I completely, whole heartidly agree. I've been saying this for years.
I truly believe that "balancing" classes in a class based MMORPG is a myth... you can work like heck forever to try to attain it but something will always be unbalanced. Someone will always be unhappy and a class structure will always favor one load out or another.
Enough with the balancing...
I agree shae, balance is a bit of a loaded word wheat should be strived for is equaliy. What I mean is that classes should have equal value to a group dynamic in order to make each classs worth playing (otherwise whats the point.) As for PVP I have always been a fan of the rock/paper/scisssor form of balancing; where each class has a measured advantages/disadvantages over other classes. Then each class doesn't have to be perfectly balanced with each other they just have to be balanced amoung each other. 2 cents
As for balance issues it only becomes an issue when a game tries to be two things at once. When a game tries to balance for both PvE and PvP one or the other usually comes up short. A game should stick to it's primary focus and balance for that alone. If it's primary focus is PvE it should be balanced for PvE... PvP games should be balanced for PvP. It's when a game tries to do both that problems arise.
Bren
This is a very good point Bren.
IMHO SWG lost it's way when it tried to overshoot itself. I believe we lost the game SWG could have been because of the "balance monster"... Remember at the time... the big deal was Smedley saying: "It's just too hard to balance 32 professions".
Well big freaking duh!!! Of course it is... that's why you don't. They stopped focusing on what SWG was supposed to be and tried to be 2 different games and lost their way in the process.
I think to another degree EQ2 fell into the same trap, Ryzon also. I'm not saying that a game can't be very good at PVP and PVE but you need to have a priority and you need to work with your player base to get them to understand what you're about.
I agree shae, balance is a bit of a loaded word wheat should be strived for is equaliy. What I mean is that classes should have equal value to a group dynamic in order to make each classs worth playing (otherwise whats the point.) As for PVP I have always been a fan of the rock/paper/scisssor form of balancing; where each class has a measured advantages/disadvantages over other classes. Then each class doesn't have to be perfectly balanced with each other they just have to be balanced amoung each other. 2 cents
^^ This ^^
Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock
Warriors-Priests-Mages-Hunters-Rogues
Warriors can easily take out cloth mages and those wily hunters.
Priests should be able to take out Warriors and Rogues.
Mages should be able to combat priests and hunters in a fight for wiliness.
Hunters should be able to hunt down Priests and Rogues with their knowledge.
Rogues are capable of taking out Warriors and Mages with ease.
Going beyond the traditional Rock-Paper-Scissors you NOT only remove the triumverate (thereby reducing the overall number of ties in the long run). Using a 5 tiered system, you actually increase the overall number of possible classes (say for example, you create an offensive priest and a defensive one). That's not even beginning to take into account the possibility of even THEN further specializing with talents and feats.
I believe that this method would actually increase the overall usefulness of all classes as each class is good at what they're good at. I'm tired of these masters of all. That's not the way the world works. You typically are good at 1-2 things and then that skill diverges the further you get from your specialties. This should hold true in games.
I completely, whole heartidly agree. I've been saying this for years.
I truly believe that "balancing" classes in a class based MMORPG is a myth... you can work like heck forever to try to attain it but something will always be unbalanced. Someone will always be unhappy and a class structure will always favor one load out or another.
Enough with the balancing...
I agree shae, balance is a bit of a loaded word wheat should be strived for is equaliy. What I mean is that classes should have equal value to a group dynamic in order to make each classs worth playing (otherwise whats the point.) As for PVP I have always been a fan of the rock/paper/scisssor form of balancing; where each class has a measured advantages/disadvantages over other classes. Then each class doesn't have to be perfectly balanced with each other they just have to be balanced amoung each other. 2 cents
Good point.
I also think we need to revisit how we view the word "balance".
I think to most balance means balanced against each other, as in the Priest healing is balanced against the Druid healing or the Rogue DPS is balanced against the Warrior DPS and so on.
Maybe balance should be changed to mean a balanced game overall. This offsets that and that offsets this... Players give a little there but get a little here. You give up a bit on one end to get a bit somewhere else.
