Well, total class balance is of course just impossible. What is necessary is however relative balance. That means the programmers should at least try to let every class have, in the sum, a relatively balanced strength.
So the mage has few hitpoints and little defense, but they have superior damage output. While the tank has many hitpoints and much defense, but low damage output. And so on, yada, yada.
What happends if there is no balance ? Fully implemented classes do not get played anymore.
poll is incredibly biased towards OP's viewpoint and as such is skewed.
from a game design standpoint though, it does not matter whether developers design with their lore in mind first and foremost. there will be class and numbers balancing or their game will suffer.
poll is incredibly biased towards OP's viewpoint and as such is skewed.
from a game design standpoint though, it does not matter whether developers design with their lore in mind first and foremost. there will be class and numbers balancing or their game will suffer.
Actually the poll is simple and straightforward with no bias. I did however give my opinion to go along with the poll. The poll itself was just a simple question though.
I think it is too tough to acutally balance classes. Unless a game actually comes out that is totally PvP..i.e CU. The only game besides GW that I played PvP was WoW. The BG's were such a mix of classes that noone could really care about them but arenas did show some class favoritism.
Give me something similar to q3a in a rpg setting and i'll be happy.
You know, you can proceed directly to the specific game fanboyism, without approaching it through the round-about poll.
Fanboyism? That's a laugh. I'm sure you don't see me posting every day about WAR. However there was some very good things to the system they Implemented. Back when I did play the game. I played a high elf sword master. And as someone who has played a tank in the majority of MMOs I have played, it was nice to see abitilities that would normally be useless in a PVP situation for a tank character actually have a roll in PVP.
Well, to answer the question, balancing issues came up when pvp got hacked onto pve games that should never have had pvp to begin with.
So end of the day, everything needs to be balanced because of whiners and pvp.
Ironically if everything should be "balanced" dunno why they don't just go back to the old model of everyone has the same character and the same gear and map knowledge is what wins the game....
Oh thats right because then no-one would feel unique... another cliche in the world of pc gaming where everyone goes for "best builds".
Sadly these days Devs have absolutely no idea about the MMO world other then they think DPS'ers should be the the complete focus in the game. Sadly Tanks and even more healers have been shit on more and more. If a tank doesn't have the mechanics to hold aggro then their is absolutely no reason to have the title tank class in the game. With the healing class they should be able to keep more then just one player partial healed while keeping their main focus completely healed. Sadly the last game I saw this cancelled (City of Heroes/Villinas) because the people in charge of money had their heads up their arse.
We all say lore and depth matters... and for a lot of us it does. But the min/maxxers have such a strangle hold on the genre that it won't likely change anything. They have their place but I honestly don't want them in my groups/BG's/dungeons/risk games... they take the fun out of everything!
I do feel balance should be obtained but considering how near impossible that is, I'd rather have just classes present witha large variety then having a game with very few classes that can't get balance right anyways.
I actually like class balance like DAoC did it. They obviously flubbed it eventually, but I like the idea of rock paper scissors design or classes with special niches.
Back in DAoC I was an animist in a gank group.... but animists were terrible members of gank groups within the normal strategies used.
We would actually set up traps to deal with zergs and gank groups... setting up root shrooms near gates was actually quite funny.
I miss people having to work around their classes limitations
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 stand corrected, they didn't have chain lighting, but they did have Smite, and they were called Smite Clerics on the Albion side. Until they were nerfed they did similar damage to a Wizard, yet could wear chain hence the term Chain Wizzy, for their armor, and not the skill itself. (though I can't recall, Smite might actually have looked like a lighting bolt)
And back in the day, they were quite deadly, especially pre-nerf, which you can read about some in the thread below. In fact, seems there were issues with no one making Rejuv clerics until the Smite nerf fully took effect.
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 think one huge impediment to a design that doesn't obsess too much over balance is the amount numerical data commonly supplied to players. Players know exactly what their level is, their spec is, their damage output, their weapon statistics, etc. "Hey, my tank class does X damage per second at level Y with Z gear, whereas this guy's caster class can easily do A damage at the same level. That's not fair! This class is gimp!" Take some of that data away and people will more have to think about "Do I like the way this character plays?" and "How can I best adapt my abilities to my play style?" I think having finite level caps is a factor hear too, since it creates the expectation that a "maxed" character has parity with another "maxed" character.
