Ive always found it weird that people want a priest to be able to take on a mage or warrior 1 vs 1. I think games to be balanced in terms of everyone having their use, but a priest shouldn't be as powerful in a fight as a fighter.
It used to be an accomplishment to get a priest or healer leveled up in past games. No they are warriors with healing spells its not so much an issue. Hell, a priest/healer/shaman in many games is down right over powered.
Ive always found it weird that people want a priest to be able to take on a mage or warrior 1 vs 1. I think games to be balanced in terms of everyone having their use, but a priest shouldn't be as powerful in a fight as a fighter.
It used to be an accomplishment to get a priest or healer leveled up in past games. No they are warriors with healing spells its not so much an issue. Hell, a priest/healer/shaman in many games is down right over powered.
thats why whole system needs changing, MMOs got it wrong in the first place. Yeah, yeah, it was done for practical reasons back in last century, but theres no reason to keep clinging to it nowadays.
Of course MMO's should be balanced, otherwise why play the weak classes? PvE MMO's just need to be balanced around group play, which is what EQ Classic was going for. For instance, Rogue seemed like a joke when you were running around alone but as soon as you had a balanced group suddenly they are the best dps in the game. That's how it should be. PvP balance is even more important.
Depending on the rules version used, Cleric was the most powerful class in D&D. In 3.5 the cleric was fully capable of matching a fighter in melee, wore heavy armor, and had all the power of a full caster.
Look up CoDzilla.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Depending on the rules version used, Cleric was the most powerful class in D&D. In 3.5 the cleric was fully capable of matching a fighter in melee, wore heavy armor, and had all the power of a full caster.
Look up CoDzilla.
Yup, but its not that easy, 3,5 had so much options that it really wasnt a clear cut.
"wimpy priest" is pretty much MMO invention. Along with "wimpy" everything. Just that some classes were much more wimpy than the others.
The thing is that generally speaking, d&d didnt have one dimensional classes because there was actual use for non combat abilites.
When MMOs just ported combat part of rpg to mmos a lot got lost and you got what you got.
RPG games no longer have that RPG flavour when healer is dishing out almost the same damage as your two-handed warrior.
This makes it sound like you're not actually talking about balance.
All things equal, if a healer can heal on top of doing the same damage as a DPS class, that's definitely NOT a balanced class.
There would have to be other details involved -- like maybe the warrior on average mitigates the same amount of damage as the healer can heal, and NOW you're talking about a balanced class.
Either way, the game still has plenty of RPG flavor if each class is a distinct playstyle.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree 100% with the OP. PVP is to blame mainly for the issue of sterile gameplay due to balancing. What made EQ so great was the diversity of the classes. Tanks, tanked, Healers Healed and DPS killed stuff. Certain classes could solo. Some well others not so well but could get the job done. Certain classes could not solo at all, mainly Tanks and Healers. That was a GOOD thing and the way it should be.
Personally I would love to see diversity in an MMO again. It would require it to be a PVE only game but that is fantastic for me. If I want to PVP I will go play a true PVP game and not expect a PVE game to include PVP just because I want it. PVP means you can't have diversity as all races, sides etc. need to have access to the same powers and do roughly the same damage. That is BORING. A Wizard / Mage should be very powerful but not be able to be hit at all. Tanks should be able to take a beating like no other but not do much DPS at all. Healers should be able to heal but DPS.......No not at all.
This makes the game more real. The problem with todays MMO's is that EVERY class can solo to max level. Nobody needs anyone and if they do it's just to accomplish a single task and move on solo again. Pathetic. There is no diversity in classes/races. Everything is just so easy now. Again, pathetic. All this to cater to the casual player and the I want it all now player. Both have ruined every single MMO out and coming out. Companies are catering to these people who want to play as short of time as possible and get the biggest rewards for the least effort requited......pathetic.
OP, I will repost a thread I have did a few months ago. It's about what balance really is in regards to class design. Enjoy...
I have had multiple conversations when playing WoW or EQ of what players believe class balance is. Here are some of the common comments regarding the matter. I think this would make an interesting discussion...
"Class balance means all of the classes are the same which would make gameplay boring."
or
"There is no such thing as class balance or if there is class balance it can never be achieved."
The above comments are not true and I'll explain further of what class balance really means.
Rarely, I'll see this comment...
"Class balance means when each class has an opportunity to compete."
The above comment is very close to what Class Balance really is but it's not complete. However, it should read like this...
"Class balance means when each class has an opportunity to compete within their archetype."
***Disclaimer*** This discussion is about basic class balance in regarding to the "trinity" of class design. This discussion has nothing to do with "I hate classes or why classes are bad". I am also fully aware there are other avenues to take class design and class balance in accordance to those classes. Also this explanation is on a very basic level to show you what class balance is.
How to achieve Class Balance?
Class Balance is more or less a bottom up approach that is balanced within layers. Each layer of balance should complement the previous layer for consistency. Essentially, there are three layers of when you balance classes. Below I'll explain them a little further.