Going back to SWG of long ago... I loved my smuggler / pistoleer... I gave up A LOT for this load out, I gave up any hope of winning long range battles and I had to be smart on how I approached a pvp situation but get me in close and I was deadly. If that were to happen now in WoW (I'm not picking on Wow here, just making a point) you'd have 100,000 posts on the blizzard forums complaining every single day that they stood zero chance of fighting from a distance, etc, etc, etc.
Originally posted by Brenelael The issue isn't really one of balance but of MMO's losing their way so-to-speak. The balance issues you refer to is just one of many factors that are killing grouping in modern MMOs. Mainly it's the solo friendly attitude that devs are taking these days that effects grouping on many levels. This includes everything from quest driven leveling to auction houses. All of these factors destroy interdependance between characters and make it so you don't ever have to interact with another character for anything. This affects the comunity as a whole and makes grouping an option instead of a necessity.
As for balance issues it only becomes an issue when a game tries to be two things at once. When a game tries to balance for both PvE and PvP one or the other usually comes up short. A game should stick to it's primary focus and balance for that alone. If it's primary focus is PvE it should be balanced for PvE... PvP games should be balanced for PvP. It's when a game tries to do both that problems arise.
Bren
Games are not balanced only for PvP. That's just a silly thing to say. They aren't just balanced for damage either. Take WoW. There are balance adjustments between the different tanking classes and between the different healing classes, in addition to the damage dealing classes. The tanking changes are almost 100% done for PvE.
In a game where you have PvE and PvP, you can't balance for only PvP or PvE, because balance affects both things. That doesn't mean the root cause of the balance change is always PvP.
I think the only way to eliminate people complaining about a less than 1% difference in overall damage or one tank having 1 less ability regardless of any other balancing factors is to give them less information. This is about the only case where I think giving players less information is better. Don't let them know exactly how much damage they're doing. Give them some indicator that they are "good enough" and leave it at that.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have a deep disliking to FPS games and would not play a stictly FPS game whether pve or pvp. The bias was built from making several attempts at playing such games and finding nothing but people who are future inmates. The most sexist, racist and disturbed people I have ever met and I spent years as a corrections officer ion a state prison so I know messed up people. I have no issue with PvP with a purpose other than releasing your inner Hitler. To me aside from the botters DAoC had it right with there RvR. Normally I stick to PVE but during my DAoC days i would always be out lurking in the frontier. I agree with others that it should be balanced for group pvp play. A warrior should be not be able to trade blows with a mage if he can't get close and the mage should go down quick in melee.
The issue isn't really one of balance but of MMO's losing their way so-to-speak. The balance issues you refer to is just one of many factors that are killing grouping in modern MMOs. Mainly it's the solo friendly attitude that devs are taking these days that effects grouping on many levels. This includes everything from quest driven leveling to auction houses. All of these factors destroy interdependance between characters and make it so you don't ever have to interact with another character for anything. This affects the comunity as a whole and makes grouping an option instead of a necessity.
As for balance issues it only becomes an issue when a game tries to be two things at once. When a game tries to balance for both PvE and PvP one or the other usually comes up short. A game should stick to it's primary focus and balance for that alone. If it's primary focus is PvE it should be balanced for PvE... PvP games should be balanced for PvP. It's when a game tries to do both that problems arise.
Bren
Games are not balanced only for PvP. That's just a silly thing to say. They aren't just balanced for damage either. Take WoW. There are balance adjustments between the different tanking classes and between the different healing classes, in addition to the damage dealing classes. The tanking changes are almost 100% done for PvE.
In a game where you have PvE and PvP, you can't balance for only PvP or PvE, because balance affects both things. That doesn't mean the root cause of the balance change is always PvP.
I think the only way to eliminate people complaining about a less than 1% difference in overall damage or one tank having 1 less ability regardless of any other balancing factors is to give them less information. This is about the only case where I think giving players less information is better. Don't let them know exactly how much damage they're doing. Give them some indicator that they are "good enough" and leave it at that.