Eschewing precise balance isn't an excuse for bad design however. Obviously if one avenue of play proves extremely dominant in an overt way, disrupting the ability of other players to choose alternative avenues, then it should be tweaked. But it's okay for one set of abilities to turn out to be somewhat "op" for damage, as long as players don't have that fact thrown into their face by explicit numbers constantly. They'll just think "woah that guy is tough."
But another issue here is that PvP in many MMOs is just glorified deathmatch. And no one would play Unreal Tournament with a handicap character. Add more meaning and fluidity to PvP and there will be a level of depth that makes differentiation a thing of value.
Equality is the root of all evil in video games. It's a must to create an imbalance for players so they can explore each permutation of the game in its entirety.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Equality is the root of all evil in video games. It's a must to create an imbalance for players so they can explore each permutation of the game in its entirety.
In words of english please. Do you mean that entitlement kills all discussion? Entitlement is power and power bought cheaply, is that what you mean?
Equality is the root of all evil in video games. It's a must to create an imbalance for players so they can explore each permutation of the game in its entirety.
In words of english please. Do you mean that entitlement kills all discussion? Entitlement is power and power bought cheaply, is that what you mean?
Sorry, I meant about class/path playstyles.
There needs to be class inequality to allow players to get a sense that they are either the underdog of the game or superior to other players. It's the constant struggle for players to reach the top of their game, much similar to jobs in the real world.
People generally like to make more advances within a business to make more money for their own reasons. Most players still thrive on becoming the best version of themselves in real life and whatever class they play in any game. Once players feel like they have plateau'd in a game, they often create a new character of a less used class or a more difficult class.
Having an imbalance in classes facilitates players with a reason to play through the game again.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Equality is the root of all evil in video games. It's a must to create an imbalance for players so they can explore each permutation of the game in its entirety.
In words of english please. Do you mean that entitlement kills all discussion? Entitlement is power and power bought cheaply, is that what you mean?
Sorry, I meant about class/path playstyles. There needs to be class inequality to allow players to get a sense that they are either the underdog of the game or superior to other players. It's the constant struggle for players to reach the top of their game, much similar to jobs in the real world. People generally like to make more advances within a business to make more money for their own reasons. Most players still thrive on becoming the best version of themselves in real life and whatever class they play in any game. Once players feel like they have plateau'd in a game, they often create a new character of a less used class or a more difficult class. Having an imbalance in classes facilitates players with a reason to play through the game again.
Sorry to be a tosser but paragraphs. Think we are ona similar wavelength though.
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 agree with you two for the most part. Things I'd like to add though.
Blades with an edge and arrows should be able to hamstring an opponent if they're hit in the legs. Accuracy should be reduced if hit in the head or arms. A person should be stunned if hit in the head with a club, mace, or like-weapon.
If the world has magic, it's pefectly acceptable for wizards and sorcerors to be able to control people. However, I thought I just had is if they have a concentration meter and can only hold as many people as this meter allows. The spellcaster can't move or perform any other action while controlling other people (making them sleep etc). If attacked, the spellcaster loses concentration and people recover from being controlled. It's just an off of the top of my head idea, but it'd be more realistic and would require for spellcasters to use it strategically.
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 agree with you two for the most part. Things I'd like to add though.
Blades with an edge and arrows should be able to hamstring an opponent if they're hit in the legs. Accuracy should be reduced if hit in the head or arms. A person should be stunned if hit in the head with a club, mace, or like-weapon.
If the world has magic, it's pefectly acceptable for wizards and sorcerors to be able to control people. However, I thought I just had is if they have a concentration meter and can only hold as many people as this meter allows. The spellcaster can't move or perform any other action while controlling other people (making them sleep etc). If attacked, the spellcaster loses concentration and people recover from being controlled. It's just an off of the top of my head idea, but it'd be more realistic and would require for spellcasters to use it strategically.
So being hit in the head with an edge won't result in a concussion?
There is no way to accurately represent the effects of being hit with a weapon. You could go all out and say any hit inflicts the utmost damage it could i suppose. Edge to the head inflicts daze. Edge to the legs inflicts hobble/cripple. Then reduce it by percentiles according to armor.
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.
