Balance does mean alot most of all in a game that is so heavily based on combat, which most older school games as well as table top games were trully not based as much on combat, but these older games did still have balance in varying forms with the trully overpower effects having draw backs to them (even restrictions). Yet total balance should not be the goal as that is un-realistic to attain in a game with so many variables as well as just that there will always be somethign that is going to be slightly ahead, but seeking a quasi balance where everyone is within a percentage spread of each other say within 5-10% of each other would be a fine goal that would allow for that illusion of balance, while allowing also for that depth of character an varying value to your choices in what you choose.
Though i think balancing abilities, and classes solely on their number as well as output they have in quite blind, since you can balance a trouble-some ability or class by adding restrictions or additional requirements to them. Such as that if a fire ball deals too much damage instead of tweaking the damage down via it's output directly you could increase it's cast-time, or have a secondary ability usage needed before it is usable, as this would weaken it's strength for spaming yet keep it's overall damage intact (as well as possibily lead to more stratigic play.). Also the fact that so many classes are becoming more mobile overall in games, with the fact that many times they have cast-time spells that are either completely un-used or just forgotten as they restrict this mobile style (or aabilities that have a cast time getting it completley reduced or taken out), as such actually going back to where some speccs or classes actually required you to be stationary to cast at the benefit of increased damage or even increased intruption an damage resistance while channeling/casting a spell would be intresting to see once more.
I woud also like to see ideas like creating more than just merely the mitigation based tanks (meat shields.) that are largely the only style used in many ways in games, and going back to having several kinds all with utilities that facilitate their style of tanking, even if that means we start seeing more spiky tanks (which you can actually adjust the mitigation tank down to make their damage intake roughly in line so that the overall end result would be the same.), while also allowing for more fresher concepts of tanking or even other roles that have become largely stale over the years. Many times i think class balance is a great idea as it allows the enjoyment of a class to be easier as people expect so much, but yet also that it harms the game at large by stamping out alot of uniqueness that leads to the im-balances , and so i say there needs to be more methods used to balance classes an abbilities in games over just tweaking output of the abilities or classes in question.
One other thing is that both pvp as well as pve have almost polar oppisite desires in balance, as such they really should be treated as seperate entities in the game at large for balancing and also functality in classes. An so i would use a dual value system in which each ability has two sets of values that are used for their abiliies, one set is used while in pve an the other in pvp, which would allow you to actually balance each ability seperately between both styles of play without un-balancing or affecting the other side. THis takes much of the pressure off the devs as a change in pvp will not affect what they have done in pve, and the reverse is true as well, and also they can fully change how a classes feels even in pvp to pve without much of a overhaul too.
TL;DR The problem is the definition of class balance has changed over the years, as the players in MMOs have changed. Before class balance was balancing the damage you output with the utility you bring. It was all about filling a ROLE. Thats why CC, tanks, and healers had lower damage than pure DPS classes, it balanced out because those classes did something a DPS couldnt. Now all of a sudden, people all want to DPS, but they still want to play those other classes. Game Designers are telling them they can "play your way", and thier way means they want it all. You want balance and meaning back in your games, then you have to have clearly defined roles for classes. If you want some CC, expect your DPS to be lower. If you want to not be squishy, expect your DPS to be lower. If you want buffs or debuffs, expect your DPS to be lower. And for goodness sakes, DONT ROLL THAT CLASS IF ITS NOT WHAT YOURE LOOKING FOR.
For a specific example I will use EQ2, it has the most class choices, and used to work on the old Tiered DPS system.
So what it used to be was:
T1: Predators (Assassins/Rangers) and Sorcerers (Wizards and Warlocks)
T2: Rogues (Swashbucklers and Brigands) and Summoners (Necromancers and Conjurers)
T3: Bards (Dirges and Troubadors) and Enchanters (Illusionists and Coercers)
The reason it worked was because the T1 were pure DPS, they offered nothing to groups or raids except damage. T3 were ok with having minimal damage because they were the utility. They did 90% of all the buffs in game, and most of the crowd control too. The problem was players all started to whine about being outdamaged (6 years after launch, mind you, the old crowd was fine with the way the system worked, this all changed post 2000). So then the developers started raising the damage output of utility classes, but they had to remove the usefulness of utility, so they werent OP. Now CC doesnt work in raids at all, and very minimal usage in groups. And everyone gets buffs and regen, even if they just pop consumables. Summoners are out DPSing T1 with the new pet (shared-stat) system, and Rogues can be top tier, but it does still take some skill. Im not gonna make this longer by explaining how messed up fighters and healers are, but they were a part of the system as well. In the old days (pre-2000) these systems worked, but nowadays youll never see class balance done the right way because people all want to pew, pew, pew but they still want to play the warrior, or the cleric.
