Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Understanding Class Balance for what it really is
Eronakis
Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
There is another thread on here about balance and fairness. That thread got a quiet alot of hits so I am assuming people are still interested in this topic. The majority of time that argument is about classes and/or combat mechanics. I am going to repost my class balance thread again, but with some changes. I hope this clears the air on how the class balance methodology "should" work. I think this needs to be said again. It's long, so take your time to read it.
Introduction
Class balance is probably one of the most misunderstood types of game design elements that gamers bicker about on forums, guild chats, trade chats or any other place to express yourself. Some players may say, “Class balance ruins game play, every class is the same and is boring,” or they might say, “I don’t want class balance because it does not create diversity among other classes.” Surprise! No one is the winner! Both arguments are a fallacy. Here is a presentation of how I believe to properly balance a class.
Many games will now nerf or buff classes based on abilities and modifiers that directly overpower or are under-power game play. This is called top-down balancing and is not the best way to balance because it ignores the foundation of the class. I believe the best way to balance a class is from the bottom up in layers.
Establishing the Foundation
What really is a class? A class is a deviation of an archetype, a different way of playing a role that fits a particular theme that is more than likely based off lore elements. What is an archetype? An archetype is defining what the core function of that role is. For an example, an archetype can be categorized by the following; Tank, melee DPS, caster DPS, support and healing. A sub-archetype is a different way using the archetype's function. This is most commonly used in DPS classes.
Note, that hybrid classes may have more than one archetype and an a sub archetype.
In order to set the foundation of the class, the archetype must be balanced first.
The wizard class is a perfect example to help you understand what I am trying to convey between archetypes and sub-archetypes. The archetype of the wizard is a DPS. The sub-archetype of the wizard is a caster. So a wizard's functional gameplay element is DPS (archetype) and the wizard performs that DPS function (sub-archetype) by casting spells. Same way with a melee DPS class. A rogue is a DPS class that performs that DPS through melee. Both classes have defined their archetype and their sub-archetype.
Now we have established the foundation of a class through the archetype, next I’ll show you what constitutes balancing an archetype. I’ll try and attempt to keep this as simple as possible.
On the right path
Let’s further this through the casting DPS archetype. Say, there are three different types of casting DPS, wizard, necromancer and a summoner. Each class is a variation of the DPS archetype in which they produce DPS in a different fashion. The wizard has full power direct damage, the necromancer has damage over time and the summoner has direct damage and summoned pet damage.
Note that we are only looking at how to balance this at its core and other abilities will come into play later. Before we actually balance the archetype on paper, I must discuss what balance really means so you can have a better comprehension of where I am coming from.
The word balance is defined by being in harmonious or proper arrangement of adjustment, proportioned. How does that translate into game design? Essentially you balance by penalty. If a class’s function or ability is overpowering by its nature and there is no repercussion of using that very powerful ability, then therefore, it’s not balanced. It has to weigh equal; however, that does NOT negate class, spell or skill diversity. There has to be a counter of some sort.
It seems as if the new age gaming philosophy for class design is ignoring this fundamental game design aspect. And if ignored I do believe classes will never have a steady balance and will always be in that perpetual state of nerfing and buffing classes every patch.
Balancing with penalties
Penalties are the counter to all powerful function or abilities of a class that comes in many different forms; longer duration for a recast time/cool down, damage upon caster, vulnerability towards many different attributes, must sacrifice something for something else. A penalty is determined by how powerful something is. Sometimes a skill or a spell can have multiple penalties. Let’s go back to the three classes that we are trying to balance through the archetype.
Each class has a distinct way to produce damage output in their own form. Wizards perform high end direct damage. That means they produce the most damage output only through direct damage. Some reasonable penalties to help balance this would essentially be, damage feedback upon the caster, a longer recast/cool down or may sacrifice something for something else. For an example if a wizard has three tiers of direct damage output that is defined by cast time, 1.5 second set of spells that produces 100 damage, 3 second set of spells that produces 350 damage and a 5 second set of spells that produce 500 damage. By looking at the different intervals of damage output there will be different ways to balance each tier of damage. A designer can single balance each direct damage spell to have a different penalty or can simply group each tier where they have their own specified penalty.
Let’s take a look at the necromancer. Necromancers perform their role function through damage over time spells. Unlike the wizard, a necromancers damage output is for longevity over burst damage, so their penalties may be different. Some factors that we have to take a look at are, do we allow necromancer’s dot spells to stack to perform better DPS? That is solely up to the vision of the necromancer class. Some reasonable penalties to help balance damage over time function could include, sacrifice something for something else or damage upon caster. Now, depending on if the necromancer can stack dots, then the penalty of a longer recast/cool down can be taken into consideration because the frequency of those spells used would be high.
Now for the summoner, a tricky one because they have two different ways to produce their core function. I think this one may relate to how balancing should be done versus other archetypes and/or hybrids. The summoners DPS is through pets and casting spells. How can we balance this without it being overpowering? Because of the theme of the class, the summoner's pet(s) would produce the majority of the DPS. The direct damage would produce the minority of the DPS. A reasonable ratio could be pet damage equals 60% and direct damage equals 40% damaged produced.
Now, does that mean the summoners direct damage output is on par with the wizards direct damage output? It should NOT be on par because the summoner has multiple functions to produce their damage. If a wizard performs high end direct spell damage, say 100%, then the summoner should perform 35-45% of that 100% direct spell damage output of their highest damage set of spells. Let me put it into spells for you.
