Originally posted by midmagic Originally posted by lizardbones
What do you guys think?
That this topic needs a much more defined problem statement. Please define balance.
I assumed everyone would use their own definition of "balance". Whether that meant every class or class/build should have an equal chance to kill every other class or class/build in 1v1 PvP, or perhaps that every class or class/build would be able to do equal dps in a raid. Perhaps it means that every class doesn't really know how much damage output you have, but the other skills that are brought to the table become key to fights, such as fireballs against an ice dragon.
Specific implementations or definitions of "balanced" are very subjective. However, you don't need to have agreement on what balance means if you are weighing your opinion of how important balance is in relation to how much choice you have in how you play your class. Do you want more choice in how you play your class, even if it means that another class could possible do "more" than you at something? Is it more important that the choices you have in how play, even if limited give you equal footing versus another player at some given activity in the game? Which of these is more important?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What would a better AI do? Well for starters I wouldn't have gotten to the throneroom by killing hundreds of his followers and find him sitting on his throne. His guards also wouldn't come in ones or twos like some sort of bizzarre Bruce Lee movie. All the creatures wouldn't magically follow the most heavilly armored (and least damaging) target into a corner and let everyone else attack them from behind. Best of all... the King wouldn't need to have 1000000 HPs.. since he had a real AI he and his guards would have been prepared and attacked us on our way into the Throneroom, or maybe even before we got there. Maybe they would have deployed some archers... they CERTAINLY would have tried to takeout a mage or healer quickly... Heck maybe the King would have fled...
I don't mean to hijack the topic since it seems that everyone else still has some things to say about class balance. But I will give a quick response to this. You've described what a smarter AI would do, but you failed to say how it would be fun. In a nutshell, you've described a scenario in which the party will always lose because the mobs have a huge aggro range and a huge link range.
Can you think of any possible way to defeat this challenge? You can? Well, there you go, that's what everyone will do. Sneak through the castle undetected to get to the king? That's cool, except now every trip through this dungeon is Metal Gear Solid instead of an MMORPG. Never mind spending thousands of gold on godly plate armor with defense through the roof; you're going to tank a single mob—the king—and he's a pushover. Quickly and silently take down individual goblins so that they can't alert the others? That's cool, except now every trip through this dungeon is Arkham Asylum instead of an MMORPG. Never mind carefully spec'ing a perfect healer build; every enemy is going to be killed while stunlocked and nobody's going to get hit once, let alone damaged to the point of needing your heals.
The tank-n-spankable AI works because it is a puzzle that needs to be solved, and the correct solution is for tanks to be good tanks, for healers to be good healers, and for dps to be good dps. If you come up with another AI, it has to have a solution (or else players will refuse to fight it) and that solution has to involve players performing MMO-like activities that are appropriate to their character.
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Cactus-Man
Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by Cactus-Man You can have variety and balance if you have variety in roles. If you have 24 classes, but only 4 roles then you are going to have an issue balancing the variety of classes within the 4 roles, since you have superfluous classes per role. The more distinct roles you have the larger the variety you can support. Although not a MMO TF2 does a good job balancing the classes, and they have 9. The reason is that each class has a distinct role, and TF2 allows more variability in play style than MMOs do.
I played a lot of Team Fortress 2 and you either did damage, or you did some healing with some damage. It doesn't seem terribly complex to balance between the different classes. Everyone's damage could be made more or less even and there was only one healer to worry about.
My favorite thing in TF2 was hitting people in the face with a rocket. Something about that made me smile every time I did it. :-) There is more variation than just damage and healing, each class has different tactics they bring to the group. Granted they all can kill each other well.
So I think there is a lot of distinction that MMOs lack, where in MMOs you do have straight up damage, tanking, crowd control and healing but not necessarily anything more than that. Shooters like TF2 have a wider array of play styles and tactics you can employ. In your example, Team Fortress 2, the healer is a so called "gamemaker". You will not win with everyone playing as a medic but you win great majority of time against a team that has none. IIRC, further proof of this is the fact that medic is the only class in TF2 which is limited to just 1 per team in clan tournament matches. Otherwise it is reasonably well balanced. Whenever there's a gamemaker (or -breaker) it is a chip in the game's balance.
Not really my example, but I think it's a valid illustration of variety versus balance in something like an mmorpg. I do think TF2 is pretty well balanced. I think it has a lot to do with each class having very few abilities that require balancing. This allows the players to use their personal skill and not the class skills to become OP. There is not really much difference between classes (variety) which allows the game to be balanced. It kind of goes out the other end of the spectrum of Variety ...|...|...|... Balance to give nearly infinite Variety (Choice) to the players.
There aren't many or any mmorpg where the classes have 3 or fewer skills and also don't have levels and (finally) don't engage in any sort of PvE content though. I'm not sure you could implement in a fully realized mmorpg what is implemented in TF2 and have as many of the players be happy with it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The tank-n-spankable AI works because it is a puzzle that needs to be solved, and the correct solution is for tanks to be good tanks, for healers to be good healers, and for dps to be good dps. If you come up with another AI, it has to have a solution (or else players will refuse to fight it) and that solution has to involve players performing MMO-like activities that are appropriate to their character.
You seem to be thinking in terms of set-piece scenarios where opponents are standing around in their usual placeholders, looking in their specific direction, doing absolutely nothing but waiting to be killed. It makes for a specific setting that players can learn, break down, and solve.