Sorry but WoW is a horrible example for you to be using as it only proves my point. In WoW they have been consistantly balancing for both and the game has suffered because of it as every time they balance the classes it just causes more hate and discontent on their forums. Lineage II is a good example as they balance for PvP alone. It is a PvP game after all and the PvE side does suffer but PvE is not why people play that game. Lineage II is balanced in a rock-paper-scissors style as well to make sure that the game doesn't lose it's interdependence between classes for the mass PvP battles. WoW tries to be all things to all people and they usually fall short on one side or the other. WoW is a PvE game and should be balanced accordingly. PvP should not be a factor in their balancing.
I completely, whole heartidly agree. I've been saying this for years.
I truly believe that "balancing" classes in a class based MMORPG is a myth... you can work like heck forever to try to attain it but something will always be unbalanced. Someone will always be unhappy and a class structure will always favor one load out or another.
Enough with the balancing...
Unfortunately I just don't think many development teams can afford to not have balance be a focus. If you make an MMO too team dependent you loose subscribers, if you loose subscriptions you can't afford to keep the game up and you're now out of a job. Players just don't react overtly well to forced grouping, which now means you have to make certain that every calls can stand on it's own, if every class can stand on it's own they have to be unique and balanced against each other.
I think it's a bit of the chicke / egg thing but whatever it is, I just don't think we'll ever see that much diversity in classes or roles in MMO's until someone with lots of funding makes a niche game.
TF2 has amazing class balance, so it can be done. It might not be and MMORPG, but the classes are very diverse and each one has different loadouts that are merely options.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
@ Bren --- You're exactly right. But you should of said, they loose thier "vision". And sometimes that comes at the cost of trying to balance classes or combat mechanics. I would say that the strain on this thread is from PVP gameplay about balance. Not so much PVE. To have a good consistent gameplay, the title should always cater to one style of gameplay.
So, did anyone read my post beside Loke? Class balance is NOT a myth. It can happen. But it's NOT what you think class balance is. People who say that are ignorant to the design. From here on out, read my post on page 6. That would explain to you what class balance is. Class balance is the balance of the classes within the ARCHETYPES. And you correctly balance with penalty. Class balance does not mean classes looses diversity or all classes are the same.
I really wish someone would answer my question on how PVP ruins PVE. Everyone is debating the origin of pvp and pve and saying games shouldnt have one or the other but no one is really debating anything its some continuous circle.
So someone explain to me in their opinion how is PvP ruining a game for them?
Why are you on a PvP server if its ruining it? I know for a fact nerfing and buffing isnt destroying your PvE life so what is it(and if you think it is please explain why)? Everyone complaining about getting ganked or attacked by someone comes my question again. Why the Hell are you on a PvP server? You surely knew what that ment when you signed up on one. I know not all games have PvE/PvP servers but those are clearly a minority these days.
One example would be the Prayer of Mending nerf for priests in World of Warcraft. It used to have no cool-down, which was fine for PvE, because you only used it when you needed it. It would be stupid and inefficient to spam that spell as a healer in aPvE group.
Lo and behold, the spell was extremely OP in PvP as preists could just spam that spell until they ran out of mana, which would usually result in a win if the priest was smart enough to put some DoT's on the enemy player. The cooldown was put in because of PvP and affects (nerfs) the spell for PvE. Game ruiner? Of course not, but this is just one example. I'm sure there are dozens more better examples.
Personally, I don't care that they nerfed the spell, but seriously, they had how long to test and balance the spell before they released Burning Crusade? And yet they come in two weeks after the release to nerf spells?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
@ Bren --- You're exactly right. But you should of said, they loose thier "vision". And sometimes that comes at the cost of trying to balance classes or combat mechanics. I would say that the strain on this thread is from PVP gameplay about balance. Not so much PVE. To have a good consistent gameplay, the title should always cater to one style of gameplay.
So, did anyone read my post beside Loke? Class balance is NOT a myth. It can happen. But it's NOT what you think class balance is. People who say that are ignorant to the design. From here on out, read my post on page 6. That would explain to you what class balance is. Class balance is the balance of the classes within the ARCHETYPES. And you correctly balance with penalty. Class balance does not mean classes looses diversity or all classes are the same.