To achieve balance again, developers just have to tell players if they want to kill faster or do more damage DONT ROLL A FOOKING HEALER. If you roll a wizard youre probably going to be squishy, and assassins dont make great tanks. Learn about the class before you play it, and accept that if you want to play that class, someone may have higher DPS than you, but you still bring something else to the table.
The best way to balance classes is with CC. In open world PvP, CC can work. In mini game PvP it becomes OP. Throw out mini game PvP and restore CC utility to charachter choices or specialization and balance is much less of an issue. In EQ the classes were Tank, Healer, CC...it was not a DPS centric style of play.
The best way to balance classes is with CC. In open world PvP, CC can work. In mini game PvP it becomes OP. Throw out mini game PvP and restore CC utility to charachter choices or specialization and balance is much less of an issue. In EQ the classes were Tank, Healer, CC...it was not a DPS centric style of play.
It is not the best way - PvE and PvP need to be in balance. That was shown in GW1 - if one skill was twaeked for PvE it bacame way OP in PvP. A balanced approach PvP/PvE is the best albeit a harder way to go.
I'd rather scrap CC all together and focus on active defense (dodging/parrying/blocking) and give more attention to LoS and Collision Detection.
CC is bad gameplay. Period.
It's a crutch for bad tactics.
In UO you had collision detection, and you also had the ability to put down walls/fields to prevent enemy movement.
GW2 has some of that too and it's my favorite part of CC in GW2. It's tactical, you can't spam it, it's useful. It's NOT a crutch for poor tactical play.
I've stopped the advance of an entire zerg cold in its tracks with walls/fields/wards and their stupid idea to funnel their entire force down a tunnel.
I'd love to see CC as we know it removed (stuns, sleeps, on-demand knockdowns, etc.) and replace with Collision detection, active defense, and magic only used in CC for wards/fields/walls.
The best way to balance classes is with CC. In open world PvP, CC can work. In mini game PvP it becomes OP. Throw out mini game PvP and restore CC utility to charachter choices or specialization and balance is much less of an issue. In EQ the classes were Tank, Healer, CC...it was not a DPS centric style of play.
It is not the best way - PvE and PvP need to be in balance. That was shown in GW1 - if one skill was twaeked for PvE it bacame way OP in PvP. A balanced approach PvP/PvE is the best albeit a harder way to go.
I'd rather scrap CC all together and focus on active defense (dodging/parrying/blocking) and give more attention to LoS and Collision Detection.
CC is bad gameplay. Period.
It's a crutch for bad tactics.
In UO you had collision detection, and you also had the ability to put down walls/fields to prevent enemy movement.
GW2 has some of that too and it's my favorite part of CC in GW2. It's tactical, you can't spam it, it's useful. It's NOT a crutch for poor tactical play.
I've stopped the advance of an entire zerg cold in its tracks with walls/fields/wards and their stupid idea to funnel their entire force down a tunnel.
I'd love to see CC as we know it removed (stuns, sleeps, on-demand knockdowns, etc.) and replace with Collision detection, active defense, and magic only used in CC for wards/fields/walls.
Yeah, I mean armor is only useful when you get hit by something. Pro-tip - Don't get hit, don't need armor.
And magic > metal in fantasy.
Hence, class balance is ridiculous is MMOs because everyone can choose to be a wizard type.
But wizards are supposed to be VERY rare and totally OP.
And in some systems, they wear plate. We just call them Pallies.
WoW really is an odd duck, in a whole lot of ways.
Actually, when DAOC first came out, the healing class on the Albion side wore chain mail and had a chain lighting effect that was way overpowered. People started calling them "Chain Wizzys" however Mythic quickly nerfed them back into their "can't kill sh!t" when soloing mode.
Most high level clerics you saw running around were power leveled by alts, especially after a year or two went by. (did it myself actually to create my buff bot)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The best way to balance classes is with CC. In open world PvP, CC can work. In mini game PvP it becomes OP. Throw out mini game PvP and restore CC utility to charachter choices or specialization and balance is much less of an issue. In EQ the classes were Tank, Healer, CC...it was not a DPS centric style of play.
