Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMORPGs should NOT be balanced. . . .
varrius
Member Posts: 106
I have an opinion about the constant cry-out for balance in many MMO forums. .
I don't think, plain and simple, that an MMORPG should be balanced. It defeats the purpose of a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. . The original premise of an MMORPG was so that hundreds to thousands of players could coexist in the same world and adventure, kill, and journey together. In PVP, for example, the main area of the cry for 'balance', you must not complain about 1 on 1 balance, instead, worry about grouping the proper classes together and coordinating with other players.
The ability to operate as a group ( i.e. healer, tank ,dps - basic ) is the point of the MMORPG. The game should focus on imbalance in this case, forcing players to work together. Why solo in an mmo? Why bother? It should be all about having the proper setup of classes.
A good example of this is EVE Online. While it is NOT class based, it is not a "best gear wins" game. It forces you, regardless of skill points, to coordinate a fleet of numerous types of ships fitting different roles, thereby defying the entire cry for "balance."
Comments
what mmo exactly balances for 1v1 pvp anyways?
There should be no PvP in MMOs, therefore no need to balance.
All of them? At least, any game that is remotely PVP centric. What games balances classes for PVP groups? Maybe I haven't seen them.
Gawl
You've got everything backwards mate. When it comes to 1v1 PVP, certain classes have advantages and disadvantages against certain classes. And when you have a group of different classes, it balances the playing field out. Most MMO's are like this.
MMORPG, Roll Playing Games, are not about PvP... it's just the folks who like their epeen stroked want PvP... if I want to beat on somebody I will go outside and find a random person then use a basebal bat... then I know I can beat them... pressing 1,2,3 and using a mouse doesn't prove anything.
What makes you special if everyone is the same?
The singulation strangulation of progression is probably the most pointless line of development that will ever be seen in MMORPG development. I mean we're barely into the beginning of the game production era for MMORPGs. What everyone says is 'mighty win' now will probably be looked upon as completely silly later on. (Remember there was a time when stuffing grass in your shoes instead of wearing think cloth coverings was considered the proper way.)
The King sees more choice to be the way of the future.
Humans are normally social creatures, and while they may be pale misshapened shells in their real corporal forms- their avatars are beautiful people seeking the company of other beautiful people. Where they wish to work together to achieve various goals.
The liner progression we see in RIFT and other similar titles is just the easiest way to get a pretty look for a limited budget. If SWTOR does well enough the traditional budget limit will be blown out the water and investors will seek those developers who have these ideas that make the notion of 'our 4, 8, 16, 32 classes are all balanced to be fair' SHOULD BE the last notion on anyone's mind.
The King agrees that everyone should seek out the role they wish to play. Not be forced to arbitrarily play the role that's being wished for them.
I'd rather see an MMO without PvE than PvP. You don't need a massive number of players improve PvE content. To that effect, World of Warcraft and many MMOs are going to low number raiding groups because it makes more sense for the design. If I wanted a great small group cooperative experience I could play through a great NWN campaign instead of dealing with easy content, grind heavy, bland storylines that most MMORPGs instill into their PvE content. Rift and GW2 may finally make use of the massive numbers for PvE with their dynamic content but no game's pure PvE content has required a massive audience as of yet.
On the other hand, PvP gets more awesome and epic the more people that are involved. Whether it be subtle PvP like tinkering with the market system in Eve, fighting for relics in DAoC, or dealing with flatout gankers in UO all of these games benefitted greatly by large numbers of people playing. You don't have an epic war when you're fighting 8v8 afterall.
To the OP: It depends on your market. If a game heavily caters to solo play then it's in their best interest to balance fo 1v1 gameplay. While I generally agree with you because I play MMOs for the ability to interact with hundreds simultaneously it really comes down to which audience your game is geared towards.
[quote]
[i]Originally posted by mbd1968[/i]
[b]MMORPG, Roll Playing Games, are not about PvP... it's just the folks who like their epeen stroked want PvP... if I want to beat on somebody I will go outside and find a random person then use a basebal bat... then I know I can beat them... pressing 1,2,3 and using a mouse doesn't prove anything.[/b]
[/quote]
It's a game. Games mean competition. Competition means playing with and against real people. You think MMO's should be strictly roleplay?
MMORPG's are more about the social and community aspects, not pvp. This is kinda common knowledge, maybe you should go back to your fps garbage ^^. Anyway case you never noticed pvp mmorpg's never really get popular compared to pve ones. Mainly because pvp mmo's tend to be full of immature people that just wanna stroke their epeens mostly by ganking people who can't fight back. Where as pve mmorpgs sometimes devolop a really good community aspect. Even wow for example has a decent community if you get into a good guild, can't say its the best community though, alot of morons kinda like pvp based games.
