Balance Discussion Guidelines- PLEASE READ

Issues dealing with gameplay balance.
User avatar
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed 01 May, 2013 5:57 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Balance Discussion Guidelines- PLEASE READ

Postby Codex » Sat 03 Oct, 2015 12:44 pm

NOTE: I ask everyone, whether they're new to our community or hardened veterans, to read these Guidelines at least once, and to abide by them. That way there will be no excuse of "I didn't know that was a rule".

With the recent influx of newer community members (which is to our benefit), I have decided that it's finally time to post some Community Guidelines to make the Balance Discussion cleaner and avoid some of the awkward situations that have arisen, and I'm going to enforce them quite heavily since they're here for everyone to see and there can be no ambiguity.

In my mind the implementation of these guidelines makes more sense now than ever before. Before I left last time, the community had a relatively stable dynamic: people knew each other or who they were quite well, there was mutual respect and communication on and off the forums. Also, Caeltos graced us with his presence a bit more often. But the situation has changed, and the influx of newer posters has caused some friction, especially as some are newer to the game, or haven't been involved in many balance discussions before, or are more inspired by Fluff reasons than Game Design reasons.

With these Guidelines, I want the forums to be more efficient, cleaner and less aggressive. I also want the focal point of threads to be regularly addressed and newer community members made to feel welcome to contribute their ideas. If there are disagreements I want there to be clear communication to attempt to bring people onto the same page:

A. Posting an OP on the Balance Discussion:

1. It is important to draw a distinction when it comes to the issue you're facing. Is this an issue about play and strategy, or is it legitimately an issue of game design? If it's about play and strategy, post it in the Strategy forums, not least because people are more inclined to help you with an issue you're having if it's strategic. Only if you're virtually certain that it's a balance issue should you post it on this forum.

2. Please check that this issue isn't already being covered elsewhere on the forums. If the old thread is a month old or more, you may start a new thread on the matter.

3. Make your argument logical and based on facts and/or experiences. Facts are a good way to go, but also be sure that examples based off anecdotal experiences are accurate examples of compositions going up against compositions. There is little to be gained at looking at things in a vacuum.

Making your argument logical comprises of starting with the issues that you have, and showing how these issues make a unit too strong or too weak. Make comparisons, draw on your facts and experiences, and post those. This is useful because this forms the basis of a discussion, since there is little to talk about if someone just walks in and says "OMG Wraithguard are so OP!", to which the most natural responses of "No they're not" and "yes they are" or "I'm not sure" are equally unhelpful. It also makes your argument much harder to strawman (i.e. make look weaker than it actually is).

For example, a bad argument would be: "Raptors only have tac HP! They clearly suck because they just die to shit"

a) It's hard to counter such a vague argument directly, and there's very little logical progression as far as an argument goes;
b) There are no examples or facts given;
c) People are more likely to be dismissive of such a post on the Balance Discussion;
d) It doesn't take into account any compositions and looks at the issue in a vacuum.

An example of a good counterargument would be: "Raptors have inferior hp for a melee jump troop, but this is compensated by the fact they are often surrounded by other solid melee troops, including heretics and KCSM. Heretics and havocs both bring suppression to the table, so a well synergised Chaos army can push through and exploit scatter to both maximise Raptor impact and minimise their relative frailty."

a) Argument is very clear, clear logical progression;
b) Composition is accounted for, mentions scatter as a mechanic.

An example of a good balance issue: "GK Operatives do too much for their initial cost, giving them very high cost efficiency for a T1.5 unit. Their shotguns have a great firing/reload pattern, allowing them to exploit their superior mobility to kite and shoot, as well as chase down frail infantry even through retreat. Their damage from their shotguns do not have damage falloff, and do very high damage out of the gate. Further to this, they get the stun bomb out of the gate, giving them fantastic utility.

In one of my games, 1 Ops squad burst down my Scout from full hp before I could even react, and sniped them through retreat. No other squad in the game can do this so early on, Ops seem a bit strong."

Again, giving examples, showing a clear line of logical progression, which allows the counterarguments to be to the point.

4. One or two liner OPs will not be locked immediately, but the chances of a fruitful discussion are limited as the OP quality is low anyway. It will be left open for a while to see if anything good comes about, but these will be the first to be locked if nothing comes of it.

5. Fluff reasons have little to no influence in this realm: the only thing that matters is Game Design. I'm sure Caeltos would agree, and (without trying to be hostile) if these are the things that you value then Codex Edition mod is for you. Elite Mod is designed to be a Balance Mod, trying to improve on the work of Relic from a Game Design standpoint.

6. All other usual rules apply, no flaming or flamebait, no ad hominems.

B. Posting a reply on the Balance Discussion

Replies should be based on the same principles, after all the primary reason for having a Balance Discussion is to try to make progress on these discussions, for the benefit of the mod.

Rules specific to replying are:

1. Attack the argument, not the player. Ad hominems make the forums an unfriendly place and often people do not want to come back after posting if they get dogpiled on.

2. Don't just come in and say "+1" if the weight of opinion is already in your favour. This contributes to dogpiling and can be combined with attacks to make people feel belittled, stupid, or angry. On the other hand, coming in and adding your opinion to a controversial stance is encouraged and should follow the usual guidelines.

3. Don't strawman people's arguments. I will generally be the one to be picking up on situations where you're making less of someone's argument than you should do.

4. Don't backseat moderate. It's a pretty common rule, leave the moderating to the moderators.

5. Try to be nice. We all benefit from having a larger community in the long run.

6. Posting of funny one/two-liners is acceptable, so long as it's relevant. As long as the thread doesn't stray completely off topic, or devolve into a thread of Meme spam, we're allowed to have fun, even in the srsmode Balance Discussion forum.

7. All other usual rules apply.

I hope that these rules make the Balance Discussion forum more fruitful intellectually and the community a better place to be.

Righteousness does not make right
User avatar
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed 01 May, 2013 5:57 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: Balance Discussion Guidelines- PLEASE READ

Postby Codex » Sun 22 Jul, 2018 9:10 am


Read the guidelines for this forum. Make proper arguments and stop throwing around your opinion like it's fact.

Why, you say? Because people get annoyed at each other's unsubstantiated claims and threads start devolving into this us vs them mentality. Basically people start attacking each other rather than the argument because there's little to no argument to speak of.

Every time you make a post on this forum, ask yourself, am I making any claims? If so, justify them.

Give reasons.
Give the thread a chance to progress in a logical way.
And I know it may seem like the old rules no longer apply, but no, they really still do apply.

3 strikes and you're out.
I'll start handing out bans from threads.
Then I'll start handing out bans from forums.

It's really that simple.
Righteousness does not make right

Return to “Balance Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests