ldy26098
/
BMAD-METHOD
mirror of https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
BMAD-METHOD/src/modules/bmgd/gametest/knowledge/balance-testing.md

5.5 KiB
Raw Blame History

Balance Testing for Games

Overview

Balance testing validates that your game's systems create fair, engaging, and appropriately challenging experiences. It covers difficulty, economy, progression, and competitive balance.

Types of Balance

Difficulty Balance

  • Is the game appropriately challenging?
  • Does difficulty progress smoothly?
  • Are difficulty spikes intentional?

Economy Balance

  • Is currency earned at the right rate?
  • Are prices fair for items/upgrades?
  • Can the economy be exploited?

Progression Balance

  • Does power growth feel satisfying?
  • Are unlocks paced well?
  • Is there meaningful choice in builds?

Competitive Balance

  • Are all options viable?
  • Is there a dominant strategy?
  • Do counters exist for strong options?

Balance Testing Methods

Spreadsheet Modeling

Before implementation, model systems mathematically:

  • DPS calculations
  • Time-to-kill analysis
  • Economy simulations
  • Progression curves

Automated Simulation

Run thousands of simulated games:

  • AI vs AI battles
  • Economy simulations
  • Progression modeling
  • Monte Carlo analysis

Telemetry Analysis

Gather data from real players:

  • Win rates by character/weapon/strategy
  • Currency flow analysis
  • Completion rates by level
  • Time to reach milestones

Expert Testing

High-skill players identify issues:

  • Exploits and degenerate strategies
  • Underpowered options
  • Skill ceiling concerns
  • Meta predictions

Key Balance Metrics

Combat Balance

Metric Target Red Flag
Win rate (symmetric) 50% <45% or >55%
Win rate (asymmetric) Varies by design Outliers by >10%
Time-to-kill Design dependent Too fast = no counterplay
Damage dealt distribution Even across options One option dominates

Economy Balance

Metric Target Red Flag
Currency earned/hour Design dependent Too fast = trivializes content
Item purchase rate Healthy distribution Nothing bought = bad prices
Currency on hand Healthy churn Hoarding = nothing worth buying
Premium currency Reasonable value Pay-to-win concerns

Progression Balance

Metric Target Red Flag
Time to max level Design dependent Too fast = no journey
Power growth curve Smooth, satisfying Flat periods = boring
Build diversity Multiple viable builds One "best" build
Content completion Healthy progression Walls or trivial skips

Balance Testing Process

1. Define Design Intent

  • What experience are you creating?
  • What should feel powerful?
  • What trade-offs should exist?

2. Model Before Building

  • Spreadsheet the math
  • Simulate outcomes
  • Identify potential issues

3. Test Incrementally

  • Test each system in isolation
  • Then test systems together
  • Then test at scale

4. Gather Data

  • Internal playtesting
  • Telemetry from beta
  • Expert feedback

5. Iterate

  • Adjust based on data
  • Re-test changes
  • Document rationale

Common Balance Issues

Power Creep

  • Symptom: New content is always stronger
  • Cause: Fear of releasing weak content
  • Fix: Sidegrades over upgrades, periodic rebalancing

Dominant Strategy

  • Symptom: One approach beats all others
  • Cause: Insufficient counters, math oversight
  • Fix: Add counters, nerf dominant option, buff alternatives

Feast or Famine

  • Symptom: Players either crush or get crushed
  • Cause: Snowball mechanics, high variance
  • Fix: Comeback mechanics, reduce variance

Analysis Paralysis

  • Symptom: Too many options, players can't choose
  • Cause: Over-complicated systems
  • Fix: Simplify, provide recommendations

Balance Tools

Spreadsheets

  • Model DPS, TTK, economy
  • Simulate progression
  • Compare options side-by-side

Simulation Frameworks

  • Monte Carlo for variance
  • AI bots for combat testing
  • Economy simulations

Telemetry Systems

  • Track player choices
  • Measure outcomes
  • A/B test changes

Visualization

  • Graphs of win rates over time
  • Heat maps of player deaths
  • Flow charts of progression

Balance Testing Checklist

Pre-Launch

  • Core systems modeled in spreadsheets
  • Internal playtesting complete
  • No obvious dominant strategies
  • Difficulty curve feels right
  • Economy tested for exploits
  • Progression pacing validated

Live Service

  • Telemetry tracking key metrics
  • Regular balance reviews scheduled
  • Player feedback channels monitored
  • Hotfix process for critical issues
  • Communication plan for changes

Communicating Balance Changes

Patch Notes Best Practices

  • Explain the "why" not just the "what"
  • Use concrete numbers when possible
  • Acknowledge player concerns
  • Set expectations for future changes

Example

**Sword of Valor - Damage reduced from 100 to 85**
Win rate for Sword users was 58%, indicating it was
overperforming. This brings it in line with other weapons
while maintaining its identity as a high-damage option.
We'll continue monitoring and adjust if needed.