Layer 1: Define the Archetype (Role)
This layer is the foundation for all of your classes. You determine what are the primary roles of classes you want to fit into gameplay. I'll keep it easy and say that Tanking, DPS, and Healing are primary roles. I won't go into secondary roles because this thread will turn into a novel. I want to try and keep this as simple as possible.
Once the archetype (roles) are defined then you establish the rule set for those roles. On as basic level we'll do damage to mitigation ratio.
Tank: Moderate Damage output and Moderate Mitigation
Caster DPS: High Damage output and Low Mitigation
Melee DPS: High Damage output (sliver below Caster DPS) and Medium Low Mitigation (Sliver above Caster DPS)
Healers: Low Damage output and High Mitigation via Heals.
There are other things that go into defining the role and other rule sets that would compliment whatever design is being used. So once Layer 1 is defined and balanced you move onto Layer 2.
Layer 2A: Balance Classes within their Archetype (role).
This layer is only used if you have more than 1 class within the defined roles from Layer 1.
If there are 3 classes within each archetype (tank, Caster DPS, Melee DPS, Healers), you then balance those classes within their respective archetype. Meaning that each tank has an equal opportunity to tank efficiently. This does not constitute all tanks will be the same. There should be different path ways to tank for each class in a unique and fun way. Whatever those paths are should be up the creative mind of the class designer.
Layer 2B: Pure Classes vs. Hybrid Classes
Also in Layer 2 you would determine what classes would be Pure and what classes would be Hybrid. Let me define those.
Pure Class: A class in which can only perform 1 role
Hybrid Class: A class in which can perform more than 1 role. (usually 2 roles).
Most of the time you'll see more hybrid classes than pure classes to give the player more of a creative choice to choose from.
In this layer you could already break the class design before you even get to Layer 3 because of Hybrid Classes. Hybrid Classes are very tricky because they can't be as powerful as a Pure Class and yet they must still be valuable to a group.
Usually Hybrid classes are the soloable classes if the gameplay is focused on group based content.
I think a good direction to balance hybrid classes with pure classes is to allow Hybrid classes to act as a support class in a way. What I mean is, if a Hybrid Class can perform 2 roles, DPS and Healing, then reduce those roles by 30%. Meaning that if a Pure DPS and a pure Healer class can DPS and Heal 100%, then a Hybrid class can DPS and Heal at 70%. This way a Hybrid class is still effective and valuable in a group. They act as support DPS and Healing.
A Hybrid class should NEVER EVER be on par with a Pure Class because of their multiple roles. If a Hybrid class is on par with a Pure class then more than likely those pure classes will become obsolete. They won't be as valuable.
Ask you self this question. If a Mage is a pure DPS class that can do on par damage as a Sorcerer that can also heal, which class do you think would have a better chance at being more effective? As you can see this is an imbalance.
This is the top layer of class balance and always the most tricky. There are tons of variables because each class has a unique set of abilities to perform. Layer 3 is more than likely the layer most will spend time balancing their classes. A good design would keep in mind the following two layers and design abilities that won't go against those rule sets already established.
Also in Layer 3 you would determine when a class gets an ability when progressing. For an example, if a Warrior had Deadly Strike at level 1 that did 10 damage and a mob at level one had an ability that did 10 damage where both of you had 100 HP. Whoever struck first would win. So then you would adjust damage/HP/Mana levels accordingly and add in more abilities to make it fun and balanced in gameplay.
As you can see Layer 3 has a lot of variables to consider. Usually, this is one of the places where class balance can become imbalance.
Penalty. This is another way to balance very over powering abilities a class may have. Try and have the player to strategically use more powerful abilities instead of using them at their leisure.
Also in Layer 3 you would compliment whatever combat mechanics you have to balance your classes with that.
Layer 3 should also consist of player testing and tweaking to everything mentioned above.
What does Class Balance Mean? Can it be achieved?
Yes Class Balance can be achieved. Before I go on let me tell you what class balance is not. Class Balance does not constitute that all classes are the same with the same abilities or roles.
Class Balance is when your archetypes (roles) are balanced and the classes within those archetypes are balanced with each other. All classes within that archetype have an equal opportunity to be as effective. That if more than 1 class within an archetype should have different functions to perform their desired role to have a good diversity of classes.
If a Hybrid class is more effective then a Pure class then that is not class balance but an imbalance.
Layer 3 with different abilities may sway classes to be tweaked more than others, but if the design stays true to Layer 1 and Layer 2, it should make Layer 3 a bit easier to tweak.
I hope this made sense and I wanted to break this down as simple as I could.
A good read but slightly offbase. The old, EQ1, there was no 'real' class balance. A Bard, Shaman, necro, Wizard, Chanter or Druid could almost always beat any other melee class due to the fact that they can move faster and/or have ranged or AOE abilities in a PVP situation. A Bard could AOE his heart out in classic EQ but not as much in the most recent renditions.
