The need for a Balance Team

[Lord-Knightmare]

Hello everyone,

The unprecedented balance changes introduced in version 1.18 have sparked quite a lot of controversy, and it's clear that unit balance remains a topic of significant interest and discussion. As most of you know, currently the people with official authority over unit stats are the MP Lead, the SP Lead and Project Manager, with the approval system for stat changes being generally handled by the two Leads in most cases.

Given the impact that unit balance decisions have on gameplay and the experience of players at all levels and in both single-player and multi-player, mainline and UMC, we believe it’s essential to have a more collaborative approach to balance adjustments moving forward rather than having unit balance in the hands of so few people.

To address this, we’d like to propose a new system: a 5-7 person (minimum 5, maximum 7) Balance Team. Here’s the outline:

• Team Composition:
  • The Balance Team will consist of either 5 or 7 members (having an odd-numbered team avoids ties).
  • The SP Lead and MP Lead will have guaranteed spots on this team as long as they remain a SP/MP Lead.
  • 3-5 additional members will be chosen from a list of qualified volunteers, including experienced balancers, 1v1 experts, and prominent add-on creators. This diversity of expertise will help bring a variety of perspectives to the table.
  • The team is chosen by the Project Manager out of volunteers, keeping in mind the candidates' qualifications and experience

• Decision-Making Process:
  • Decisions on unit balance would be made via majority voting within the 5-7 person team, replacing the current approval system for unit balance (SP Lead/MP Lead approval)
  • The Project Manager retains veto power over balance changes.
  • The balance team's jurisdiction is mainline unit stats for SP and MP, and MP map balance, creation and refinements.

Here is an unsorted list of people who have volunteered to be part of the team alongside Dalas and Hejnewar, alongside their self-descriptions, and results of an informal poll conducted in WMG for whom WMG members would support to be on the balance team:

• SkyEnd

  A veteran expert MP Player with specialization in 1v1 competitive matches and tournaments.
  Link to Ladder Profile
  https://wesnoth.gamingladder.info/profi ... ame=SkyEnd
  https://wesnoth.gamingladder.info/playe ... =&country=

  Code: Select all

       Support: 18
       Neutral: 5
       Oppose: 1
       

• Dashomew/Matto

  I play as nick gnidaoL/matto (and many more)
  
  Tournament player since 2016 viewtopic.php?t=44615
  
  Hosted 2v2 Tournament viewtopic.php?t=52344 - viewtopic.php?t=53322
  
  Top 4/3 holder in most Ladder Tournament from #1 to #5 viewtopic.php?t=53831 - viewtopic.php?t=54954
  
  2 russian Tournament winner, and partecipant in many more https://tour.wesnothlife.ru/info.php?id=1700
  
  Afterlife Rated player since 1.14
  
  Isar Rated player since 1.14 Rest in piece! and Isar Player by nature XD
  
  Actually got proposal from Henjewar for balanced team some years ago. (I say this but he could either screw me over and stay silent about it XD)
  
  Anyway i do actually only plan to join this if SkyEnd does too.

  Code: Select all

       Support: 13
       Neutral: 8
       Oppose: 2
       

• Bolyarich/igorbat

  I'm MP expert (tournaments org, tournaments prize winner, high rated ladder player). I'm also the one who started matchmaking on the bots via Isar Festival.
  I helped with balancing in WesnothLife, early- and late- GSE, AfterLife Rated.
  I did some researches on wesnoth based on replays, for example, heat map.
  ===
  All above is for competitive 1vs1 but for the different game modes.

  Code: Select all

       Support: 17
       Neutral: 7
       Oppose: 1
       

• dwarftough/catbegemot/Below

  Afterlife Rated maintainer, Community Manager, Project Council member

  Code: Select all

       Support: 19
       Neutral: 4
       Oppose: 1
       

• Lord-Knightmare

  I did War of Legends, SP dev (current maintainer of SotBE and in charge of its refinements, AH candidate refinements), long standing (and still active) UMC author (50+ addons), created the survival scenarios "Isle of Mists", "Realm of the Dark" (has a competitve mode BTW), and "Outbreak". Maintainer of WoL Map Pack (57 MP scenarios). Open to experiment on new competitive MP game modes such as CTF (demoed), domination (demoed), and Assault (shelved).

  Code: Select all

      Support: 16
      Neutral: 7
      Oppose: 2
      

• Mirion

  I have countless reviews of sp works, a more lore focused opinion on wesnoth, and I'm one of the few active players that have been around since the 00s that is also very accepting of new ideas. In addition to my own umc campaign (UtRB) and an era from days long past (EotF), I have taken part in multiple PR discussions where I'm more likely to use cross examination rather than just opinionated feel to produce values considered for stats.