It is not the best way - PvE and PvP need to be in balance. That was shown in GW1 - if one skill was twaeked for PvE it bacame way OP in PvP. A balanced approach PvP/PvE is the best albeit a harder way to go.
GW1 had open world PvP?
No, but in regular PvP - please don't be dense.
Most gamers, well maybe not on this forum, want both PvE and PvP mix. In that instance, you need to have a balance. Just balancing for openworld PvP is fine if that is all the game has, but if it doesn't it gimps other parts of the game.
I'd rather scrap CC all together and focus on active defense (dodging/parrying/blocking) and give more attention to LoS and Collision Detection.
CC is bad gameplay. Period.
It's a crutch for bad tactics.
In UO you had collision detection, and you also had the ability to put down walls/fields to prevent enemy movement.
GW2 has some of that too and it's my favorite part of CC in GW2. It's tactical, you can't spam it, it's useful. It's NOT a crutch for poor tactical play.
I've stopped the advance of an entire zerg cold in its tracks with walls/fields/wards and their stupid idea to funnel their entire force down a tunnel.
I'd love to see CC as we know it removed (stuns, sleeps, on-demand knockdowns, etc.) and replace with Collision detection, active defense, and magic only used in CC for wards/fields/walls.
I think you also are talking about mini game PvP.
CC is even worse in OWPvP or Battlegrounds types.
Makes Stealth and CC incredibly powerful.
Collision detection + LoS and active defense would make melee viable (where as ranged always has advantages in OWPvP) but you'd have to greatly limit the effect of healing and rely on personal active defenses instead - which IMO is a good thing as whomever has more "Pocket healers" wins in battleground/OWPvP systems that rely on traditional Trinity mechanics.
There is no mmorpg to use as an example for class balance so we don't even know what that feels like. Every current MMO massively fails in the class balance department so tough to say we need something we've never had.
Collision detection + LoS and active defense would make melee viable (where as ranged always has advantages in OWPvP) but you'd have to greatly limit the effect of healing and rely on personal active defenses instead - which IMO is a good thing as whomever has more "Pocket healers" wins in battleground/OWPvP systems that rely on traditional Trinity mechanics.
Now you are talking combat mechanics, which is fine. I agree with you on collision detection, but I also think all combat actions should strike everyone, friend or foe, in path of strikes. I also believe all healing should be hands on and out of combat. Healing from way off is unrealistic to me, just as swinging a sword miraculously through a crowd only to hit a certain target.
CC as a means to control encounters and survivability is a viable playstyle all by itself. It is only when it does not break on dmg or only effects foes it becomes OP. if a snare mechanic is used, it snares boith friend and foe. If your "wall" goes up it stops everyone from passing. Stunning and beating on someone is not what I am talking about.
Now you are talking combat mechanics, which is fine. I agree with you on collision detection, but I also think all combat actions should strike everyone, friend or foe, in path of strikes. I also believe all healing should be hands on and out of combat. Healing from way off is unrealistic to me, just as swinging a sword miraculously through a crowd only to hit a certain target.
CC as a means to control encounters and survivability is a viable playstyle all by itself. It is only when it does not break on dmg or only effects foes it becomes OP. if a snare mechanic is used, it snares boith friend and foe. If your "wall" goes up it stops everyone from passing. Stunning and beating on someone is not what I am talking about.
I agree entirely.
But at the same time, it's hard to really "aim" attacks in MMO combat unless you are using a FPS like system, but that creates all kinds of other problems.
I think a system in which magical or physical AoE attacks would strike friend and foe alike is easily doable, but you wouldn't need to make every single-target swing/strike check for contact across all points of the animation.
And I don't think you'd need a FPS style system to try and "aim" a ranged or magical attack over an allies shoulder to hit any enemy, you could do it with more generic hit boxes just as easily.
Just like you could do active blocking of projectiles with a shield.
I like how GW2 does active defensive skills, you hit a button and for a few short seconds if anyone attacks you, you block/counter/etc.
Makes it easier to do in a network environment due to latency/lag, and requires intelligent decision making/player skill.
I've always thought a slightly slowed-down combat system that was in essence a game of rock-paper-scissors every "turn" where you had a full range of both offensive and defensive abilities and combos/counters etc. more like a slower paced fighting game would be perfect for a MMO.