Thanks for reading my post. This balance was just a very overall on the surface type of balancing. Mainly I did have PVE gameplay in mind when I wrote this. However, PVP balance can come from this as well. PVP was never balanced in EQ because EQ was a PVE centric game. PVP was jut added. PVP balance is by far the most tricky of them all in regards to class balance. That is because when you have classes usually classes have a dedicated role to them or some type of sub role that is dedicated to them.
There are 2 ways to balance PVP. Rock, Paper, Scissor which seems to be the most common but yet a bland way to balance. And then the other way is to balance from the outline I have provided. What makes most classes out of balance is based of OP abilities or hybrid classes trumping pure classes. The way to NOT pvp balance when there are classes that have dedicated roles is to try and give all classes the same utility/support skills as well (like WoW).
The best solution is to have a choose between PVE or PVP gameplay and design your game around one or the other. Most of the time PVP gameplay will be tacked on to market to the pvp crowd and then the classes become broken because they are trying to balance PVE designed classes to fit PVP designed classes. If PVP gameplay is tagged onto a PVE centric game then the PVP has to be separate from the PVE gameplay.
To me I think the OP is getting at having a more interesting world via imbalance and racial restrictions.
People seem to not understand that having the ability for race and class to be everything makes things fairly boring. You gain more options, but you lose diversity. Without diversity it doesn't matter how many options you have.
Having racial (basically cultural) restrictions gives meaning to a culture. Having diverse classes gives meaning to classes and the idea of where they belong in the world.
Finding a new city that has a certain way of life that is vastly different then another cities is exciting.
Finding a city where it's basically the same in each city short of appearance is boring IMO.
One city might be the hub of a criminals and slavers. Another might worship nature. Another might be a holy city or a city of science and culture.
In terms of classes they go hand in hand with a cultures beliefs, strengths, and weaknesses.
As far as balancing goes it's fun to have certain classes that can do x, but y class can do something else better as mentioned by previous posters. A rogue isn't a powerful class by default. That isn't really their main purpose in a game anyway. They are supposed to be thieves. They are scoundrels who like to steal things from people. It has less to do with combat balance and more to do with an idea.
A proper idea for PvE balance is to have a purpose for each class in a game. That purpose might be to steal, disarm traps, and open locks or to protect their companions in a group. The classes and races shouldn't be based solely on weather they will all compete equally in terms of combat prowess. Some classes will just be stronger at combat by default. What race and class you choose will have a large impact on how you end up playing the game.
Of course I'm a person who doesn't enjoy constantly killing things these days in games. I'd rather a game with a verity of things to do other then just combat.
This is just my opinion. I know most people don't care about these things and want to focus on quickly getting in, killing things, and leaving the game.
Balancing should be about developers trawling things such that classes remain attractive to play for those that like the style that the class represents, dps is for example a part of this but only in as much that they should not be game breakingly powerful.
The big mistake is mmorpg games that are driven by stats/dps meters and competitive raiding. These games are screwed - they have to try and balance the numbers and that means skills need to be simplified. Horrible self defeating cycle of simplification surely follows.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Your ideas are good game design OP..... but they don't fit with todays MMO's or their audiences. They perfectly fit with PnP systems where the idea that all classes be equally good at everything would just just be bizarre, bland and bad game design.
Todays MMO's have 3 things that drive them toward the "all classes, equally good at everything" design metric....
- They are solo centric and designed to limit player interaction and interdependence. Basically even games that have alot of group content still try to make that a very optional activity and try to insure that players don't really need to depend on other players to play the game. That's tough to do unless you make everyone pretty capable in each aspect of play.
- Limited content. You could easily make a game system where say, a Mage, did different types of damage then a Fighter and fought in different ways.... and then make monster types (say incorporeals) that were really easy for a Mage but next to impossible for Fighters. That's not uncommon in PnP systems. However in an MMO that would meaning designing far more content (and more systems) as a particular monster might only be able to "consumed" by 1/6th the player base.... meaning they'd have to produce 6 times the number of monsters. MMO Developers go for efficiency of resources...meaning they want to reuse as many elements as possible. That makes them design pretty much 1 type of monster.... with different graphics and a few different stats and a few differences in abilities here and there so that they can reuse it as much as possible but still make it seem "different" to the players.
- Limited aspects of gameplay. In a PnP game, for instance, Rogues don't really need to be the equal of Fighters in melee because they have whole other important aspects of gameplay that they are masters of..... scouting, spotting and disarming traps, picking locks, finding secret doors, etc. These aspects can be incredibly important in PnP play but are basically absent from MMO's...... MMO's really only have 1 aspect of gameplay.... combat (a few might have crafting as a 2nd aspect but that's not as common) so pretty much everyone has to be as good at it as everyone else....because there is no opportunity for a player to say "Well I might not be as good at fighting as you.... but if I wasn't around, we'd miss half the dungeon, get blown up every 5 feet and walk straight into an ambush"
Maybe my views are very old fashioned and outdated but I really miss the days when it was acceptable to have some classes faction-locked or when I would be awesome at healing but suck at dps as Priest. Adventuring with your party felt so much more interesting… What do you guys think about this? Am I the only one who doesn’t like all classes being the same?