Albions had Clerics and 1 of the 3 specializations they could choose was Smite. They were called Smite Clerics. They were good at dealing dmg, but bad at healing and buffs. They were nerfed.
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 agree with you two for the most part. Things I'd like to add though.
Blades with an edge and arrows should be able to hamstring an opponent if they're hit in the legs. Accuracy should be reduced if hit in the head or arms. A person should be stunned if hit in the head with a club, mace, or like-weapon.
If the world has magic, it's pefectly acceptable for wizards and sorcerors to be able to control people. However, I thought I just had is if they have a concentration meter and can only hold as many people as this meter allows. The spellcaster can't move or perform any other action while controlling other people (making them sleep etc). If attacked, the spellcaster loses concentration and people recover from being controlled. It's just an off of the top of my head idea, but it'd be more realistic and would require for spellcasters to use it strategically.
So being hit in the head with an edge won't result in a concussion?
There is no way to accurately represent the effects of being hit with a weapon. You could go all out and say any hit inflicts the utmost damage it could i suppose. Edge to the head inflicts daze. Edge to the legs inflicts hobble/cripple. Then reduce it by percentiles according to armor.
You smack someone in the head with a blade, their head will fall off, they won't get a concussion. Since ultra-realism wouldn't work, you gotta make concessions. For instance, games will assign different affects to weapons, such as bleeding dmg from blades and stuns from blunt weapons. DAoC took things a step further by giving armor weaknesses and resistances to certain weapons and by balancing weapons by reducing their damage the faster the swing speed is and visa versa. Although we're entirely off subject here I realize.
Comments
Well, total class balance is of course just impossible. What is necessary is however relative balance. That means the programmers should at least try to let every class have, in the sum, a relatively balanced strength.
So the mage has few hitpoints and little defense, but they have superior damage output. While the tank has many hitpoints and much defense, but low damage output. And so on, yada, yada.
What happends if there is no balance ? Fully implemented classes do not get played anymore.
Jeremiah 8:21 I weep for the hurt of my people; I stand amazed, silent, dumb with grief.
Join me on Twitch Facebook Twitter
poll is incredibly biased towards OP's viewpoint and as such is skewed.
from a game design standpoint though, it does not matter whether developers design with their lore in mind first and foremost. there will be class and numbers balancing or their game will suffer.
Actually the poll is simple and straightforward with no bias. I did however give my opinion to go along with the poll. The poll itself was just a simple question though.
I think it is too tough to acutally balance classes. Unless a game actually comes out that is totally PvP..i.e CU. The only game besides GW that I played PvP was WoW. The BG's were such a mix of classes that noone could really care about them but arenas did show some class favoritism.
Give me something similar to q3a in a rpg setting and i'll be happy.
Fanboyism? That's a laugh. I'm sure you don't see me posting every day about WAR. However there was some very good things to the system they Implemented. Back when I did play the game. I played a high elf sword master. And as someone who has played a tank in the majority of MMOs I have played, it was nice to see abitilities that would normally be useless in a PVP situation for a tank character actually have a roll in PVP.
Well, to answer the question, balancing issues came up when pvp got hacked onto pve games that should never have had pvp to begin with.
So end of the day, everything needs to be balanced because of whiners and pvp.
Ironically if everything should be "balanced" dunno why they don't just go back to the old model of everyone has the same character and the same gear and map knowledge is what wins the game....
Oh thats right because then no-one would feel unique... another cliche in the world of pc gaming where everyone goes for "best builds".
We need more rock, paper, scissors mechanics and a hell of a lot less balance and homogenisation.
PVP in mmo's should not be designed around 1v1 duels but around group play.
Player - my preferred class is underpowered and I have the numbers to prove it. What do you plan to do?
Developer - balance is too hard. So ....nothing.
Player - /uninstall
We all say lore and depth matters... and for a lot of us it does. But the min/maxxers have such a strangle hold on the genre that it won't likely change anything. They have their place but I honestly don't want them in my groups/BG's/dungeons/risk games... they take the fun out of everything!
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
I actually like class balance like DAoC did it. They obviously flubbed it eventually, but I like the idea of rock paper scissors design or classes with special niches.
Back in DAoC I was an animist in a gank group.... but animists were terrible members of gank groups within the normal strategies used.
We would actually set up traps to deal with zergs and gank groups... setting up root shrooms near gates was actually quite funny.