Wizards Fireball – does 500 damage with a 5 second cast time and has a 20% chance to have feedback upon the caster for half damage.
Summoners Fireball – does 225 damage with a 5 second cast time
The wizards fireball and the Summoners Fire ball are balanced on paper. As you can see the summoners fireball doesn’t have a penalty listed? Why? Because, that direct damage spell is only 45% of that 500 damage produced from the wizard with a chance at a penalty. If a wizard casts 5 fireballs in 25 seconds, that produces 2500 damage with a 20% chance half of that damage can recast upon the caster, which is essentially 500 damage dealt to the caster over 5 casts. It would take the summoner twice as long (about 11 casts) to reach that 2500 damage mark. Within that time the pet damage should make up for the difference.
As you can see through direct damage output, the wizard and the summoner are balanced within each other for direct spell damage only. Both of the classes can produce reasonable direct spell damage DPS in different ways but yet still be absolutely different in how they do so. Does class balance negate diversity? No, the above example should prove otherwise. Does class balance make all classes the same? No, because there are different ways to perform that archetype function. Also note that it’s always up to the designer to constitute this balancing philosophy and moreover what type of penalty to assign to the class. There is no text book way of doing this.
The epic conlcusion
Essentially, one should not look at class balance as a whole but in layers. Combat mechanics also play a vital role in balancing classes. Some questions to be asked, are combat mechanics generic with player input through button presses to cast spells and auto attack or are combat mechanics twitched based where a player may have to aim at their target or are combat mechanics separate entity where class mechanics compliment those combat mechanics?
Balancing should be from bottom up. The order in which you balance.
Establish the role of the class, then define it's archetype, and define if that archetype has a sub-archetype. Then define the archetype's core function and what abilities will that class have access too. Then balance those abilities with penalty. Then balance the combat mechanics that compliment the class design. Then player test it to see if the balance actually works.
Again, the class should have a good foundation through their archetype. All classes will shift from that foundation because of the vast array of abilities a class can have access too. Consistency is the key within the archetype. Classes who are hybrids that overlap into another archetypes should also be balanced. If overlapped, then the designer has to determine which role is the primary and which is the secondary. I think a good ratio for hybrids should be 70% and 30% where there is a distinct variation of each role the hybrid has access to.
I have only stepped one foot onto the foundation of class balance. I have showed you my theory of it and how I believe it should be properly accomplished. This was all done on paper. This is the essence of what a game designer does. The process is on paper first then sent over to the program department to make sure the design flows correctly through testing. I hope that my presentation was clear and you enjoyed the read.
Comments
I know this is like a 40 page novel, but I am bumping this thread and hoping to get some replies to start a discussion. I don't know, I think as a player and I think as a game designer too heh. I hope that the thread can be comprehendable.
There is not much to discuss, apart from maybe the 70/30 and "single-purpose-classes" you will probably get tarred and feathered by some wow enthusiasts, so far it is very basic, like, in a architects lecture, "you start with the foundation, then the walls, you do the roof last in most cases".
Flame on!
Haha no flaming from me. It's suppose to be very basic or this would be a 3 book series novel lol. Yup, that's how I envisioned explaining it kinda
Class balance is only a problem if you have PVP.
So long as no class is greatly disproptionate to another in a pve game, it shouldn't matter too much if the ranger can average 1200 dps and u wizard only 1,100 dps. Rarely do you hear arguments of class balance in tabletop games unless a class is clearly broken. Thats why i like what gw1 did, pretty much made pvp it's own game (which it is) so not to hamper the pve game.
I think it's easier to balance for pve gameplay versus pvp gameplay. I will say that WoW was unbalanced in both pve and pvp. That is because there was bad class design where a class had 3 archetypes and infusing a primary archetype with another primary archetype. Like for instance at one time an elemental shaman can do on par dps with a mage. A shaman was designed to be a support class with some dps capabilities. And the mage is a pure dps class. To me, based on my explanation, makes no sense and is why their class design is unbalanced to put it shortly.
A class is a deviation of an archetype, a different way of playing a role that fits a particular theme that is more than likely based off lore elements. What is an archetype? An archetype is defining what the core function of that role is. For an example, an archetype can be categorized by the following; Tank
Eronakis your arguement for class ballance is a little off base because you assume the archtypes are ballanced and clearly defined. A lot of games seem to fall into this trap in that they try to ballance classes first without first making sure the archtypes are ballanced. I liken this to building your foundation of class ballance on quicksand. To ballance the archtypes a game developer must design them fundementally from the games mechanics. Failure to do this will produce archtypes that are fundementally unballanced which will make class ballance impossible no matter how well thought out it is.
I wouldn't say it's off base, I just took a portion out to show people what balance is. Of course you have to design your classes from the combat mechanics. But that's the problem, they balance classes as a whole and don't see a class that has many parts. And those parts have to be balanced. I was attempting to break those parts down. Like I said, this is how I would balance classes. There is no set rule book to do so. It's all at the class designers discression.
A class system in general should be done away with in the future.
Or June 19th when The Secret World launches which has a classless system. You can check out this developer blog which explains it in great detail or just watch this video for lulz.
Classless systems are not a panacea for balance. They have their own problems.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville