Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Have we lost sight of real combat "balance"?
Dewm
Member UncommonPosts: 1,337
I often hear multiple arguments about PVP balance, Some people hate PVP and think it detracts from the game, others enjoy it.... and so on, but one argument I hear most then any other is how PVP would be so much better if it was done right, if everything was "balanced"
So that got me thinking about the few PVP MMO's I have played and how they are balanced, biggest one that comes to mind would be WoW, now I havn't played in around 2 years, so some of this information is probably dated, But at the time one of the largest PVP complaints was melee classes such as warriors and rogues where very over powered to cloth classes, So i'm using all of this as an example of how people think that just about every MMO PVP game out there is not balanced correctly.
Which brings me full circle on my thoughts that we possibly have lost sight of true combat balance in games.
So I was going to take a trip down memory lane for a second and talk about one of the greatest PVP games of all time. Age of Empires 2.
Now I still activly play that game, just about every weekend I have 3-6 people over and we play a 4-5hr game of AOE... but I digress. In this example each civilization would be compairable to a MMO class.
So in Age of Empires one of the things that makes it so awesome with ever changing tactics is the fact that is is almost perfectly balanced, how do I mean? Well any Civ you play can be countered pretty effectivly with another civ, you play British, I play Goths, I play Gotchs you play Byzantines, you play byzantines I play sarcans (sp?)....and so on. There is no domanant team that just owns. But at the same time every team has a weakness.
So coming back to the MMO side of this, Possibly when people are complaining that there mage just got owned by a warrior they need to see the flip side that the warrior just got owned by a archer. Or something to that effect.
I think to often developers try to make every class counter every class. "mage needs feign death" warrior needs "resist flame" and so on.. When in reality it would be more fun/balanced if there where classes you lost to most of the time, Sometimes the best tactic is deciding which battle you can win.
all in all it was a fairly legnthy post, I apoligize for the bad spelling, and if it didnt' make much sence.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Comments
That's rock/paper/scissors. It's what most MMOs fall back on, whether because they aren't capable of balancing a square box on a floor, or because they like that sort of design.
And it sucks, in my opinion. It's giving you wins when you are the rock to the scissors, and forcing you to accept the losses when you meet up with paper. And you're supposed to accept it because somewhere out there, paper will meet up with scissors.
Screwy crap like that.
Once upon a time....
rock/paper/scissors. is the only true way to balance a game (not players, game) Modern mmorgs are failing by trying to be a fps, where everyone is a stonepaperscissor at the same time, result boring game simplification to be able to turn everyone into a paperstonescissor.
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
Personally I love PvP. I enjoy facing of against players and out gunning them in Call of Duty or out playing them in Street Fighter 4. However ever since I started playing MMO PvP, I grown more and more annoyed with it, to the point that I just hate it. The main thing I hate about MMO PvP, is how big of a factor gear plays into it. Today I was trying to get back into Rift's PvP, with my newly respecced Mage, with her Rank 2 gear I kept on getting two-shotted by people with better gear and dying before you have a chance to implement some tactical play is just not fun. This video montage is a perfect example of how gear disparity and ruin PvP, when you have someone who can dish out so much damage and take so little.
Once MMOs start looking away from the whole "my gear is better than yours, so I'm a better PvP'er" mentality, by removing the gear disparity, then they can start focusing on other areas like class balance, level design and real combat tactical advantages (e.g. allevated ground) to better improve PvP in MMOs.
EDIT: However the idea of one class being a hard counter to another, like the OP suggested, doesn't spell good balanced PvP in my opinion. Good balance, comes in providing the player with the tools to handle most any situation and allowing them to choose how to use those tools. Quite frankly I can't see an MMO other than Guild Wars 2, providing good balanced PvP, in the not too distant future and there really is a stark difference from that vid of that caster I showed earlier to this one. They removed the the gear & level disparity from it, removed healers (providing everyone with their own heal) and allowed every class to play as either a ranged or melee, or both (depending on personal preference). Also there is no X class will most certainly beat Y class, because it's easy to customize your class to play the way you want it to play.
thats true if you think of it as a single player game, and that's the problem, mmorg are social games for multiple players, and as a team you cover each others shortfalls, but the games have been flooded with people who play solo, and think solo. Note the gear thing is a themepak issue. See GW1, Eve.
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
Maybe that's what they're doing, but it doesn't have to be that way.
But, since I haven't bought any of the newest games, I have to admit that I haven't personally seen what you are describing. Is that what they are doing in games like Aion?
But again, it doesn't have to be boring. Everyone doesn't have to be the same to balance outcomes. It seems to be a simplification to say that what's being produced is the only thing that can be produced.