Your views aren't old fashioned or outdated, they're just bad design for today's audience.
And this is why today's mmo's suck so badly. Having all classes being op dps has really killed what mmo's were. Some player's loved to be healers in a group. Today people play healer's to heal themselves while putting out massive dps at the same time. Sure its a lot of fun but then why group if you don't have to. I remember playing a Minstrel in lotro. I was so powerful it almost became boring to play.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Balancing should be about developers trawling things such that classes remain attractive to play for those that like the style that the class represents, dps is for example a part of this but only in as much that they should not be game breakingly powerful.
The big mistake is mmorpg games that are driven by stats/dps meters and competitive raiding. These games are screwed - they have to try and balance the numbers and that means skills need to be simplified. Horrible self defeating cycle of simplification surely follows.
That is like saying the only way to treat the injured hand is to amputate. No, good balance doesn't necessarily mean simplification. Don't be ridiculous.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
As i said for games that are meter centric, i.e trying to distill all classes down to dps,hps,dmg taken. 3 simplistic values. Thats not 'ridiculous' its obvious, try to balance x different variables with multiplicative and additive relationships with each other and you will quickly reach a point where its not possible to balance the permutations with each other. Design a game where actually the equation does not need to be resolved and it becomes easy. Why exactly do you think Blizzard are in balance hell year after year and continue to simplify over time - its not because the developers are stupid.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Your ideas are good game design OP..... but they don't fit with todays MMO's or their audiences. They perfectly fit with PnP systems where the idea that all classes be equally good at everything would just just be bizarre, bland and bad game design.
Todays MMO's have 3 things that drive them toward the "all classes, equally good at everything" design metric....
- They are solo centric and designed to limit player interaction and interdependence. Basically even games that have alot of group content still try to make that a very optional activity and try to insure that players don't really need to depend on other players to play the game. That's tough to do unless you make everyone pretty capable in each aspect of play.
- Limited content. You could easily make a game system where say, a Mage, did different types of damage then a Fighter and fought in different ways.... and then make monster types (say incorporeals) that were really easy for a Mage but next to impossible for Fighters. That's not uncommon in PnP systems. However in an MMO that would meaning designing far more content (and more systems) as a particular monster might only be able to "consumed" by 1/6th the player base.... meaning they'd have to produce 6 times the number of monsters. MMO Developers go for efficiency of resources...meaning they want to reuse as many elements as possible. That makes them design pretty much 1 type of monster.... with different graphics and a few different stats and a few differences in abilities here and there so that they can reuse it as much as possible but still make it seem "different" to the players.
- Limited aspects of gameplay. In a PnP game, for instance, Rogues don't really need to be the equal of Fighters in melee because they have whole other important aspects of gameplay that they are masters of..... scouting, spotting and disarming traps, picking locks, finding secret doors, etc. These aspects can be incredibly important in PnP play but are basically absent from MMO's...... MMO's really only have 1 aspect of gameplay.... combat (a few might have crafting as a 2nd aspect but that's not as common) so pretty much everyone has to be as good at it as everyone else....because there is no opportunity for a player to say "Well I might not be as good at fighting as you.... but if I wasn't around, we'd miss half the dungeon, get blown up every 5 feet and walk straight into an ambush"
Wut?
- imbalanced is SUITED for SINGLE PLAYER games, it NOT suited for MULTIPLAYER games (we are talking computer games possible with current tech)
- sprinkling mobs around scenery and assignng them (very limted number of) resistances can be AUTOMATED. Thats how demanding it is. Thats not content (or if you prefer THATS limited conent)
- agree, but you still only see rogues abilites that end in killing stuff. Wheres diplomacy? Smooth talking? Barter? Managerial skills? And most important - where is actual content to use those skills on? Not some bad minigame like Vanguards diplomacy.
If you want to talk about "imbalanced characters" you have to talk beyond combat and killing stuff. If everything comes down to combat and killing stuff then characters HAVE TO be balanced.
As i said for games that are meter centric, i.e trying to distill all classes down to dps,hps,dmg taken. 3 simplistic values. Thats not 'ridiculous' its obvious, try to balance x different variables with multiplicative and additive relationships with each other and you will quickly reach a point where its not possible to balance the permutations with each other. Design a game where actually the equation does not need to be resolved and it becomes easy. Why exactly do you think Blizzard are in balance hell year after year and continue to simplify over time - its not because the developers are stupid.
They're in balance hell because of the direction they've gone where DPS/etc are important complicated formulas, which means lots of players have fun in their games, which means lots of players care about balance, which causes Blizzard to be in balance hell.