I am not a developer, but I do not think it would be that difficult to have a swing radius shown on screen for melee, while giving a thrust option (at reduced dmg) for more precision. We already see this in GW2 where strikes hit multiple foes based on weapon range. Would definately remove a lot of zerging.
Range attacks simply being a line shooting froward that can be adjusted for trajectory (lob over freinds). Agree, it would slow combat down and require more coordination), but I think that is a good thing.
I do not think our thoughts are off too much on CC, we both want it to be tatical. If all actions were based on a stat like stamina and CC took a heavy toll, then I think it would work well and be a very tactical part of any encounter.
Sop I still believe CC is a great method of class balance, paticularly is that skill sets offsets DPS and Heals...where most crys of imbalance come from.
I'd rather scrap CC all together and focus on active defense (dodging/parrying/blocking) and give more attention to LoS and Collision Detection.
CC is bad gameplay. Period.
It's a crutch for bad tactics.
In UO you had collision detection, and you also had the ability to put down walls/fields to prevent enemy movement.
GW2 has some of that too and it's my favorite part of CC in GW2. It's tactical, you can't spam it, it's useful. It's NOT a crutch for poor tactical play.
I've stopped the advance of an entire zerg cold in its tracks with walls/fields/wards and their stupid idea to funnel their entire force down a tunnel.
I'd love to see CC as we know it removed (stuns, sleeps, on-demand knockdowns, etc.) and replace with Collision detection, active defense, and magic only used in CC for wards/fields/walls.
I think you also are talking about mini game PvP.
CC is even worse in OWPvP or Battlegrounds types.
Makes Stealth and CC incredibly powerful.
Collision detection + LoS and active defense would make melee viable (where as ranged always has advantages in OWPvP) but you'd have to greatly limit the effect of healing and rely on personal active defenses instead - which IMO is a good thing as whomever has more "Pocket healers" wins in battleground/OWPvP systems that rely on traditional Trinity mechanics.
I don't see DAOC in your gaming list, so I don't think you experienced how well CC worked in that title and in fact, it wasn't the stealthers who ruled the day, or even the zerg, but rather the efforts of a well coordinated team of one or two 8 mans who could dominate the field in open field PVP.
The assist train ruled everything, and in fact, melee were the last to be attacked because they were so darn hard to kill, especially if any healers or other support still were in the fight.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I am not a fan of class balanace...The reason why is just like in life some people are good at one thing and others are good at something else...We all have strengths and weaknesses and so should our characters......Can you imagine how boring life would be if we were all balanced?......
The best way to balance classes is with CC. In open world PvP, CC can work. In mini game PvP it becomes OP. Throw out mini game PvP and restore CC utility to charachter choices or specialization and balance is much less of an issue. In EQ the classes were Tank, Healer, CC...it was not a DPS centric style of play.
It is not the best way - PvE and PvP need to be in balance. That was shown in GW1 - if one skill was twaeked for PvE it bacame way OP in PvP. A balanced approach PvP/PvE is the best albeit a harder way to go.
GW1 had open world PvP?
It did not. As the game matured, more and more skills had different effect/description depending in which area it was used (PvP/PvE area).
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
PnP games and older MMMOs even were loaded to bear with classes that access to certain skills, spells or abilities that made them stand out. Balance was not always the main element in class design but more depth of character that would fit lore. Some of these abilities were combat oriented some were utility in design.
These days games are all about the numbers and combat. How do the classes stack up in combat and are they balanced? Uitlity spells and effects that are used outside of combat that might give a particular class some sort of edge in other areas of gameplay such as making travel easier or even the ability to give long term buffs are rarely seen. And when it comes to combat abilities, balance trumps all.
So what are peoples opinions on this. Should developers go back to the older philosophy that character depth and game lore is just as important and bring back abilities that others might not have access to?. Or should they continue with the trend that everything must be totally balanced, and no one class should ever have abilities that might give them an edge?
Like most polls on this site, I find it impossible to answer.
Because there is no, 'depends' option.
Depends, is the game pve or pvp centric?
Depends on the pve design.
Games without balance but unique characters are great, but not if the rest of the game structure demands balance. And vice-versa.
Collision detection + LoS and active defense would make melee viable (where as ranged always has advantages in OWPvP) but you'd have to greatly limit the effect of healing and rely on personal active defenses instead - which IMO is a good thing as whomever has more "Pocket healers" wins in battleground/OWPvP systems that rely on traditional Trinity mechanics.