Once upon a time....
In many MMORPGs, the balance problems run much deeper than that. Level 50 character fights level 40 character, so level 50 character wins. Newly minted max level character fights max level character in full epics, so player with epics wins. That's not trying to balance PVP and failing. That's intentionally unbalancing PVP.
Thats also a problem that is effecting RTS games, C&C3, Red Alert3... Everything from MMO's to RTS to FPS are becoming so fast paced that there is no place for thinking or tactics. Hence the reason my 2 favorite games right now are AOE2 (which came out almost 13 years ago) and Minecraft...which speaks for itself....
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Agreed. There is no balancing in a level based system.
And having 100% balance in a MMO just wont be fun, it would just be like a FPS game.
Lowering the gap between noobs and vets, and lowering or removing the gap on gear is the best way to get the genre more balanced, but there still needs to be a difference or we are just playing a persistant version of "Doom".
One method for PVP design in MMORPGs is based on the game rock paper scissors. Of the three each is weak to one but wins over the other.
Application of this approach in MMORPGs depends on the developers design of just how much superior one class is over another. If extreme, a rogue (for example) might be very strong against a mage, but very weak against a warrior.
So what's appropriate? I think this depends on the player's perspective. Some really love being superior to a given class and are comfortable when their class is severely weaker than others. Others might prefer having a slight advantage over others with the reward being that they are less weak. Yet others might want to completely eliminate the class imbalances completely, thereby tossing the rock paper scissors design entirely.
However, I think some players want to be strong over everyone. That's not going to achieve much other than having everyone play the same class.
And this doesn't take into account gear or levels :-)
Class balance is only broken when it comes to PvP, PvP will and can never be balanced unless there is no classes and everyone has the same set skills....in other words a FPS.
I dont mind PvP when its done right, as in 3 faction, semi-open world (PvP only in DAoC styled frontiers) and no battlegroudns are involved. But the thing I enjoy most is what Asherons Call did when it first released in 1999 and broke my MMO cherry so to speak. PvE focused on exploration, slow but steady progression, tough and challenging quests, dynamic loot and huge open world and hundreds of places to visit.
For me Raiding and PvP are a crutch used to foster unneccesary elitism. Its why would rather a game not have either.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
While I don't think it would be possible to balance all classes, it would be viable to make it so balance is less of a factor.
Simple make it impossible to kill a character in two shots. If a mellee isn't melted by a fireball he could run up to the mage and fight.
Of course this would lead to running around a field not getting anywhere. Add things like rocks a warrior could hide behind when the mage is throwing spells and if mages can't cast spells while moving a warrior who is able to get behind a rock quick enough would gain an advantage while if the mage is able to time spells correctly he could hit a warrior before he finds cover.
This cat and mouse does seem a bit boring. I'd say that allowing three or so different types of combat [battlemage = mage with sword, paladin =healer and warrior] in one character could helpm with the problem. But I think the best solution would be to balance pvp around groups instead of two solo players.
Mages could cast protection spells on warriors while they fight the enemy. Though class shouldnt come into it. Its how you use your class thats important. So while your mages are distracting enemy mages, your rangers are sneaking behind to ambush the mages.
In summary, pvp balance shouldnt be about levels or gear, it should be about tactics and using the enviroment in ways that allows your class to gain an advantage.
Yeah, good PVP is PVP whose victor is determined by which player exhibits more skill during the match.
When PVP's victor is determined before the match by the Civ Selection Screen (or worse, at class selection in a MMORPG!), then that game has bad PVP.
I don't remember AOE2 really being that civ-determinate. But if it's that way nowadays, it certainly wasn't intentional (nor desirable.) (I was actually a tester back on AOE2: Conqueror's xpack, and would play against the balance team periodically.) What you want is a situation where even if one civ's UU (longbowman) is directly countered by another's (goths UU was anti-archer; "Huskarl" I think?), then the longbowman civ has the means to strategically cope with that disadvantage and skillfully win.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well as someone who has played AOE2 since kings came out... it hasn't "changed" that much, And you are correct that if you are playing on a team that you can sometimes win even if you have a bad Civ, Thats what I like about AOE2 there are resources you can go turn to and try out new tactics.
But that being said if you play Aztecs and i'm playing persians you will get smoked every time.
I think a few posters back had it right when he was talking about people wanting to win everytime by having the full rock/paper/scissors combo. You can't have everyone on the same playing feild without making a FPS.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Yep. You know, there will always be some imbalances because we do want progression, but when that progression goes so far that players have to be divided in the game play, into zones designed for their level or skill level, that's where the "massively" breaks down. And that affects everything, not just PvP. It has a huge effect on the game world's economy, and totally breaks that off into just a mini-game per character. The "world" is not a world, it's a Single Player game at that point.
