Game balancing is an important part of the (computer) game design process, in which designers adapt a game prototype so that the resulting gameplay is as entertaining as possible. In industry, the evaluation of a game is often based on costly playtests with human players. It suggests itself to automate this process using surrogate models for the prediction of gameplay and outcome. In this paper, the feasibility of automatic balancing using simulation- and deck-based objectives is investigated for the card game top trumps. Additionally, the necessity of a multi-objective approach is asserted by a comparison with the only known (single-objective) method. We apply a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to obtain decks that optimise objectives, e.g. win rate and average number of tricks, developed to express the fairness and the excitement of a game of top trumps. The results are compared with decks from published top trumps decks using simulation-based objectives. The possibility to generate decks better or at least as good as decks from published top trumps decks in terms of these objectives is demonstrated. Our results indicate that automatic balancing with the presented approach is feasible even for more complex games such as real-time strategy games.
Game balancing is the fine-tuning phase in which a functioning game is adjusted to be deep, fair, and interesting. Balancing is difficult and time-consuming, as designers must repeatedly tweak parameters and run lengthy playtests to evaluate the effects of these changes. Only recently has computer science played a role in balancing, through quantitative balance analysis. Such methods take two forms: analytics for repositories of real gameplay, and the study of simulated players. In this work I rectify a deficiency of prior work: largely ignoring the players themselves. I argue that variety among players is the main source of depth in many games, and that analysis should be contextualized by the behavioral properties of players. Concretely, I present a formalization of diverse forms of game balance. This formulation, called 'restricted play', reveals the connection between balancing concerns, by effectively reducing them to the fairness of games with restricted players. Using restricted play as a foundation, I contribute four novel methods of quantitative balance analysis. I first show how game balance be estimated without players, using simulated agents under algorithmic restrictions. I then present a set of guidelines for using domain-specific models to guide data exploration, with a case study of my design work on a major competitive video game. I extend my work on this game with novel data visualization techniques, which overcome limitations of existing work by decomposing data in terms of player skill. I finally present an advanced formulation of fairness in games—the first to take into account a game's metagame, or player community. These contributions are supported by a detailed exploration of common understandings of game balance, a survey of prior work in quantitative balance analysis, a discussion of the social benefit of this work, and a vision of future games that quantitative balance analysis might one day make possible.