  Code: Select all

      Support: 7
      Neutral: 6
      Oppose: 11
      

• Mechanical

  made a lot of SP content, some of which - Ashevieres Dogs - is getting ready to be added to the mainline in close cooperation with SP lead; running LoW rework for 1.20; made and maintains 5 MP campaigns that are regularly played on the server, judging by MP activity reports; thus has a lot of experience in non-competitive MP and SP content.

  Code: Select all

      Support: 12
      neutral: 7
      Oppose: 5
      

• Forest Dragon

  a veteran modder and playtester with a decade of game-related activity. Multiple successfully merged unit balance PRs, actively participated in balance discussions across forums and github in recent years. I have long-term experience of collaborating with other balancers. Co-Creator and balancer of Era of Magic, the most popular UMC era in the game, co-creator of Great Steppe Era (5th most popular), creator of SP, MP and hybrid add-ons for the game for the last 10 years. Balancer of Refumee Saurian Pack, and Harpies faction add-ons. I believe Wesnoth's balance should be handled with the understanding of the bigger picture and the effects on UMC and recognizing that wesnoth is a tightly-interconnected ecosystem.

  Code: Select all

      Support 17
      neutral: 5
      Oppose: 3
      

We believe that forming this Balance Team is a positive step forward, allowing Wesnoth’s game balance to evolve in a way that better fits the broader community’s needs and insights. A larger team prevents any one person from having a monopoly on unit balance, which should help alleviate the contention that has arisen around recent updates.

With voices from different areas of gameplay, we’ll have broader representation and insight into how balance changes affect all aspects of Wesnoth, from multiplayer 1v1s to the campaign experience.

Let’s work together to build a more balanced and enjoyable Wesnoth!

[ForestDragon]

I fully support the idea of a 7-person team. I believe there are enough qualified candidates for that, and this way the unit balance will no longer be restricted to any one person's vision for the game. Wesnoth's core unit balance affects every single part of the game, so it's reasonable to have multiple people involved who have an in-depth understanding of the effects of balance changes on different parts of the game.

[Tezereth]

I fully agree on having a 7-person team too.
I believe it is very important that all sort of vision contribute to balance. Changes affect multiplayer matches, single player content, and addons of all kind, which is important to take into account in my opinion. As said, having an uneven amount of peoples in the team allows to avoid ties, and having a number as big as 7 also reduce the odds of a certain vision being prioritised over others all the time.
Furthermore, we aren't lacking qualified candidates for that.

[Lexa04]

I fully support the creation of this Balance Team, because, imo, it's always better to have a group of experienced people to deal with a particular balance issue rather than one single person.
Tbh, wesnoth's balance is too complicated for me to understand, but from the description of the approved candidates, it looks like they understand it

[Roge_Tebnelok]

7-person team can make more weighted decisions than 5-person team, because campaigns, both SP and MP, and competitive, would be represented not by one but by two people with similar experience, but not always similar opinions, aside from SP and MP leads. This will help preventing changes in balance that bring improvements in one part of the game at the cost of greater disimprovements in the other part of the game better and allow issues to be solved in smoother manner.

[Mirion147]

However many people are decided, I think it should be a balance of mp and sp focused, with members that are diverse. Having multiple members from a specific project or group will make it that much harder to reach an agreement and focus on what is best for wesnoth vs defending a friend.

[Mechanical]

I like the idea of a team of 5-7 people. Almost every candidate has their own independent project or significant achievements in MP, there should be no problems with representativeness.

[KameRamen]

Hello, I completely agree with this proposal (7-person balance team) as well, and I think it is important that any changes involving Wesnoth as whole be discussed and decided from the planning stage. It is not natural that only one or two developers should be given that authority in the first place. I am not that familiar with balance changes, but I hope that at least the development will not be something that is unenjoyable.

[inferno8]

I am in full support of establishing a Balance Team composed of 7 experienced members. This decision will ensure that the team is able to handle various perspectives and vision regarding game balance. In my opinion, the 7-person team will effectively cover the multiplayer, single-player, and add-on aspects.

With a larger team in place, there will be a reduced possibility of a particular vision dominating the others constantly. Additionally, the increased number of team members will also help prevent ties in decisions. This will allow issues to be resolved smoothly and help avoid changes in balance that might lead to improvements in one part of the game at the cost of significant drawbacks in another.

