Balance kills fun

That's basically how Valve handles Dota balance.

>gun 1 = infinite ammo but zero firing speed
>gun 2 = fires all bullets at once but zero ammo capacity

Wow good things it's balanced otherwise it would be fun

No it's not. Powercreep sucks. Source: Diablo III.
To fix weak items they buff them until they're as overpowered as everything else. But some items will always be more overpowered than others, it's impossible to do otherwise, perfect balance is impossible.
So now you have all items overpowered, but some are even more overpowered that others, so you buff everything "weak" again, and now another item is overpowered, so you buff everything ""weak"" again, now some other item overpowered, and again, and again, until you end up with retarded bullshit like
>deals 75,000% of weapon damage
>instantly dealing 10,000 seconds worth of remaining damage
>every Ancient item you have equipped increases your damage dealt by 750%

If you make a game where everything has the exact same properties, strengths and weaknesses etc that can get boring. Games like that usually introduce something ridiculous, random or anything to put equal characters on an uneven footing. If everyone is the same at all times then that limits what strategies you need or could be effective.

Giving characters different but equal tools is hard, because a game's mechanics will end up favouring something a bit more. If you nerf these tools to make it more fair you often end up making characters with much less going on. Which is why you often see a cycle of NO THIS CHARACTER BROKE to WHY DID YOU TAKE EVERYTHING FUN ABOUT THIS CHARACTER AWAY! Same can be applied to a gun or any weapon. Look at any game people jerk off as the height of competition and you will usually find an unbalanced mess. Some character will be top tier, this gun will be way better than the rest or spawning here gives you an advantage. Cause characters/weapons/whatever being distinct, having strong aspects and the depth to get more out of that makes for a more interesting game.

to be fair Overwatch was shit from the start, it never really had a chance

That's true though. The hipster opinion would be that there needs to be "parity" in everything.

Look at Ragnarok Online. The different classes are completely imbalanced when compared individually. They complement each other very well though.
Balancing them out would ruin them.

That's because the very first skill you get at the very start of Diablo 3 already has 300% weapon damage instead of something reasonable like 120%.
They thought what people liked in Diablo 2 was numbers going up so they started with big numbers like the retards they were.

I don't understand people like you.

That's an issue of lacking depth though. If something is really good it should usually require more skill to use, while if something is weaker you should usually have the ability to get more out of it if you play well. Possibly even be a counter to that stronger tool. Some strong and easy to use stuff is okay, but not weak and hard to get much out of.

Harder to apply to some genres but far from impossible.

It's true.
Nowadays devs always tone down things that seem broken even though they have a terrible grasp of how their game works.
They're always afraid because of backlash or players "getting bored with their game". And broken shit is fun and it should be an integral part of your game, or it will all end up feeling the same.
Great example: PoE.

There is absolutely a point where game balance limits player and developer expression and therefore kills fun. youtu.be/bsC8io4w1sY

?

everything kills fun for somebody
but it's your thing, make it unbalanced if you want
but you can't also then demand people buy your game if it turns out they want balance

But D3 is designed around powercreep
The whole point of the game is chasing exponentially growing numbers

Perform auto-fellatio.

"Rock is overpowered but paper is fine." - Paper

People mistake "balance" for "everyone is the same" in a lot of cases. "Balance" doesn't mean every single option performs the exact same action the same way, it means that all options have some chance to outplay others using actual skill, even if it's one-sided. If I made an FPS where there was one character called Big Fucker Fred who had a fifty barreled grenade launcher with infinite ammo and only one player could use him at a time in a 64 player lobby while everyone else was forced to play as Little Dick Daniel who only had a wet noodle, would that be fun? Of course not, not even for the Big Fucker Fred players.

I'd play that game.

A game that is expected to play in group has different balancing than a game that is expected to be 1v1. A team game is not supposed to balance each class/character so that they have an equal chance to beat everyone else, it's supposed to balance them so that you can have a big variety of balanced team compositions.

Yeah, but that only matters for what, fighting games? Literally irrelevant.

That’s a sick idea, there's an audience for that bizarre sort of game type but "Balance" has been put on such a high pedal-stall that fun little game like this wouldn't even be get off the ground, I loved playing Versus Saxton Hale servers on tf2 where 1 guy would 1 shot everyone in the server because I knew eventually my turn would come and I would be the one to fuck shit up.

But no one is calling for your example of unbalanced for standard modes in most games. Separate modes like that do exist however where you have 1 player with a powerful unit fighting off the normal players, you can make something that seems unbalanced into a fun thing. You took the example to the other extreme though of 1 character invalidates everyone else in every setting, rather than thinking about how a game with 1 really strong character can work out.

>"Balance" doesn't mean every single option performs the exact same action the same way, it means that all options have some chance to outplay others using actual skill
But what does some chance mean? That could mean a 5-5, 7-3 or a 8-2 match up where although you can win it is hard. Most games would qualify for that yet we wouldn't necessarily call them well balanced. And fixing that might not make the game better, you might end up creating a less fun meta where less things are viable even if it is overall more balanced. Lets say we buff Dicky Daniel to have a long range weapon with an amazing scope, better balanced but now the game might all be about camping when before you could do that or play more offensively using all these movement options etc.

That's why I don't play online games anymore. It's just infinite balancing, because people are whiners. not fun at all.

Based and singleplayerpilled

>Fighting games are the only 1v1 game genre

Holy zoomer

Do you not know what a question is?

People that say balance doesn't matter are retarded and never tried to play any game seriously. I can't believe the level of brainlet you have to be to ape this retarded thing. An unbalanced game can still be fun overall but if it were balanced it would be even better. And perfect 100% balance will always be impossible, but that doesn't mean you should not try your best.

OP vs OP > wet noodles vs wet noodle

1) that was worded as a rhetorical question, already giving the answer that it's irrelevant

2) the fact that you don't know any 1v1 games aside from fighting games means you are a zoomer

Because developers usually don't play their own games. They have no idea what is balanced and what isn't.

>e-celeb analysis video
Stay in kappa, please.

>CSGO
>All the guns are cookie cutter and the gameplay is barebones
>The game isn't fun and there isn't any variety anyway

>~5 guns that can ads
lol

Not the same user but that guy makes interesting videos with actual sources. My guess is that he has a background in psychology because he talks a lot about that.
We are not talking Dunkey tier opinion crap.

A stupid yet worryingly common one, that is increasing at a worrying rate. Balance doesn't ruin fun, poor balancing does.

op is a fucking faggot

I suppose I'll have to clarify that by poor balancing I mean balancing done poorly, both in regards to making things "fair" as well as "unfair" if it's at the expense of interesting gameplay mechanics and depth.