I miss people having to work around their classes limitations
I'm not saying don't try. I'm saying that there is always going to be an imbalance. A nerf goes too far, a buff goes too far. Etc, etc.
I stand corrected, they didn't have chain lighting, but they did have Smite, and they were called Smite Clerics on the Albion side. Until they were nerfed they did similar damage to a Wizard, yet could wear chain hence the term Chain Wizzy, for their armor, and not the skill itself. (though I can't recall, Smite might actually have looked like a lighting bolt)
And back in the day, they were quite deadly, especially pre-nerf, which you can read about some in the thread below. In fact, seems there were issues with no one making Rejuv clerics until the Smite nerf fully took effect.
http://camelot.allakhazam.com/db/skills.html?cskill=25
"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
I think one huge impediment to a design that doesn't obsess too much over balance is the amount numerical data commonly supplied to players. Players know exactly what their level is, their spec is, their damage output, their weapon statistics, etc. "Hey, my tank class does X damage per second at level Y with Z gear, whereas this guy's caster class can easily do A damage at the same level. That's not fair! This class is gimp!" Take some of that data away and people will more have to think about "Do I like the way this character plays?" and "How can I best adapt my abilities to my play style?" I think having finite level caps is a factor hear too, since it creates the expectation that a "maxed" character has parity with another "maxed" character.
Eschewing precise balance isn't an excuse for bad design however. Obviously if one avenue of play proves extremely dominant in an overt way, disrupting the ability of other players to choose alternative avenues, then it should be tweaked. But it's okay for one set of abilities to turn out to be somewhat "op" for damage, as long as players don't have that fact thrown into their face by explicit numbers constantly. They'll just think "woah that guy is tough."
But another issue here is that PvP in many MMOs is just glorified deathmatch. And no one would play Unreal Tournament with a handicap character. Add more meaning and fluidity to PvP and there will be a level of depth that makes differentiation a thing of value.
No.
Equality is the root of all evil in video games. It's a must to create an imbalance for players so they can explore each permutation of the game in its entirety.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
In words of english please. Do you mean that entitlement kills all discussion? Entitlement is power and power bought cheaply, is that what you mean?
Sorry, I meant about class/path playstyles.
There needs to be class inequality to allow players to get a sense that they are either the underdog of the game or superior to other players. It's the constant struggle for players to reach the top of their game, much similar to jobs in the real world.
People generally like to make more advances within a business to make more money for their own reasons. Most players still thrive on becoming the best version of themselves in real life and whatever class they play in any game. Once players feel like they have plateau'd in a game, they often create a new character of a less used class or a more difficult class.
Having an imbalance in classes facilitates players with a reason to play through the game again.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Sorry to be a tosser but paragraphs. Think we are ona similar wavelength though.
I agree with you two for the most part. Things I'd like to add though.
Blades with an edge and arrows should be able to hamstring an opponent if they're hit in the legs. Accuracy should be reduced if hit in the head or arms. A person should be stunned if hit in the head with a club, mace, or like-weapon.
If the world has magic, it's pefectly acceptable for wizards and sorcerors to be able to control people. However, I thought I just had is if they have a concentration meter and can only hold as many people as this meter allows. The spellcaster can't move or perform any other action while controlling other people (making them sleep etc). If attacked, the spellcaster loses concentration and people recover from being controlled. It's just an off of the top of my head idea, but it'd be more realistic and would require for spellcasters to use it strategically.
So being hit in the head with an edge won't result in a concussion?
There is no way to accurately represent the effects of being hit with a weapon. You could go all out and say any hit inflicts the utmost damage it could i suppose. Edge to the head inflicts daze. Edge to the legs inflicts hobble/cripple. Then reduce it by percentiles according to armor.
Albions had Clerics and 1 of the 3 specializations they could choose was Smite. They were called Smite Clerics. They were good at dealing dmg, but bad at healing and buffs. They were nerfed.
You smack someone in the head with a blade, their head will fall off, they won't get a concussion. Since ultra-realism wouldn't work, you gotta make concessions. For instance, games will assign different affects to weapons, such as bleeding dmg from blades and stuns from blunt weapons. DAoC took things a step further by giving armor weaknesses and resistances to certain weapons and by balancing weapons by reducing their damage the faster the swing speed is and visa versa. Although we're entirely off subject here I realize.