You can absolutely design a simpler, shallower game where everyone's on their own axis: only warriors fight, only thieves deal with traps, etc, but who wants to play a shallower game? Nobody. And so such a game would never be in balance hell because nobody would care.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As i said for games that are meter centric, i.e trying to distill all classes down to dps,hps,dmg taken. 3 simplistic values. Thats not 'ridiculous' its obvious, try to balance x different variables with multiplicative and additive relationships with each other and you will quickly reach a point where its not possible to balance the permutations with each other. Design a game where actually the equation does not need to be resolved and it becomes easy. Why exactly do you think Blizzard are in balance hell year after year and continue to simplify over time - its not because the developers are stupid.
They're in balance hell because of the direction they've gone where DPS/etc are important complicated formulas, which means lots of players have fun in their games, which means lots of players care about balance, which causes Blizzard to be in balance hell.
You can absolutely design a simpler, shallower game where everyone's on their own axis: only warriors fight, only thieves deal with traps, etc, but who wants to play a shallower game? Nobody. And so such a game would never be in balance hell because nobody would care.
It wouldn't be that way though.
Thieves do more then just traps. They play deal with a multitude of non combat oriented issues.
Adding something non combat already makes it possible morecomplex or at the very least more interesting IMO.
If you went to old game forums you would have seen a lot of people complaining about balance. A lot more then what you see with games like WoW today. That is part of the fun.
WoW has actually simplified the classes to the point where you can't combine different talent trees together anymore. You have to choose to be DPS, Healer, or Tanks for the most part. CC doesn't really exist anymore. CCs last fairly short times and generally have counters. So basically it's just choosing your flavor of DPS, healer, or Tank. The game was far more unbalanced in it's early days when you could combine talents from tank, dps, and healer for hybrids.
No MMO has ever really done a good job with out of combat roles. The only ones that really tried were the early MMOs.
As i said for games that are meter centric, i.e trying to distill all classes down to dps,hps,dmg taken. 3 simplistic values. Thats not 'ridiculous' its obvious, try to balance x different variables with multiplicative and additive relationships with each other and you will quickly reach a point where its not possible to balance the permutations with each other. Design a game where actually the equation does not need to be resolved and it becomes easy. Why exactly do you think Blizzard are in balance hell year after year and continue to simplify over time - its not because the developers are stupid.
They're in balance hell because of the direction they've gone where DPS/etc are important complicated formulas, which means lots of players have fun in their games, which means lots of players care about balance, which causes Blizzard to be in balance hell.
You can absolutely design a simpler, shallower game where everyone's on their own axis: only warriors fight, only thieves deal with traps, etc, but who wants to play a shallower game? Nobody. And so such a game would never be in balance hell because nobody would care.
Make your mind up son, and 1 stream of sequential actions with a bit of buff layering is not complicated, its muscle memory and timing, as any good raider will tell you.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by observer Ironically, an unbalanced class system leads to everyone being balanced, since the majoirty will just choose the better class.
only where min maxing is critical. Take a 5 man or a running pvp battle, the only factor the developers have to micromanage with balancing is making it unattractive for everyone want to pick the same class. The killer is games that are obsessed with damage meters, i firmly believe they are the root of many evil.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Thieves do more then just traps. They play deal with a multitude of non combat oriented issues.
Adding something non combat already makes it possible morecomplex or at the very least more interesting IMO.
If you went to old game forums you would have seen a lot of people complaining about balance. A lot more then what you see with games like WoW today. That is part of the fun.
WoW has actually simplified the classes to the point where you can't combine different talent trees together anymore. You have to choose to be DPS, Healer, or Tanks for the most part. CC doesn't really exist anymore. CCs last fairly short times and generally have counters. So basically it's just choosing your flavor of DPS, healer, or Tank. The game was far more unbalanced in it's early days when you could combine talents from tank, dps, and healer for hybrids.
No MMO has ever really done a good job with out of combat roles. The only ones that really tried were the early MMOs.
You can claim you'd be more interested in that sort of gameplay, sure. You can't say it's necessarily deeper.
Feel free to link to the forums that have more posts about balance than WOW's forums. LoL is probably the only game out of all games ever where I could believe there were more balance posts in its forums than WOW.
Feel free to link to rotations which are deeper than WOW's rotations. A few one-time decisions (talents) aren't really comparable to the ongoing dynamic decisions that a deep rotation offers. Combining talent trees isn't exactly a requirement for deep combat, unless you're going to claim chess is shallow due to its lack of varied talent trees or CC.
Few games try out of combat roles because it'snot conducive to cooperative gaming. Any time we waste doing your thing (traps) is time I'm not doing my thing (combat) which means one of us is always feeling useless (and probably bored) at any given time.
It works in singleplayer RPGs because the one player is always doing something interesting. In combat they're fixated on their warrior, and out of combat they might be dealing with traps as a rogue. It doesn't matter that the warrior isn't doing anything useful while you deal with traps, because everything is set up to provide interesting decisions for the one player. NPCs don't get bored, so your warrior isn't going to complain why you work on the traps. Players do get bored.