It is worth emphasizing that a substantial number, possibly all, of the listed candidates possess an extensive history within the community. Over the years, they have taken part in numerous significant events and projects that have contributed to the development and sustenance of our community, despite its recent decline. These candidates, driven by their commitment to enhance the game, have expressed their willingness to dedicate their skills and expertise in the pursuit of this common goal. Such an opportunity might not arise again in the foreseeable future.

[Dalas120]

I support this proposal. Skillsets and personalities will need to be carefully chosen, but I believe that a Balance Team is the best way to ensure that both the MP and SP community are properly represented.

We'll should make sure to establish clear guidelines and workflow. I suggest each PR need a plurality of votes to pass, along with a mandatory github mention and a minimum 1 week voting/waiting time.

One additional point: It may be worth considering establishing sub-teams or separate "jurisdictions" for different team members based on their specialties. For example, I have no business commenting on MP map design - my vote should frankly not be allowed to influence that. Similarly, a 1v1 expert probably has little useful input on the stats of the Caribe or Ancient Lich.

[ForestDragon]

One additional point: It may be worth considering establishing sub-teams or separate "jurisdictions" for different team members based on their specialties. For example, I have no business commenting on MP map design - my vote should frankly not be allowed to influence that. Similarly, a 1v1 expert probably has little useful input on the stats of the Caribe or Ancient Lich.

I think for a lot of aspects (unit balance in particular) it's outright impossible to make a clean divide between some areas, especially when it comes to unit stats. Core unit stats affect all aspects of the game. And even for more exotic and rare units, they are usually balanced with similar principles and within similar restrictions as default era units. For example, sure, a Caribe won't show up in pvp, sure, but if it for example dealt 12-4 damage while being a level 1 unit, that would violate some norms that are shared across all wesnoth units, SP, MP, campaign, pvp and custom mode alike. To understand 1v1 unit balance, a person usually needs to have a good grasp of the overall unit balance concepts anyway, so 1v1 balancers' skillset is usually still useful even in such discussions.

[Dalas120]

And even for more exotic and rare units, they are usually balanced with similar principles and within similar restrictions as default era units. For example, sure, a Caribe won't show up in pvp, sure, but if it for example dealt 12-4 damage while being a level 1 unit, that would violate some norms that are shared across all wesnoth units

I'd hope that anyone on the balance team could understand the basics of Wesnoth balance - otherwise they really shouldn't be on the team to begin with.

Rather, I think the Elvish Rider discussion is a good example of the divide between SP and MP. In SP, hitpoints efficiency and ability to defend at multiple ranges are very important - at this, the Rider is better than the Dragoon and Goblin Knight. But in MP, it's more important to concentrate firepower and take individual villages, a task for which the Rider is clearly inferior.

To the best of my knowledge, MP balance is about very specific interactions between very well-defined matchups. In contrast, SP "balance" is more about creating an engaging experience that encourages using a variety of units and strategies, while not seriously imbalancing existing content - in my opinion at least.

And separate from MP experts voting on SP, I think a much bigger issue is SP experts voting on MP. What happens if we have a 3-3 vote split in favor/against of a certain MP map change and I'm called upon to break the tie? What happens if it's 2-2 and all the MP experts start trying to convince the SP experts to vote in their side's favor?

I think for a lot of aspects (unit balance in particular) it's outright impossible to make a clean divide between some areas, especially when it comes to unit stats. Core unit stats affect all aspects of the game.

I agree. I'd divide up tasks along the same lines of a proposal I saw from igorbat:
- MP maps: must be a 1v1/2v2 expert to vote
- default 1v1 recruits gold costs, hitpoints, and damage: must be a 1v1/2v2 expert to vote
- default 1v1 recruits other stats, 1v1 units' L2 advancements, and leaders: all experts can vote
- other units: must be a scenario/survival/campaign expert to vote

Unless we're also trying to make Era of Heroes balanced, in which case we'd want 1v1/2v2 experts to vote on EoH units as well (and we'd probably want to get a EoH expert on the balance team).

[Roge_Tebnelok]

One additional point: It may be worth considering establishing sub-teams or separate "jurisdictions" for different team members based on their specialties. For example, I have no business commenting on MP map design - my vote should frankly not be allowed to influence that. Similarly, a 1v1 expert probably has little useful input on the stats of the Caribe or Ancient Lich.

