never win big tournament he play only zangief and lose sagat all time
skill base him bad? win or lose should from player 100%
i think we need something more fair for player

5.5-4.5 at the worst. Some argue equal but statistics point to it being 5.5-4.5

It’s close enough to 5-5 and players switch sides.

I was going to write a long essay on character balance, but really what it boiled down to was this:

Casual fans would like to see their character win a major tournament.

Clearly the solution to achieving true balance is to instill a ban/pick system.

Each player enters a tournament with a single fixed main (can’t be banned), and before each match is played, both opponents each select 3 characters they wish to ban out from being used as counterpicks.

If you end up as a Zangief main matched against a Sagat main it’s onus on you to pick a neutral matchup against Sagat that remains unbanned.

Now we can watch everyone play characters they’re not good at :>

You’re seriously saying that people who purposely choose lower-tiered characters shouldn’t have to work so hard? Itabashi Zangief knows this. If his goal was to win, he’d pick whatever character would net him the most wins across the board. He knows Sagat is a bad matchup, but he fights it anyway. Props to him, but he’s making life tough on himself. The answer isn’t to equalize every bad matchup in the game.

Snakeeyez is a far better Zangief player than Itabashi imo, and he’s won a major tournament before and gotta 9th place at Evo. He’s fought hard matchups too on the road to get there. The game is already praised for having strong balance, as evident by multiple characters in top8 at any tournament in the US. The game is fine.

An interesting system, but it over-complicates things. The double-blind pick with no character limitations is far more practical. If a player decides to main only one character, he/she should be prepared to fight any and all matchups, especially the bad ones, knowing that people might counter-pick their character at the start.

all i know is… what is balance in my understand.

I suggest we make playing a set against ST Claw, 3S Yun, and CVS2 Cammy/Sagat/Blanka a prerequisite to complaining about balance in SF4. you don’t know what fair is.