Diffrent people like diffrent things, I like pvp in my mmorpgs if it has a purpose, like daoc, aion etc.
I kinda agree about the balance thing, But if the balance is too out of whack people won't play certan classes due to it. thats the problem. whats the point of having say 10 classes if only maybe 3 are decent?
"An MMORPG could be completely diffirent from WoW. Just look at games like Dofus, Wizard101 or EVE. But as it is, most of the Western MMOs are trying to succeed by out-WoWing WoW. It's like an army of 10 sports games made about same sports, and barely none about other sports. WoW clone is an accurate description of those games, it manages to convey much information with only two words."
-Poster on mmorpg.com
Rift: World of Warcraft clone #9321 Nothing special to see here move along.
This is 100% correct...
[quote][i]Originally posted by scythe99[/i]
{mod edit}
MMORPG's are more about the social and community aspects, not pvp. This is kinda common knowledge, maybe you should go back to your fps garbage ^^. Anyway case you never noticed pvp mmorpg's never really get popular compared to pve ones. Mainly because pvp mmo's tend to be full of immature people that just wanna stroke their epeens mostly by ganking people who can't fight back. Where as pve mmorpgs sometimes devolop a really good community aspect. Even wow for example has a decent community if you get into a good guild, can't say its the best community though, alot of morons kinda like pvp based games. Diffrent people like diffrent things, I like pvp in my mmorpgs if it has a purpose, like daoc, aion etc. I kinda agree about the balance thing, But if the balance is too out of whack people won't play certan classes due to it. thats the problem. whats the point of having say 10 classes if only maybe 3 are decent?[/b][/quote]
perhaps that what happens in PvE games with PvP...but in A PvP game witha proper pvp community, people look for challenge and a good fight.
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
Agreed.
The thing is there doesn't even HAVE to be pvp in a game for the 'balance plz' crowd to crop up.
Usually it's all based on 'my friend's a rogue and he does more damage than my healer, no more', Then devs cave in to this failed logic.
I can't say that I agree there should be no PvP in MMOs but I do think that it should be completely limited to PvP servers and even then no need to balance the classes for PvP- just as in PvE there will always be min/maxers and those that only choose the dominant class/race/spec which is even more limited in a PvP setting (as taunting mechanics and such don't work on real people). Let those players whose main desire is to PvP do it on their own servers among others that desire the same instead of constantly nerfing gameplay on both sides to accommodate.
Yeh...I mean look at all the complaining about the classes being unbalanced in PvE only games like Istaria, Vanguard, LoTRO, DDO, EQ2X,....oh wait....there really isn"t any complaining there, is there.
Balance is, and always has been about PvP. Nothing like PvP to screw up a good game.
A balance in PvP is a good thing. Sorry but characters that can deal out insane damage, take insane damage, and have insane heals doesnt make sense in a PvP or PvE sense. There is no way that a nerf in PvP will stop you from being able to "kill a raid boss" look at WoW...I hate to bring that game up but its incredibly unbalanced and they nerf and buff all the time and the effect i saw in PvE wasn't a big deal(I was a hardcore raider and pvper so yes I do know). People just use nerfing on their class as an excuse to why they suck in PvE or PvP. No PvP equals a dead game for me. What are two high end factions going to do with the highest end game armor sit there and stare at each other?...Yeah that really works well with a lore setting where they are suppose to be at each others throats. I understand people not wanting to PvP at all and thats fine thats why they make PvE servers...I dont understand why PvP should only be on PvP servers because there are always duel and battle grounds and those are voluntary. PvP doesn't even effect you PvE lovers so I dont get the big deal if you don't like it don't do it and don't play games that focus on it and you wont have a problem.
Also please name how PvP has messed up a PvE/PvP balanced game.
Um, no. EQ was designed to be Co-Op, but it didn't appear until a decade and a half after the first graphical MMORPG and a good 2 decades after MUDs. Most of it's predecessors were in fact PVP games.
However, if you look at PVP from a WoW player's point of view. I can see where you're right. Which, judging by your other posts in this thread, you're a pretty strong WoW player. Nothing wrong with that, but WoW was also originally designed to be a PVP game and has evolved since then. But that's a whole other post entirely.
In games that are not like WoW (and also what WoW was supposed to have been), PVP is meant to be an on going struggle between forces in the game. Either player created factions, or in game factions. The point of PVP games is to have a war to fight against and battles to be raged in virtual worlds. Virtual Worlds are what MMORPGs were originally designed to be and should be imho, but have changed quite a bit since WoW made it's migration to pretty much a full PVE game.
If you want WoW flavored Competition, then I agree, FPSs are much better. I am a die hard FPS fan. But, if you want a cause to fight for and against something that isn't Artificial Intelligence, something where you have to actually plan ahead and use real world war strategy (logistics, timing, etc. etc.), then you need a MMORPG.
