Modeling an RTS or how Blizzard was able to put together Starcraft 1 & 2?

Question

Not sure if this question is related to software development, but I hope someone can at least point me in the right direction(no, not that direction..) I am very curious as to how Blizzard achieve such a balance of strategic/tactic forces in their games? If you look at Starcraft 1 or now 2, each race have unique features that sort of counterpart other unique features of other races and all together create a pretty beautiful(to my mind at least) balance.

Is there some sort of area of mathematics that could help model these things? How do they do it basically?

Answer 1

I've no idea how Blizzard specifically did it - it might have just been through a lot of user testing.

However, the entire field of CS and statistics dedicated to these kinds of problems is simulation. Generally the idea is to construct a model of your system and then generate inputs according to some statistical distribution to try to understand the behaviour of that model. In the case of finding game balance, you would want to show that most sequences of game events led to some kind of equilibrium. This would probably involve some kind of stochastic modeling.

Answer 2

I don't have full answer but here is what I know. Initially, when game is technically ready the balance is not ideal. When they started first public beta there were holes in balance that they patched very fast. They let players (testers) play as is and captured statistics of % of wins per race and tuned the parameters according to it. When the beta was at the end ratio was almost ideal: 33%/33%/33%.

Answer 3

Linear algebra, maybe a little calculus, and a lot of testing.

There's no real mystery to this sort of thing, but people often just don't think about it in the rigorous terms you need to get a system that is fairly well-balanced.

Basically the designers know how quickly you can gather resources (both the best case and the average case), and they know how long it takes to build a unit, and they know roughly how powerful a unit is (eg. by reference to approximations such as damage per second). With this, you can ensure a unit's cost in resources makes sense. And from that, it's possible to compare resource gathering with unit cost to model the strength of a force growing over time. Similarly you can measure a force's capacity for damage over time, and compare the two. If there's a big disparity then they can tweak one or more of the variables to reduce it. Obviously there are many permutations of units but the interesting thing is that you only really need to understand the most powerful permutations - if a player picks a poor combination then it's ok if they lose. You don't want every approach to be equally good, as that would imply a boring game where your decisions are meaningless.

This is, of course, a simplification, but it helps get everything in roughly the right place and ensure that there are no units that are useless. Then testing can hammer down the rough edges and find most of the exploits that remain.

Answer 4

If you've tried SCII you've noticed that Blizzard records the relevant data for each game played on B.Net. They did the same in WC3, and presumably in SC1. With enough games stored, it is possible to get accurate results from statistical analysis. For example, the Protoss should win a third of all match-ups with similarly skilled opponents. If this is not the case, Blizzard can analyze the games where the Protoss won vs the games where they lost, and see what units made the difference. Then they can nerf those units (with a bit of in-house testing), and introduce the change at the next patch. Balancing is a difficult problem - a change that fixes problems in top-level games may break the balance in mid-level games.

Proper testing in a closed beta is impossible - you just can't accumulate enough data. This is why Blizzard do open betas. Even so the real test is the release of the game.