I did read your post and agree with it 100%. I had nothing to add to your post directly so I didn't reply to it but my posts do sort of support the points you were making.
I agree with OP that classes should not be balanced for 1v1 pvp. But I think that is already the case. I think some classes are balanced for their value in whatever pvp events the game offers.
I think we all have different ideas on how we would want a game balanced. For me, I think that mages should have OP damage on their spells but have long cast timers. In a 1v1 the other player could disrupt the cast most of the time and kill him, but in a game scenario the mage would just need to be stealthier and cast on enemies that are already engaged by a tank on the caster's team.
Classes that excel in 1v1 scenarios should be balanced to be the weakest in a 6v6 scenario
Rock, paper scissors balancing is the best - no class beats all others. Ceratin classes should have strengths against one class, but weakness against another. Like dps beats healer, healer beats tank, tank beats dps. That forces strategy and more fun in a pvp game.
Comments
I agree shae, balance is a bit of a loaded word wheat should be strived for is equaliy. What I mean is that classes should have equal value to a group dynamic in order to make each classs worth playing (otherwise whats the point.) As for PVP I have always been a fan of the rock/paper/scisssor form of balancing; where each class has a measured advantages/disadvantages over other classes. Then each class doesn't have to be perfectly balanced with each other they just have to be balanced amoung each other. 2 cents
This is a very good point Bren.
IMHO SWG lost it's way when it tried to overshoot itself. I believe we lost the game SWG could have been because of the "balance monster"... Remember at the time... the big deal was Smedley saying: "It's just too hard to balance 32 professions".
Well big freaking duh!!! Of course it is... that's why you don't. They stopped focusing on what SWG was supposed to be and tried to be 2 different games and lost their way in the process.
I think to another degree EQ2 fell into the same trap, Ryzon also. I'm not saying that a game can't be very good at PVP and PVE but you need to have a priority and you need to work with your player base to get them to understand what you're about.
Important Information regarding Posting and You
^^ This ^^
Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock
Warriors-Priests-Mages-Hunters-Rogues
Warriors can easily take out cloth mages and those wily hunters.
Priests should be able to take out Warriors and Rogues.
Mages should be able to combat priests and hunters in a fight for wiliness.
Hunters should be able to hunt down Priests and Rogues with their knowledge.
Rogues are capable of taking out Warriors and Mages with ease.
Going beyond the traditional Rock-Paper-Scissors you NOT only remove the triumverate (thereby reducing the overall number of ties in the long run). Using a 5 tiered system, you actually increase the overall number of possible classes (say for example, you create an offensive priest and a defensive one). That's not even beginning to take into account the possibility of even THEN further specializing with talents and feats.
I believe that this method would actually increase the overall usefulness of all classes as each class is good at what they're good at. I'm tired of these masters of all. That's not the way the world works. You typically are good at 1-2 things and then that skill diverges the further you get from your specialties. This should hold true in games.
Just my opinion.
Good point.
I also think we need to revisit how we view the word "balance".
I think to most balance means balanced against each other, as in the Priest healing is balanced against the Druid healing or the Rogue DPS is balanced against the Warrior DPS and so on.
Maybe balance should be changed to mean a balanced game overall. This offsets that and that offsets this... Players give a little there but get a little here. You give up a bit on one end to get a bit somewhere else.
Going back to SWG of long ago... I loved my smuggler / pistoleer... I gave up A LOT for this load out, I gave up any hope of winning long range battles and I had to be smart on how I approached a pvp situation but get me in close and I was deadly. If that were to happen now in WoW (I'm not picking on Wow here, just making a point) you'd have 100,000 posts on the blizzard forums complaining every single day that they stood zero chance of fighting from a distance, etc, etc, etc.
Important Information regarding Posting and You
Games are not balanced only for PvP. That's just a silly thing to say. They aren't just balanced for damage either. Take WoW. There are balance adjustments between the different tanking classes and between the different healing classes, in addition to the damage dealing classes. The tanking changes are almost 100% done for PvE.