Which is why the best coop games keep common central activities (usually combat) where all members participate, but have areas where each class shines. It results in player-to-player reliance in the exact same way, except that everyone gets to play at once.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Bladestrom Oh dear, less analysis and more fan me thinks.
Typical WOW rotations are fairly self-evident regarding the game's combat depth. That page leaves out boss-specific and teammate-specific factors that further alter the perfect rotation for any given fight.
So there's a certain objective certainty to the depth of WOW's combat, and thus far nobody has been able to show a MMORPG with superior combat decision depth (by showing evidence in the form of a guide or video.)
I don't really consider myself a fan of anything really. I measure games by depth and interesting decisions. If another MMORPG came along which was better at that than WOW, I'd drop WOW in an instant. My only loyalty is to the game offering the best gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Bladestrom Oh dear, less analysis and more fan me thinks.
Typical WOW rotations are fairly self-evident regarding the game's combat depth. That page leaves out boss-specific and teammate-specific factors that further alter the perfect rotation for any given fight.
So there's a certain objective certainty to the depth of WOW's combat, and thus far nobody has been able to show a MMORPG with superior combat decision depth (by showing evidence in the form of a guide or video.)
I don't really consider myself a fan of anything really. I measure games by depth and interesting decisions. If another MMORPG came along which was better at that than WOW, I'd drop WOW in an instant. My only loyalty is to the game offering the best gameplay.
As you said yourself, you have your perfect rotations, theres 0 decisions in that.
Any skill based PvP is more decision heavy than your perfect rotation.
And, since top end raiding is probably THE least popular thing in WoW (and always have been, not just in WoW, in any MMO that had raiding), its not best gameplay. Since in lower difficulties you can faceroll to various degrees.
Comments
Ive always found it weird that people want a priest to be able to take on a mage or warrior 1 vs 1. I think games to be balanced in terms of everyone having their use, but a priest shouldn't be as powerful in a fight as a fighter.
It used to be an accomplishment to get a priest or healer leveled up in past games. No they are warriors with healing spells its not so much an issue. Hell, a priest/healer/shaman in many games is down right over powered.
thats why whole system needs changing, MMOs got it wrong in the first place. Yeah, yeah, it was done for practical reasons back in last century, but theres no reason to keep clinging to it nowadays.
even in d&d "priest" wasnt a wimp.
Depending on the rules version used, Cleric was the most powerful class in D&D. In 3.5 the cleric was fully capable of matching a fighter in melee, wore heavy armor, and had all the power of a full caster.
Look up CoDzilla.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Yup, but its not that easy, 3,5 had so much options that it really wasnt a clear cut.
"wimpy priest" is pretty much MMO invention. Along with "wimpy" everything. Just that some classes were much more wimpy than the others.
The thing is that generally speaking, d&d didnt have one dimensional classes because there was actual use for non combat abilites.
When MMOs just ported combat part of rpg to mmos a lot got lost and you got what you got.
This makes it sound like you're not actually talking about balance.
All things equal, if a healer can heal on top of doing the same damage as a DPS class, that's definitely NOT a balanced class.
There would have to be other details involved -- like maybe the warrior on average mitigates the same amount of damage as the healer can heal, and NOW you're talking about a balanced class.
Either way, the game still has plenty of RPG flavor if each class is a distinct playstyle.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree 100% with the OP. PVP is to blame mainly for the issue of sterile gameplay due to balancing. What made EQ so great was the diversity of the classes. Tanks, tanked, Healers Healed and DPS killed stuff. Certain classes could solo. Some well others not so well but could get the job done. Certain classes could not solo at all, mainly Tanks and Healers. That was a GOOD thing and the way it should be.
Personally I would love to see diversity in an MMO again. It would require it to be a PVE only game but that is fantastic for me. If I want to PVP I will go play a true PVP game and not expect a PVE game to include PVP just because I want it. PVP means you can't have diversity as all races, sides etc. need to have access to the same powers and do roughly the same damage. That is BORING. A Wizard / Mage should be very powerful but not be able to be hit at all. Tanks should be able to take a beating like no other but not do much DPS at all. Healers should be able to heal but DPS.......No not at all.
This makes the game more real. The problem with todays MMO's is that EVERY class can solo to max level. Nobody needs anyone and if they do it's just to accomplish a single task and move on solo again. Pathetic. There is no diversity in classes/races. Everything is just so easy now. Again, pathetic. All this to cater to the casual player and the I want it all now player. Both have ruined every single MMO out and coming out. Companies are catering to these people who want to play as short of time as possible and get the biggest rewards for the least effort requited......pathetic.
Thanks for reading my post. This balance was just a very overall on the surface type of balancing. Mainly I did have PVE gameplay in mind when I wrote this. However, PVP balance can come from this as well. PVP was never balanced in EQ because EQ was a PVE centric game. PVP was jut added. PVP balance is by far the most tricky of them all in regards to class balance. That is because when you have classes usually classes have a dedicated role to them or some type of sub role that is dedicated to them.