Once upon a time....
I can't agree. Even in PvE, when you have imbalances, that affects that characters ability to defeat particular MOBs with specific strangths.
This is why you see groups telling some players they don't want them, that they want someone with another skill set (class). And why they even tell players how to play their characters. That's a lousy set up for a supposedly "massively multiplayer" world. Even though I don't think you can ever get completely away from it, nor do I want to completely eliminate it. I just don't think it should be that tightly confined.
Once upon a time....
I've always been of the opinion that specific classes in MMO's dont need to be 100% balanced but factions do.
PvP should be a team based game and anything one side has should be able to be countered by the opposing side (assuming they have a class with that ability there) and visa versa.
WAR took this approach but failed on the way skills were spread. Putting Close range CC on one sides Melee healer and on the other sides RDPS is an example. Both sides had access to the ability but in all honesty you cant say that was even.
Mirrored classes (such as TORs approach) does this in the most simple way .. give each side the very same abilitys then both have the same options.
I dont think though, that for example healers, should be balanced Vs DPS or Tanks Vs healers etc. PVP is a group game and R>P>S works fine if its played as a group game since you have teammates to back up your classes weaknesses. Balance is most hotly debated on a 1Vs1 basis and I never think thats good for the game.
Sure as a healer a DPS may have an base advantage over you in a 1Vs1 or a tank may have a base disadvantage, I personally dont think this needs to be balanced to an equal opportunity level. Give the disadvantaged classes tools to flee or hold off an opponent long enough for team mates to arrive and make the PvP aspect team based rather than all this 1Vs1 balance crap.
DAoC did this fairly well, I say fairly because there were still hotly debated realm balance issues that are still talked about today (Stunguard anyone?) but balancing in this way takes alot of extra effort. The easiest way to balance PvP is simply mirrored classes, yes its kinda dull but it works /shrug.
That's exactly the way I want to see characters done in MMORPGs.
It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, directly countering something. To simplify it, you shouldn't have to block a special, devastating attack with a shield. For some, it might be a Dodge, for others it might be a Heal, and for others it might be a Return Blow.
But what I'd like to see is multiple options for each character, with some working better than others, some being more likely to succeed for lesser effect, and some being a really boneheaded move set for further pain. These would be in the form of special moves set to counter what was just thrown at you.
So, as an example, an agile thief is in combat with that warrior who's about to use that devastating special attack on him. His options might go something like this:
He can set himself into simple Dodge mode, reducing his attack speed a little.
He can choose one of several Dodge Plus Follow Attack sub skills, hopefully choosing the right one based on what he's seen this attacker use or what he's wielding. This reduces his chances to Dodge any other possible attacks, but If he's chosen the one that works best against this particular attack he gets an improved chance to Dodge, and then gets a special return attack of his own.
But then, the warrior might know this, and if he's got a special counter to this thief's Special Dodge used there, he might use that instead, after setting this up by using that First Special attack earlier. This time, he uses a sub-Special attack that looks just like the first one, reduces his chance to succedd on the first part that mimics the first one, and then if the thief has indeed chosen his Special Dodge Plus Return Attack, and succeeds to perform it this time, the Warrior not only blocks the return attack but gets yet another attack based on that.
Or the thief might have some magic or potion, and simply heal himself for a little of that damage, then use a new special attack of his own.
This sounds a bit complicated, but it can be simplified by putting special attacks and their counters into groups like "Slashing Move", "Overhead Bashing Move", and "Jabbing Move". In this case, it makes the thief's counter move selections based solely on one of these 3 "classes" of Special Attacks.
This makes combat more of a mind game, and less determined by character stats, and much more involved for the players without a bunch of button mashing as special moves should draw from a pool of stamina to perform.
Once upon a time....
So Chess doesn't put everyone on the same playing field?
Starcraft 1 didn't put everyone on the same playing field?
There's nothing magical about FPS games that means non-FPS games can't be balanced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sadly this is true. What is even worse is that I read about people actually pushing for that result.
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
Starcraft and chess are not RPG's and are not persistent worlds which, in my opinion, makes them infinitely easier to balance.
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
Teh problem is that PvP is ususally concerned with the immediate conflict ie duel or battle while RPGs tend to focus on the character's entire 'life'. A level 50 character progressed further in the game and as such is 'better' than a level 40 character. So from a RPG point of view a level 50 character should defeat a level 40 character as a 'natural law'. This of course feels completely unfair to PvPers whose only concern is the immediate fight.