I don't see DAOC in your gaming list, so I don't think you experienced how well CC worked in that title and in fact, it wasn't the stealthers who ruled the day, or even the zerg, but rather the efforts of a well coordinated team of one or two 8 mans who could dominate the field in open field PVP.
The assist train ruled everything, and in fact, melee were the last to be attacked because they were so darn hard to kill, especially if any healers or other support still were in the fight.
The key trait in open world PvP and large scale PvP is mobility. Mobility gives you map control and the ability to choose your fights; hence, you will win every fight you choose to engage. Since player population is rarely if ever managed in this type of PvP, numbers count more than individual power. If you are faster than everyone else, you can engage all the groups smaller than yours and run from groups larger than yours.
Objectives which force you to fight are still quite rare, and even then you can beat them by just bringing more friends than your enemy.
This is ofcourse a generalization but all large scale and open world PvP that I've seen have gone along those same lines. This is also why I find it so uninteresting - because it quickly devolves into this cat 'n' mouse game where people only engage in fights if they are sure to win.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
PnP games and older MMMOs even were loaded to bear with classes that access to certain skills, spells or abilities that made them stand out. Balance was not always the main element in class design but more depth of character that would fit lore. Some of these abilities were combat oriented some were utility in design.
These days games are all about the numbers and combat. How do the classes stack up in combat and are they balanced? Uitlity spells and effects that are used outside of combat that might give a particular class some sort of edge in other areas of gameplay such as making travel easier or even the ability to give long term buffs are rarely seen. And when it comes to combat abilities, balance trumps all.
So what are peoples opinions on this. Should developers go back to the older philosophy that character depth and game lore is just as important and bring back abilities that others might not have access to?. Or should they continue with the trend that everything must be totally balanced, and no one class should ever have abilities that might give them an edge?
Like most polls on this site, I find it impossible to answer.
Because there is no, 'depends' option.
Depends, is the game pve or pvp centric?
Depends on the pve design.
Games without balance but unique characters are great, but not if the rest of the game structure demands balance. And vice-versa.
Depends.
That's my answer.
As I think that the genre should be split into PvE games and PvP games and I would not play a PvP game my response is a little different.
PvE games should be designed around variety of classes and not balance. Even if two classes are primarily DPS it should not matter if one does more DPS than another in one kind of encounter. Provided that this switches depending on the type of encounter. But every class should have something usefull that only that class brings to the group.
Collision detection + LoS and active defense would make melee viable (where as ranged always has advantages in OWPvP) but you'd have to greatly limit the effect of healing and rely on personal active defenses instead - which IMO is a good thing as whomever has more "Pocket healers" wins in battleground/OWPvP systems that rely on traditional Trinity mechanics.
I don't see DAOC in your gaming list, so I don't think you experienced how well CC worked in that title and in fact, it wasn't the stealthers who ruled the day, or even the zerg, but rather the efforts of a well coordinated team of one or two 8 mans who could dominate the field in open field PVP.
The assist train ruled everything, and in fact, melee were the last to be attacked because they were so darn hard to kill, especially if any healers or other support still were in the fight.
The key trait in open world PvP and large scale PvP is mobility. Mobility gives you map control and the ability to choose your fights; hence, you will win every fight you choose to engage. Since player population is rarely if ever managed in this type of PvP, numbers count more than individual power. If you are faster than everyone else, you can engage all the groups smaller than yours and run from groups larger than yours.
Objectives which force you to fight are still quite rare, and even then you can beat them by just bringing more friends than your enemy.
This is ofcourse a generalization but all large scale and open world PvP that I've seen have gone along those same lines. This is also why I find it so uninteresting - because it quickly devolves into this cat 'n' mouse game where people only engage in fights if they are sure to win.
Oh, but it was a thing of beauty in DAOC to see a couple of well coordinated 8 mans roll into the zerg of 50 and frequently prevail against them all.
The death penalties weren't bad, and people rarely ran from a good fight, there was no real reason to. Doesn't mean there weren't times a strategic retreat was in order, especially if you were in a stealth gang or something, but otherwise the smaller groups quite often could prevail against the many.
I've never run into anything quite like that title since then, so I can see what your saying that in most other titles it just isn't the case.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yeah, I mean armor is only useful when you get hit by something. Pro-tip - Don't get hit, don't need armor.
And magic > metal in fantasy.
Hence, class balance is ridiculous is MMOs because everyone can choose to be a wizard type.