There are 2 ways to balance PVP. Rock, Paper, Scissor which seems to be the most common but yet a bland way to balance. And then the other way is to balance from the outline I have provided. What makes most classes out of balance is based of OP abilities or hybrid classes trumping pure classes. The way to NOT pvp balance when there are classes that have dedicated roles is to try and give all classes the same utility/support skills as well (like WoW).
The best solution is to have a choose between PVE or PVP gameplay and design your game around one or the other. Most of the time PVP gameplay will be tacked on to market to the pvp crowd and then the classes become broken because they are trying to balance PVE designed classes to fit PVP designed classes. If PVP gameplay is tagged onto a PVE centric game then the PVP has to be separate from the PVE gameplay.
To me I think the OP is getting at having a more interesting world via imbalance and racial restrictions.
People seem to not understand that having the ability for race and class to be everything makes things fairly boring. You gain more options, but you lose diversity. Without diversity it doesn't matter how many options you have.
Having racial (basically cultural) restrictions gives meaning to a culture. Having diverse classes gives meaning to classes and the idea of where they belong in the world.
Finding a new city that has a certain way of life that is vastly different then another cities is exciting.
Finding a city where it's basically the same in each city short of appearance is boring IMO.
One city might be the hub of a criminals and slavers. Another might worship nature. Another might be a holy city or a city of science and culture.
In terms of classes they go hand in hand with a cultures beliefs, strengths, and weaknesses.
As far as balancing goes it's fun to have certain classes that can do x, but y class can do something else better as mentioned by previous posters. A rogue isn't a powerful class by default. That isn't really their main purpose in a game anyway. They are supposed to be thieves. They are scoundrels who like to steal things from people. It has less to do with combat balance and more to do with an idea.
A proper idea for PvE balance is to have a purpose for each class in a game. That purpose might be to steal, disarm traps, and open locks or to protect their companions in a group. The classes and races shouldn't be based solely on weather they will all compete equally in terms of combat prowess. Some classes will just be stronger at combat by default. What race and class you choose will have a large impact on how you end up playing the game.
Of course I'm a person who doesn't enjoy constantly killing things these days in games. I'd rather a game with a verity of things to do other then just combat.
This is just my opinion. I know most people don't care about these things and want to focus on quickly getting in, killing things, and leaving the game.
The big mistake is mmorpg games that are driven by stats/dps meters and competitive raiding. These games are screwed - they have to try and balance the numbers and that means skills need to be simplified. Horrible self defeating cycle of simplification surely follows.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Your ideas are good game design OP..... but they don't fit with todays MMO's or their audiences. They perfectly fit with PnP systems where the idea that all classes be equally good at everything would just just be bizarre, bland and bad game design.
Todays MMO's have 3 things that drive them toward the "all classes, equally good at everything" design metric....
- They are solo centric and designed to limit player interaction and interdependence. Basically even games that have alot of group content still try to make that a very optional activity and try to insure that players don't really need to depend on other players to play the game. That's tough to do unless you make everyone pretty capable in each aspect of play.
- Limited content. You could easily make a game system where say, a Mage, did different types of damage then a Fighter and fought in different ways.... and then make monster types (say incorporeals) that were really easy for a Mage but next to impossible for Fighters. That's not uncommon in PnP systems. However in an MMO that would meaning designing far more content (and more systems) as a particular monster might only be able to "consumed" by 1/6th the player base.... meaning they'd have to produce 6 times the number of monsters. MMO Developers go for efficiency of resources...meaning they want to reuse as many elements as possible. That makes them design pretty much 1 type of monster.... with different graphics and a few different stats and a few differences in abilities here and there so that they can reuse it as much as possible but still make it seem "different" to the players.
- Limited aspects of gameplay. In a PnP game, for instance, Rogues don't really need to be the equal of Fighters in melee because they have whole other important aspects of gameplay that they are masters of..... scouting, spotting and disarming traps, picking locks, finding secret doors, etc. These aspects can be incredibly important in PnP play but are basically absent from MMO's...... MMO's really only have 1 aspect of gameplay.... combat (a few might have crafting as a 2nd aspect but that's not as common) so pretty much everyone has to be as good at it as everyone else....because there is no opportunity for a player to say "Well I might not be as good at fighting as you.... but if I wasn't around, we'd miss half the dungeon, get blown up every 5 feet and walk straight into an ambush"
And this is why today's mmo's suck so badly. Having all classes being op dps has really killed what mmo's were. Some player's loved to be healers in a group. Today people play healer's to heal themselves while putting out massive dps at the same time. Sure its a lot of fun but then why group if you don't have to. I remember playing a Minstrel in lotro. I was so powerful it almost became boring to play.