PVE may be great for you, but I can't stand knowing what my opponent is going to do next. The dungeon dances are not fun what so ever, the 3rd or 4th time you do them. That's what Single Player/Multiplayer games are for. Not MMORPGs with persistent worlds.
Well as you brought up WoW and stated "What are two high end factions going to do with the highest end game armor sit there and stare at each other?"... Well, yes, when they have their PvE armor on as it won't help them much in PvP.
EQ is based on a game called Meridian 59 that released in early '96. It is probably the first game we would call a MMORPG. Other games you might consider MMORPGs would possibly be the original Neverwinter nights (not Biowares, this is is a lot earlier and Bioware named their game to honor the first game) and the Realm.
Most of those games had PvE only. The name MMORPG was however coined by Richard Garriot for UO and it had PvP.
To say a MMO must have PvP or PvE is silly, it can have one or both. The mechanics that Meridian invented and most MMOs have today (including the holy triad) is however made for PvE and not PvP. UOs mechanics is mainly made for PvP instead and the same goes for Eves mechanics.
And yes, mechanics made for PvE in the start is not really ultimate for PvP.
As for balance there really must be some in any game with PvP. In a PvE game it isn't as important. The problem is that balancing a class both for PvE and PvP is pretty hard, particularly if you use the holy triad.
Class less games are even worse to balance, particularly if you can learn all skills at once.
But the main reasons you need balance is so not 2/3 of the server plays the same class. It leads to rather boring and predictable gameplay.
The problem here isn't MMORPGs in general. Its the way games are created. People will say that they would prefer a PvP only game over a PvE only game, well, they have existed and have failed. There are many factors invovled in what makes a game good or what needs to be done to please people and it's about the game itself not people's opinions. If people want pure balance then it will boil down to where PvP can only be done in an arena like situation where you must queue due to the role of your class and you can only enter with a group against a group of the same exact roles. 1 tank, 1 healer, 3 DPS vs the same.
People will complain that they don't want a dumbed down game like that, very similar to WoWs dungeon system but if you want things to be even, fair or balanced you lose some of your freedom. It boils down to the point you cant please everyone.
I wasn't aware that Meridian 59 was designed for PVE, though I do know it migrated to PVP fairly quickly at least. However, there were several games between NWN@AOL and Meridian 59.
I actually never said MMORPGs should be designed strictly for PVP or PVE. I simply said they should be designed as Virtual Worlds. Both PVP and PVE are equally important in a Virtual World, as well as many other factors such as Economy and resources. Look at the fail that is Darkfall.
I think the problem is more that the games that failed sucked.
A really good game will have players no matter if it is PvE, PvP or both.
As for the triad roles not all games have them and I think we see a lot more games without in the future. A game like GW2 will be a lot more balanced since it have no triad and some PvE only skills. It works of course only since the PvE world and the mists (and arenas, guildbattles and so on) are made so you must zone between them.
But no one have mentioned what really imbalance the games: The focus on gear.
It had PvP added as an afterthought, yes.
But I believe that you can make a good game with one or another, it really doesn't matter which. I rather have a good game with either part than a bad with both and if you think about it I assume you agree. In a perfect world are both parts equally good.
But the triad mechanics makes a big wall between PvE and PvP. I believe that the AIs of MMOs needs to act more like humans in the future, FPS games have gotten pretty far there but MMOs have not changed the lest since I started M59 in spring '96.
I believe that the only way to offer equally fun and good PvP and PvE is to make new mechanics that fits both types better and add a good AI as well. That way you don't need to worry about balancing the same class both (if you have classes).
In a perfect game you should wonder if that orc you fighting is a mob or another player.
Sadly PvE is the only dynamic MMOs have delivered on for me, any game with classes built for PvE have been poor as far as PvP is concerned for me (I never played DAoC, was still busy in EQ)- and while I certainly don't advocate grinding dungeons as "content" I will say that devs have made far better PvE MMOs than PvP ones.
I have to vehemently disagree with you on the final point- persistent worlds especially are for massive (remember that part of MMORPG?) co-op versus whatever the devs have unleashed. One only needs to go back to the late '90s to see some spectacular examples, and even in WoW (which I admit I enjoyed in vanilla) had the events for opening the gates of AQ.
I daresay with the limitations of servers/bandwidth/etc that it is PvP that is best suited for multiplayer games such as FPS games or League of Legends. In a MMO that has a PvE basis not only is balanced PvP an exercise in futility, but through what many of us has seen in other MMOs (particularly the failures) a lapse of good judgment as well.
Blame the success of WoW for the massive influx of carebears into online gaming. In both good and bad ways... online gaming before late 2004 was an entirely different animal than it is today.