But wizards are supposed to be VERY rare and totally OP.
And in some systems, they wear plate. We just call them Pallies.
WoW really is an odd duck, in a whole lot of ways.
Actually, when DAOC first came out, the healing class on the Albion side wore chain mail and had a chain lighting effect that was way overpowered. People started calling them "Chain Wizzys" however Mythic quickly nerfed them back into their "can't kill sh!t" when soloing mode.
Most high level clerics you saw running around were power leveled by alts, especially after a year or two went by. (did it myself actually to create my buff bot)
Proof? I never recalled healers having "chain lightning" spells. Healers never had any offensive damage spells. The roblem with healers was they had area effect stuns and there was no immunity timers for CC back then. The chain wizzies were Thanes.
"I'm sorry but your mmo has been diagnosed with EA and only has X number of days to live."
Comments
Balance does mean alot most of all in a game that is so heavily based on combat, which most older school games as well as table top games were trully not based as much on combat, but these older games did still have balance in varying forms with the trully overpower effects having draw backs to them (even restrictions). Yet total balance should not be the goal as that is un-realistic to attain in a game with so many variables as well as just that there will always be somethign that is going to be slightly ahead, but seeking a quasi balance where everyone is within a percentage spread of each other say within 5-10% of each other would be a fine goal that would allow for that illusion of balance, while allowing also for that depth of character an varying value to your choices in what you choose.
Though i think balancing abilities, and classes solely on their number as well as output they have in quite blind, since you can balance a trouble-some ability or class by adding restrictions or additional requirements to them. Such as that if a fire ball deals too much damage instead of tweaking the damage down via it's output directly you could increase it's cast-time, or have a secondary ability usage needed before it is usable, as this would weaken it's strength for spaming yet keep it's overall damage intact (as well as possibily lead to more stratigic play.). Also the fact that so many classes are becoming more mobile overall in games, with the fact that many times they have cast-time spells that are either completely un-used or just forgotten as they restrict this mobile style (or aabilities that have a cast time getting it completley reduced or taken out), as such actually going back to where some speccs or classes actually required you to be stationary to cast at the benefit of increased damage or even increased intruption an damage resistance while channeling/casting a spell would be intresting to see once more.
I woud also like to see ideas like creating more than just merely the mitigation based tanks (meat shields.) that are largely the only style used in many ways in games, and going back to having several kinds all with utilities that facilitate their style of tanking, even if that means we start seeing more spiky tanks (which you can actually adjust the mitigation tank down to make their damage intake roughly in line so that the overall end result would be the same.), while also allowing for more fresher concepts of tanking or even other roles that have become largely stale over the years. Many times i think class balance is a great idea as it allows the enjoyment of a class to be easier as people expect so much, but yet also that it harms the game at large by stamping out alot of uniqueness that leads to the im-balances , and so i say there needs to be more methods used to balance classes an abbilities in games over just tweaking output of the abilities or classes in question.
One other thing is that both pvp as well as pve have almost polar oppisite desires in balance, as such they really should be treated as seperate entities in the game at large for balancing and also functality in classes. An so i would use a dual value system in which each ability has two sets of values that are used for their abiliies, one set is used while in pve an the other in pvp, which would allow you to actually balance each ability seperately between both styles of play without un-balancing or affecting the other side. THis takes much of the pressure off the devs as a change in pvp will not affect what they have done in pve, and the reverse is true as well, and also they can fully change how a classes feels even in pvp to pve without much of a overhaul too.
TL;DR The problem is the definition of class balance has changed over the years, as the players in MMOs have changed. Before class balance was balancing the damage you output with the utility you bring. It was all about filling a ROLE. Thats why CC, tanks, and healers had lower damage than pure DPS classes, it balanced out because those classes did something a DPS couldnt. Now all of a sudden, people all want to DPS, but they still want to play those other classes. Game Designers are telling them they can "play your way", and thier way means they want it all. You want balance and meaning back in your games, then you have to have clearly defined roles for classes. If you want some CC, expect your DPS to be lower. If you want to not be squishy, expect your DPS to be lower. If you want buffs or debuffs, expect your DPS to be lower. And for goodness sakes, DONT ROLL THAT CLASS IF ITS NOT WHAT YOURE LOOKING FOR.
For a specific example I will use EQ2, it has the most class choices, and used to work on the old Tiered DPS system.