In a game where you have PvE and PvP, you can't balance for only PvP or PvE, because balance affects both things. That doesn't mean the root cause of the balance change is always PvP.
I think the only way to eliminate people complaining about a less than 1% difference in overall damage or one tank having 1 less ability regardless of any other balancing factors is to give them less information. This is about the only case where I think giving players less information is better. Don't let them know exactly how much damage they're doing. Give them some indicator that they are "good enough" and leave it at that.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have a deep disliking to FPS games and would not play a stictly FPS game whether pve or pvp. The bias was built from making several attempts at playing such games and finding nothing but people who are future inmates. The most sexist, racist and disturbed people I have ever met and I spent years as a corrections officer ion a state prison so I know messed up people. I have no issue with PvP with a purpose other than releasing your inner Hitler. To me aside from the botters DAoC had it right with there RvR. Normally I stick to PVE but during my DAoC days i would always be out lurking in the frontier. I agree with others that it should be balanced for group pvp play. A warrior should be not be able to trade blows with a mage if he can't get close and the mage should go down quick in melee.
Sorry but WoW is a horrible example for you to be using as it only proves my point. In WoW they have been consistantly balancing for both and the game has suffered because of it as every time they balance the classes it just causes more hate and discontent on their forums. Lineage II is a good example as they balance for PvP alone. It is a PvP game after all and the PvE side does suffer but PvE is not why people play that game. Lineage II is balanced in a rock-paper-scissors style as well to make sure that the game doesn't lose it's interdependence between classes for the mass PvP battles. WoW tries to be all things to all people and they usually fall short on one side or the other. WoW is a PvE game and should be balanced accordingly. PvP should not be a factor in their balancing.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
TF2 has amazing class balance, so it can be done. It might not be and MMORPG, but the classes are very diverse and each one has different loadouts that are merely options.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
@ Bren --- You're exactly right. But you should of said, they loose thier "vision". And sometimes that comes at the cost of trying to balance classes or combat mechanics. I would say that the strain on this thread is from PVP gameplay about balance. Not so much PVE. To have a good consistent gameplay, the title should always cater to one style of gameplay.
So, did anyone read my post beside Loke? Class balance is NOT a myth. It can happen. But it's NOT what you think class balance is. People who say that are ignorant to the design. From here on out, read my post on page 6. That would explain to you what class balance is. Class balance is the balance of the classes within the ARCHETYPES. And you correctly balance with penalty. Class balance does not mean classes looses diversity or all classes are the same.
One example would be the Prayer of Mending nerf for priests in World of Warcraft. It used to have no cool-down, which was fine for PvE, because you only used it when you needed it. It would be stupid and inefficient to spam that spell as a healer in aPvE group.
Lo and behold, the spell was extremely OP in PvP as preists could just spam that spell until they ran out of mana, which would usually result in a win if the priest was smart enough to put some DoT's on the enemy player. The cooldown was put in because of PvP and affects (nerfs) the spell for PvE. Game ruiner? Of course not, but this is just one example. I'm sure there are dozens more better examples.
Personally, I don't care that they nerfed the spell, but seriously, they had how long to test and balance the spell before they released Burning Crusade? And yet they come in two weeks after the release to nerf spells?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I did read your post and agree with it 100%. I had nothing to add to your post directly so I didn't reply to it but my posts do sort of support the points you were making.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
I agree with OP that classes should not be balanced for 1v1 pvp. But I think that is already the case. I think some classes are balanced for their value in whatever pvp events the game offers.
I think we all have different ideas on how we would want a game balanced. For me, I think that mages should have OP damage on their spells but have long cast timers. In a 1v1 the other player could disrupt the cast most of the time and kill him, but in a game scenario the mage would just need to be stealthier and cast on enemies that are already engaged by a tank on the caster's team.
Classes that excel in 1v1 scenarios should be balanced to be the weakest in a 6v6 scenario
Rock, paper scissors balancing is the best - no class beats all others. Ceratin classes should have strengths against one class, but weakness against another. Like dps beats healer, healer beats tank, tank beats dps. That forces strategy and more fun in a pvp game.