My opinions on this are and have always been the same. PVP balance issues are a myth. There are systems in place, you learn them, you understand them, and go from there. For me, I want nothing to do with PVP balance, because I find it lame.
If a Rogue type player ambushes a cloth wearing caster, the caster should be at a huge disadvantage, and most likely die. Just as that same rogue should be at a huge disadvantage against that same caster from range. Look at what WoW has done over the years to pacify the crying over class imbalance. Now a Rogue can be deadly up close and at range. Now a Warrior, intended to be a pure tank at launch, can now dps just as well. Now a Priest can DPS just as well. Some call that balance. I call it slowly making classes obsolete. Why take a Rogue, Mage, Hunter, Lock with you when you can have Warriors or Priests or Druids that can be tanks, dps,Healer, etc. The problem as I have always seen it, is Bobby wants to own, but Bobby isn't very good at pvp, or doesn't want to put the time in to earn the better pvp gear, so Bobby cries about nerfs, imbalance, OP'd classes. Should Bobby with no PVP gear be able to kill a player with the best PVP gear? No. But Bobby thinks he should. There in lies the problem. I'll give an example I've used before. My daughter and I played Rift together, enjoyed the game, and the pvp. Regardless of what class her and I used, we were constantly the top killers/healers in each round. Where exactly is the balance problem? I tought my mother in law how to use here toon better in PVP in WoW, now she can hold her own and usually is in the top 5 in damage, kills, etc in Battlegrounds. The woman is 67 years old. If she and my daughter can do it, why is it so hard for so many others?
Does it take practice? Sure does. Does it take patience? Sure does. The problem is the nerd rage thrown on forums by Bobby beacuse he just got owned by my daughter, or her grandmother. Beacuse Bobby has zero patience, Bobby doesn't want to have to actually earn or learn anything; he just wants to own, and right now.
The systems in place are what they are. Are they perfect? No. But they are workable, and make sence. Really, does anyone expect someone that has never fought in their life to win a Karate tourney against a 5th Degree Black Belt? Is a guy standing at a bus station waiting to head off to Basic Training going to be as good a soldier as a 20 year Special Ops Soldier? Not even close. So why do people expect that in an MMO?
In the end, Bobby will NEVER be good at PVP. And Bobby was also that annoying guild member that constantly spammed chat with "Someone Power Level Me." "Someone Run me through Deadmines" , etc, etc.
So, I basically ignore the cries of balance, nerf, etc, and just move forward, with whatever class I'm playing, understanding the systems in place, and laughing my ass off on GSC with my daughter as we role over all the Bobby's of the world.
RPGs aren't that hard to balance, and those focused on PVE are absolutely easier to balance than any PVP game. With RPGs, the variation due to player skill is minimized, creating a standardized baseline performance for each class which is easy to balance around.
Whereas in skill-rewarding games like Starcraft, Chess, or FPSes you have very substantial differences in player capabilities due to skill -- which makes balance elusive since each player plays differently.
(And whether or not it's a persistent world has no relevance to balance difficulty at all.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
PVP balance makes the game interesting. Class balance turns "Oh, it's just a mage. My class insta-kills mages" into a true match of skill where the more skilled player wins. Ability balance turns "spam my one attack which is clearly better than the others" into a tactics-rewarding game where playing smart yields a substantial advantages.
In fact, balance makes things just the opposite of the way you paint them. In game A where only rogues deal good DPS, only rogues get taken by groups seeking DPS. In game B where balance exists, any DPS class is worth bringing.
Bobby is both right and wrong. He's right that good PVP is decided by skill, and so a MMORPG which ignored all its progression elements to have pure skill-based PVP would actually provide considerably more interesting fights. However if the game intends to offer casual PVP (where non-skill factors matter) then clearly Bobby's best choice is to find a good PVP game for PVP, and use MMORPGs only for PVE (which is what I do.)
If you can consistently score high in MMORPG PVP with any class, that's great -- and it's only possible in a reasonably balanced game. Your anecdotal evidence is in total support of balance, which you seem not to support.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It would take a lot of pressure off if we had mmos that offered more than combat. You make an mmo and only have classes that do battle, well you're gonna have a player base that wants their class to be able to beat every other class. Why? Because thats all there is to do. Your success in battle defines your character fully.
Put in classes that can change the rules or build a city. Why not pilots or performers, racers, ambassadors, team captains, trackers? Add more depth to your game than just combat, and maybe your player base wont be so obsessed with balance. Maybe they will be more apt to accept rock/paper/scissors because it becomes apparent that this isnt a single player fighting game. Its a virtual world full of choice and diversity.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.