So what it used to be was:
T1: Predators (Assassins/Rangers) and Sorcerers (Wizards and Warlocks)
T2: Rogues (Swashbucklers and Brigands) and Summoners (Necromancers and Conjurers)
T3: Bards (Dirges and Troubadors) and Enchanters (Illusionists and Coercers)
The reason it worked was because the T1 were pure DPS, they offered nothing to groups or raids except damage. T3 were ok with having minimal damage because they were the utility. They did 90% of all the buffs in game, and most of the crowd control too. The problem was players all started to whine about being outdamaged (6 years after launch, mind you, the old crowd was fine with the way the system worked, this all changed post 2000). So then the developers started raising the damage output of utility classes, but they had to remove the usefulness of utility, so they werent OP. Now CC doesnt work in raids at all, and very minimal usage in groups. And everyone gets buffs and regen, even if they just pop consumables. Summoners are out DPSing T1 with the new pet (shared-stat) system, and Rogues can be top tier, but it does still take some skill. Im not gonna make this longer by explaining how messed up fighters and healers are, but they were a part of the system as well. In the old days (pre-2000) these systems worked, but nowadays youll never see class balance done the right way because people all want to pew, pew, pew but they still want to play the warrior, or the cleric.
To achieve balance again, developers just have to tell players if they want to kill faster or do more damage DONT ROLL A FOOKING HEALER. If you roll a wizard youre probably going to be squishy, and assassins dont make great tanks. Learn about the class before you play it, and accept that if you want to play that class, someone may have higher DPS than you, but you still bring something else to the table.
The best way to balance classes is with CC. In open world PvP, CC can work. In mini game PvP it becomes OP. Throw out mini game PvP and restore CC utility to charachter choices or specialization and balance is much less of an issue. In EQ the classes were Tank, Healer, CC...it was not a DPS centric style of play.
Daoc and lineage2 have more classes than EQ.
The worst are primary nukers / glass cannons. E.g. the wow approach.
It is not the best way - PvE and PvP need to be in balance. That was shown in GW1 - if one skill was twaeked for PvE it bacame way OP in PvP. A balanced approach PvP/PvE is the best albeit a harder way to go.
"I'm sorry but your mmo has been diagnosed with EA and only has X number of days to live."
I'd rather scrap CC all together and focus on active defense (dodging/parrying/blocking) and give more attention to LoS and Collision Detection.
CC is bad gameplay. Period.
It's a crutch for bad tactics.
In UO you had collision detection, and you also had the ability to put down walls/fields to prevent enemy movement.
GW2 has some of that too and it's my favorite part of CC in GW2. It's tactical, you can't spam it, it's useful. It's NOT a crutch for poor tactical play.
I've stopped the advance of an entire zerg cold in its tracks with walls/fields/wards and their stupid idea to funnel their entire force down a tunnel.
I'd love to see CC as we know it removed (stuns, sleeps, on-demand knockdowns, etc.) and replace with Collision detection, active defense, and magic only used in CC for wards/fields/walls.
GW1 had open world PvP?
I think you also are talking about mini game PvP.
Actually, when DAOC first came out, the healing class on the Albion side wore chain mail and had a chain lighting effect that was way overpowered. People started calling them "Chain Wizzys" however Mythic quickly nerfed them back into their "can't kill sh!t" when soloing mode.
Most high level clerics you saw running around were power leveled by alts, especially after a year or two went by. (did it myself actually to create my buff bot)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
No, but in regular PvP - please don't be dense.
Most gamers, well maybe not on this forum, want both PvE and PvP mix. In that instance, you need to have a balance. Just balancing for openworld PvP is fine if that is all the game has, but if it doesn't it gimps other parts of the game.
CC is even worse in OWPvP or Battlegrounds types.
Makes Stealth and CC incredibly powerful.
Collision detection + LoS and active defense would make melee viable (where as ranged always has advantages in OWPvP) but you'd have to greatly limit the effect of healing and rely on personal active defenses instead - which IMO is a good thing as whomever has more "Pocket healers" wins in battleground/OWPvP systems that rely on traditional Trinity mechanics.
Now you are talking combat mechanics, which is fine. I agree with you on collision detection, but I also think all combat actions should strike everyone, friend or foe, in path of strikes. I also believe all healing should be hands on and out of combat. Healing from way off is unrealistic to me, just as swinging a sword miraculously through a crowd only to hit a certain target.
