JaggedAppliance wrote:Just something about the use of stats in directing balance work:
The popularity of factions does reflect the relative strength and the perceived relative strength of the factions to some degree but I don't think it is the only factor or even the most important factor. Making the aim of the balance process creating absolute parity of popularity and win rate between factions would be a huge mistake. As I said already, the strength of factions is not the only factor in popularity, so we would have to overcompensate in balance to achieve parity. I doubt anyone actually desires the scale of changes necessary to bring Aeon and especially Seraphim to the popularity of Cybran and UEF. This concept also tunnel visions on factional balance, which is a problem of FAF balance discussions generally imo. All balance changes will necessarily have some factional balance implication but it is not the only dimension to the changes.
To be clear, the stats are useful and we will use them to judge the factions and the feeling of the community but they can't be elevated above that to where they control our decisions.
Shrug, there's another side to this issue, though. *Why* do you want balance? It's not a goal in itself - you want balance so that gameplay experience is improved.
If all factions were well balanced, it's quite possible that one of them would be universally played because it's easier to use, looks cooler, or has some other benefits that cause popularity.
I'm saying that balance is only a means to an end. The overall goals are variety and fairness. Which means trying to reach a stage where all factions (and all strategies) are equally popular, and also equally likely to win, assuming opponents of equal skill. Due to the extra factors mentioned above (ease of use, aesthetics, etc) it's certainly possible that some of the factions receive a strength penalty due to some other benefit.
But that in itself could be a good thing (easy to use but somewhat weaker faction, hard to use but stronger faction, etc. Remember that winrates are being equalised too, so it's never too extreme.)
Think about it this way. Let's say there was Game A which was not well balanced, but had equal popularity and winrates at all levels of play, and Game B, which is perfectly balanced theoretically, but has big differences in popularity and success between factions. Which game would you say has the bigger problem that needs fixing?
D)