I think for a lot of aspects (unit balance in particular) it's outright impossible to make a clean divide between some areas, especially when it comes to unit stats. Core unit stats affect all aspects of the game. And even for more exotic and rare units, they are usually balanced with similar principles and within similar restrictions as default era units. For example, sure, a Caribe won't show up in pvp, sure, but if it for example dealt 12-4 damage while being a level 1 unit, that would violate some norms that are shared across all wesnoth units, SP, MP, campaign, pvp and custom mode alike. To understand 1v1 unit balance, a person usually needs to have a good grasp of the overall unit balance concepts anyway, so 1v1 balancers' skillset is usually still useful even in such discussions.

Most of candidates have experience in both campaigns and competitive, their focus is different but both parts of the game use the same elements. To answer Dalas' example, maps in SP are designed according to the same rules as MP ones, and pvp mains have a good understanding of individual units, so they are as useful at determining stats which don't appear in their regular field as any other veteran UMC creator. On the other hand, jurisdiction would limit the input of members with different specialities, which isn't much better than the system we have now. Separating the team defeats it's original purpose.

[Dalas120]

maps in SP are designed according to the same rules as MP ones

I'm afraid this statement illustrates exactly why I'm concerned.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

And even for more exotic and rare units, they are usually balanced with similar principles and within similar restrictions as default era units. For example, sure, a Caribe won't show up in pvp, sure, but if it for example dealt 12-4 damage while being a level 1 unit, that would violate some norms that are shared across all wesnoth units.

I'd hope that anyone on the balance team could understand the basics of Wesnoth balance - otherwise they really shouldn't be on the team to begin with.

Rather, I think the Elvish Rider discussion is a good example of the divide between SP and MP. In SP, hitpoints efficiency and ability to defend at multiple ranges are very important - at this, the Rider is better than the Dragoon and Goblin Knight. But in MP, it's more important to concentrate firepower and take individual villages, a task for which the Rider is clearly inferior.

MP isn't restricted to quickmatches, in fact, every faction has the potential for a positional war and purposeful slowdown, which increases the scale of the battle to a more campaign like level. On the other hand, scenarios in campaigns can be short or on small map, and this impacts the unit usefulness significantly.

To the best of my knowledge, MP balance is about very specific interactions between very well-defined matchups. In contrast, SP "balance" is more about creating an engaging experience that encourages using a variety of units and strategies - in my opinion at least.

The difference is mostly that MP should be made in a way that all default factions have equal chances of winning, in SP there can be battles that are biased towards one of the participants, but still completable by player while providing the most deserved satisfaction.

And separate from MP experts voting on SP, I think a much bigger issue is SP experts voting on MP. What happens if we have a 3-3 vote split in favor/against of a certain MP map change and I'm called upon to break the tie? What happens if it's 2-2 and all the MP experts start trying to convince the SP experts to vote in their side's favor?

Most current candidates qualify for and can understand both SP and MP, and I can't really imagine you not voting for SP, but in case a member is indecisive, they can ask the wider community to try to break the tie after testing both options and providing their input, that could also help with raising potential change for team in case someone decides to leave.

I think for a lot of aspects (unit balance in particular) it's outright impossible to make a clean divide between some areas, especially when it comes to unit stats. Core unit stats affect all aspects of the game.

I agree. I'd divide up tasks along the same lines of a proposal I saw from igorbat some time ago:
- MP maps: must be a 1v1/2v2 expert to vote
- default 1v1 recruits gold costs, hitpoints, and damage: must be a 1v1/2v2 expert to vote
- default 1v1 recruits other stats, 1v1 units' L2 advancements, and leaders: all experts can vote
- other units: must be a scenario/survival/campaign expert to vote

Unless we're also trying to make Era of Heroes balanced, in which case we'd want 1v1/2v2 experts to vote on EoH units as well (and we'd probably want to get a EoH expert on the balance team).

They all should provide their useful input if they have something to say about the matter, including voting, at least when it comes to unit stats, which affects the whole game.

maps in SP are designed according to the same rules as MP ones

I'm afraid this statement illustrates exactly why I'm concerned.

Let me explain it in more detail. MP maps should provide fairly equal amount of beneficial and detrimental terrain on fairly equal distance and symmetrical placement so no faction or player has advantage over other on that specific map, unless it's the point of the map. In SP not all maps have to follow that rule, but the methods of balancing it aren't different from those used in pvp, if the scenario is biased towards/against someone there will be more types that are good/bad for that someone's units, and there is always some supposed way to play, like taking villages near the castles or moving out quickly, but it should leave some space for other actions and strategies. The primary difference between campaign and competitive map layout is their purpose, which dictates how it looks like and what works better on it and what works worse.