The Art of Weapon Balance

Weapon balancing is a very important element to the first person shooter genre, to the point where it can either make or break a game. Despite this, many games seem to fail in this category, Some shooters typically offer just a couple weapons that dominate the entire arsenal, while the rest fall under them in terms of overall effectiveness. This is a really bad thing because it promotes mindless gameplay. Instead of forcing players to constantly think and adapt to each situation as they come by, the match often comes down to picking up one strong weapon and then easily blasting everyone away with no significant strategy or effort required. Where's the intellect in that? It's just brainless. With a game such as this, there's pretty much no strategy at all when it comes to choosing the right gun for the job.

Weapon balance is important because it brings a tactical element to the table. With a balanced arsenal, each weapon has its own unique set of pros and cons, as well as a certain situation where it dominates. This encourages players to use every weapon in the sandbox, rather than the whole game being centered on just a few. This design philosophy makes for an experience in which players have to constantly be on there toes 24/7. You have to use your mind at all times while playing the game, because if you aren't using the right weapon at the right time, your enemy will have a significant advantage over you. Another important part of weapon balance is to give each weapon a decently sized skill gap. If a weapon doesn't require much skill, this means you don't really have to try all that hard to score some kills once you have this weapon in your hands. There shouldn't be an easy way out like that, you should ALWAYS have to use skill to succeed, no matter what.

This is in stark contrast to something like Halo, where one weapon is always obviously better than another. Don't get me wrong, I like Halo, but this is a still a pretty major flaw when it comes to weapon design. You don't really have to think all that hard when choosing a gun in this game. With Halo, it pretty much just comes down to Rockets > Sniper > Shotgun > BR > AR. While this may be somewhat different for noobs (BR/Sniper does require some precision aiming), in a decently competitive match with intermediate to high level players, this is pretty much how the game goes.

I would much rather play a game with more strategic complexity, where every weapon is just as good as another in their own specific situation. The only reasonable exceptions to these rules should be starter weapons. They need to be a little weak because the player should be encouraged to move around the map and collect more weapons instead of just playing passively the entire damn time. Of course, there also needs to be a fine balance. A player should at least be able to defend himself a little bit, so the game isn't just a cheap mess of spawn kills. However, something like Rocket Launcher vs Battle Rifle in Halo is way too huge of a gap. If you have a BR and you encounter someone else with Rockets, you're pretty much fucked and there's NOTHING you can do about it, and that's bad.

I know I keep bringing up Halo, but this one of the best examples I can find in terms of how mindless a game can be when the weapons aren't properly balanced. Some fanboys try to argue that "If a weapon isn't overpowered, no one will fight for it." Bullshit. In Quake 3 Arena, for instance, none of the weapons are overpowered yet you always see people fighting for them on the map. It happens all the damn time. This is because in a game like this, each weapon dominates in their own situation. If you don't go around collecting each of the weapons, when a certain situation arises you may be at a severe disadvantage, simply because you don't have the right gun for the job. Players are highly encouraged to get every weapon on the map so they'll be properly equipped for each situation that arises. This right here proves that something on the map doesn't have to be overpowered for players to fight over it. Something can be perfectly balanced AND highly valuable at the same exact time, so the aforementioned fanboy argument is completely invalid.

To summarize this entry: A balanced arsenal is good because it requires players to adapt to situations and continuously strategize. An unbalanced arsenal is bad because it encourages mindless blasting and makes for an overall lack of strategy when it comes to choosing the right gun for the job.

To end off, here is a list of what I find to be the basic rules of weapon balance:

1. Every weapon has to be significantly useful in a certain situation.
2. Every on-map weapon has to be overall equally effective as the others.
3. Every weapon must require a decent amount of skill.
4. You should at least be able to defend yourself with your starting weapon, until you find a better gun that is. It should be somewhat weaker than the others, but not too drastically.