That is like saying the only way to treat the injured hand is to amputate. No, good balance doesn't necessarily mean simplification. Don't be ridiculous.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
As i said for games that are meter centric, i.e trying to distill all classes down to dps,hps,dmg taken. 3 simplistic values. Thats not 'ridiculous' its obvious, try to balance x different variables with multiplicative and additive relationships with each other and you will quickly reach a point where its not possible to balance the permutations with each other. Design a game where actually the equation does not need to be resolved and it becomes easy. Why exactly do you think Blizzard are in balance hell year after year and continue to simplify over time - its not because the developers are stupid.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Wut?
- imbalanced is SUITED for SINGLE PLAYER games, it NOT suited for MULTIPLAYER games (we are talking computer games possible with current tech)
- sprinkling mobs around scenery and assignng them (very limted number of) resistances can be AUTOMATED. Thats how demanding it is. Thats not content (or if you prefer THATS limited conent)
- agree, but you still only see rogues abilites that end in killing stuff. Wheres diplomacy? Smooth talking? Barter? Managerial skills? And most important - where is actual content to use those skills on? Not some bad minigame like Vanguards diplomacy.
If you want to talk about "imbalanced characters" you have to talk beyond combat and killing stuff. If everything comes down to combat and killing stuff then characters HAVE TO be balanced.
They're in balance hell because of the direction they've gone where DPS/etc are important complicated formulas, which means lots of players have fun in their games, which means lots of players care about balance, which causes Blizzard to be in balance hell.
You can absolutely design a simpler, shallower game where everyone's on their own axis: only warriors fight, only thieves deal with traps, etc, but who wants to play a shallower game? Nobody. And so such a game would never be in balance hell because nobody would care.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It wouldn't be that way though.
Thieves do more then just traps. They play deal with a multitude of non combat oriented issues.
Adding something non combat already makes it possible morecomplex or at the very least more interesting IMO.
If you went to old game forums you would have seen a lot of people complaining about balance. A lot more then what you see with games like WoW today. That is part of the fun.
WoW has actually simplified the classes to the point where you can't combine different talent trees together anymore. You have to choose to be DPS, Healer, or Tanks for the most part. CC doesn't really exist anymore. CCs last fairly short times and generally have counters. So basically it's just choosing your flavor of DPS, healer, or Tank. The game was far more unbalanced in it's early days when you could combine talents from tank, dps, and healer for hybrids.
No MMO has ever really done a good job with out of combat roles. The only ones that really tried were the early MMOs.
Make your mind up son, and 1 stream of sequential actions with a bit of buff layering is not complicated, its muscle memory and timing, as any good raider will tell you.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
only where min maxing is critical. Take a 5 man or a running pvp battle, the only factor the developers have to micromanage with balancing is making it unattractive for everyone want to pick the same class. The killer is games that are obsessed with damage meters, i firmly believe they are the root of many evil.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
You can claim you'd be more interested in that sort of gameplay, sure. You can't say it's necessarily deeper.
Feel free to link to the forums that have more posts about balance than WOW's forums. LoL is probably the only game out of all games ever where I could believe there were more balance posts in its forums than WOW.
Feel free to link to rotations which are deeper than WOW's rotations. A few one-time decisions (talents) aren't really comparable to the ongoing dynamic decisions that a deep rotation offers. Combining talent trees isn't exactly a requirement for deep combat, unless you're going to claim chess is shallow due to its lack of varied talent trees or CC.
Few games try out of combat roles because it's not conducive to cooperative gaming. Any time we waste doing your thing (traps) is time I'm not doing my thing (combat) which means one of us is always feeling useless (and probably bored) at any given time.
It works in singleplayer RPGs because the one player is always doing something interesting. In combat they're fixated on their warrior, and out of combat they might be dealing with traps as a rogue. It doesn't matter that the warrior isn't doing anything useful while you deal with traps, because everything is set up to provide interesting decisions for the one player. NPCs don't get bored, so your warrior isn't going to complain why you work on the traps. Players do get bored.
Which is why the best coop games keep common central activities (usually combat) where all members participate, but have areas where each class shines. It results in player-to-player reliance in the exact same way, except that everyone gets to play at once.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Typical WOW rotations are fairly self-evident regarding the game's combat depth. That page leaves out boss-specific and teammate-specific factors that further alter the perfect rotation for any given fight.
So there's a certain objective certainty to the depth of WOW's combat, and thus far nobody has been able to show a MMORPG with superior combat decision depth (by showing evidence in the form of a guide or video.)
I don't really consider myself a fan of anything really. I measure games by depth and interesting decisions. If another MMORPG came along which was better at that than WOW, I'd drop WOW in an instant. My only loyalty is to the game offering the best gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As you said yourself, you have your perfect rotations, theres 0 decisions in that.
Any skill based PvP is more decision heavy than your perfect rotation.
And, since top end raiding is probably THE least popular thing in WoW (and always have been, not just in WoW, in any MMO that had raiding), its not best gameplay. Since in lower difficulties you can faceroll to various degrees.