CC as a means to control encounters and survivability is a viable playstyle all by itself. It is only when it does not break on dmg or only effects foes it becomes OP. if a snare mechanic is used, it snares boith friend and foe. If your "wall" goes up it stops everyone from passing. Stunning and beating on someone is not what I am talking about.
I agree entirely.
But at the same time, it's hard to really "aim" attacks in MMO combat unless you are using a FPS like system, but that creates all kinds of other problems.
I think a system in which magical or physical AoE attacks would strike friend and foe alike is easily doable, but you wouldn't need to make every single-target swing/strike check for contact across all points of the animation.
And I don't think you'd need a FPS style system to try and "aim" a ranged or magical attack over an allies shoulder to hit any enemy, you could do it with more generic hit boxes just as easily.
Just like you could do active blocking of projectiles with a shield.
I like how GW2 does active defensive skills, you hit a button and for a few short seconds if anyone attacks you, you block/counter/etc.
Makes it easier to do in a network environment due to latency/lag, and requires intelligent decision making/player skill.
I've always thought a slightly slowed-down combat system that was in essence a game of rock-paper-scissors every "turn" where you had a full range of both offensive and defensive abilities and combos/counters etc. more like a slower paced fighting game would be perfect for a MMO.
I am not a developer, but I do not think it would be that difficult to have a swing radius shown on screen for melee, while giving a thrust option (at reduced dmg) for more precision. We already see this in GW2 where strikes hit multiple foes based on weapon range. Would definately remove a lot of zerging.
Range attacks simply being a line shooting froward that can be adjusted for trajectory (lob over freinds). Agree, it would slow combat down and require more coordination), but I think that is a good thing.
I do not think our thoughts are off too much on CC, we both want it to be tatical. If all actions were based on a stat like stamina and CC took a heavy toll, then I think it would work well and be a very tactical part of any encounter.
Sop I still believe CC is a great method of class balance, paticularly is that skill sets offsets DPS and Heals...where most crys of imbalance come from.
I don't see DAOC in your gaming list, so I don't think you experienced how well CC worked in that title and in fact, it wasn't the stealthers who ruled the day, or even the zerg, but rather the efforts of a well coordinated team of one or two 8 mans who could dominate the field in open field PVP.
The assist train ruled everything, and in fact, melee were the last to be attacked because they were so darn hard to kill, especially if any healers or other support still were in the fight.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It did not. As the game matured, more and more skills had different effect/description depending in which area it was used (PvP/PvE area).
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Like most polls on this site, I find it impossible to answer.
Because there is no, 'depends' option.
Depends, is the game pve or pvp centric?
Depends on the pve design.
Games without balance but unique characters are great, but not if the rest of the game structure demands balance. And vice-versa.
Depends.
That's my answer.
The key trait in open world PvP and large scale PvP is mobility. Mobility gives you map control and the ability to choose your fights; hence, you will win every fight you choose to engage. Since player population is rarely if ever managed in this type of PvP, numbers count more than individual power. If you are faster than everyone else, you can engage all the groups smaller than yours and run from groups larger than yours.
Objectives which force you to fight are still quite rare, and even then you can beat them by just bringing more friends than your enemy.
This is ofcourse a generalization but all large scale and open world PvP that I've seen have gone along those same lines. This is also why I find it so uninteresting - because it quickly devolves into this cat 'n' mouse game where people only engage in fights if they are sure to win.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
As I think that the genre should be split into PvE games and PvP games and I would not play a PvP game my response is a little different.
PvE games should be designed around variety of classes and not balance. Even if two classes are primarily DPS it should not matter if one does more DPS than another in one kind of encounter. Provided that this switches depending on the type of encounter. But every class should have something usefull that only that class brings to the group.
Oh, but it was a thing of beauty in DAOC to see a couple of well coordinated 8 mans roll into the zerg of 50 and frequently prevail against them all.
The death penalties weren't bad, and people rarely ran from a good fight, there was no real reason to. Doesn't mean there weren't times a strategic retreat was in order, especially if you were in a stealth gang or something, but otherwise the smaller groups quite often could prevail against the many.
I've never run into anything quite like that title since then, so I can see what your saying that in most other titles it just isn't the case.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Proof? I never recalled healers having "chain lightning" spells. Healers never had any offensive damage spells. The roblem with healers was they had area effect stuns and there was no immunity timers for CC back then. The chain wizzies were Thanes.
"I'm sorry but your mmo has been diagnosed with EA and only has X number of days to live."