Instead, consider that monsters would be moving around, looking around, engaged in this or that activity. Show up on the wrong day and the goblin king is counting his money and all the guards are on edge. Show up at goblin siesta time and the guards are leaning on their spears, half asleep. Some guards are aggressive and determined while others are fairly wimpy. Drop the tough sargeant and the wimpy privates might run. There are a lot of factors that can change from encounter to encounter. Such an AI can be beaten, but players have to stay on their toes. Players don't beat the AI by reading about an encounter and preparing for it with the right team. Instead, they go in and deal with whatever the game throws at them.
FPS games have a bit of this today. I've been playing Red Faction: Guerrilla, a single-player shooter. In it, the evil police show up and start maneuvering for cover. Because the world has a destroyable environment, you never quite know where they're going to find cover - nor where you're going to be safe. Some come straight at you. Others will jump in any available vehicle with a gun and start shooting you. Some will try to flank you. More than once I've circled around a cargo container trying to get on the tail of a cop who was trying to get on my tail. Where'd he go?
A destructible environment in an MMO would be a bear, but procedrually-generated environments would accomplish the same thing. If a dungeon was never the same twice when a group entered it, they'd never know where the monsters were nor how the monsters were going to approach them. Nor even where the throneroom was. Or indeed if there was a throneroom at all. Perhaps the royal goblin family didn't move in after all and this is a barracks.
Please, before you comment on how AI should be "smart", watch the video in my signature. Learn from people who have made real AI systems and tested their fun against actual players.
Either that or start proposing AI implementations which are also games unto themselves (as threat-based AI is.)
If players who want smart AI preface their opinion with "I understand this game won't sell, or be particularly fun to most players, but I just want this..." then a lot of the discussion will be defused before it starts because we'll all be in agreement.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please, before you comment on how AI should be "smart", watch the video in my signature. Learn from people who have made real AI systems and tested their fun against actual players.
Either that or start proposing AI implementations which are also games unto themselves (as threat-based AI is.)
If players who want smart AI preface their opinion with "I understand this game won't sell, or be particularly fun to most players, but I just want this..." then a lot of the discussion will be defused before it starts because we'll all be in agreement.
I did actually watch part of your video, though I can't watch it right now.
If I understand the basics of it though, he's saying that there is good AI, and fun AI (I think that's a bit bad of a way to phrase it, by the way... since good AI CAN be fun, and fun AI can be well programmed...), and that the current aggro system is 'fun AI' (Almost 100%), since it's based off of having a simple, easily solvable puzzle that they can design the game around.
I think it's possible to still have a 'fun AI', but have it play smarter... have it still be basically inhuman, but at least act in ways that creates a more interesting, less inherently flawed problem.
Guild Wars, for example, has a much better aggro table than your average MMO, in my opinion, and most of it is based off of the fact there's no artificial threat generation. Just that little change really creates a different dynamic.
If you look at a lot of older shooters, enemies act in really weird, non-realistic ways... where you could just looka t them and be 'Oh. That's definitely a computer'. Later games, they sort of fake up a more realistic AI, where enemies go for cover, or have a rudimentary understanding of positioning.
I'm personally not advocating AI that's as smart as physically possible, just AI that isn't so... obviously computerish.
Look at a fighting game like the latter Virtua Fighters... they've worked on making the computer act more and more like how human beings play... but that doesn't mean they're impossibly good, it can be a significantly more advanced AI and STUPIDER than an AI that is just programmed to do the best decision at any given time.
The first step to balancing classes in any game is to remove or seperate pvp and pve. (Make skills behave differently when effecting players) When you have egos on the line in PvP, the idea of balance is scrutnized that much more.
Ultimately though if your going to do a class based system, I think you as the community just have to accept that you have role(s) your class will excell at and there are times when other classes are just better then yours in a handful of given scenarios and visa versa.
Pure balance is bland, it just means everyone has access to everything, the only difference is how they are preformed, (looks).
Walk away from the flawed and broken concept of "class" and the problem resolves itself.
Can you explain why it's broken and flawed?
Its main benefits are to help people get started on a path and to prevent people from making a 'bad choice'.
Classes create artificial restrictions that have a rippling effect throughout the game. The player is relegated to a specific look because of armor and weapon limitations. The player is relegated to a specific playstyle because other options are not available to his class.
Loot systems are invariably designed to support classes rather than skills, resulting in the endless childish tantrums over who 'deserves' which loot drops. Without classes, if the Flaming Spear of Nuking drops everyone rolls and highest number wins - no arguing over who deserves it, who needs it, who can/can't use it.
If you want to try a new skill that your class doesn't support, yuo have to level up a new character... all the way up to where your current character is if you want to travel with the same group. In a skill-based system (example: UO, EVE) you just learn your the one new skill.
Classes result in arbitrary race restrictions - wnat's wrong with an Undead Hunter?
Those are just some examples. The system of classes only seems functional if compared to the systemof levels. By any other measure, it's terrible.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Bad balance is actually adverse to variety since it limits the amount of viable classes/builds/skills. You can have 100 different classes but only 3 useful ones.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Those are just some examples. The system of classes only seems functional if compared to the systemof levels. By any other measure, it's terrible.
Well, almost all of those examples you picked (Except for 'Need to level another character up to get a different skill' don't actually apply to Guild Wars 2, for example. Classes have been used to do bad design decisions, but that doesn't mean classes CREATE those bad design decisions.
The advantage to classes is it makes it easy to create balance.
If anybody can learn anything, you can either end up with undifferentiated mush, or the possibilities for some severely imbalancing things. There's advantages and disadvantages to both systems.
It's possible to have a skill-based system where the way they chose to differentiate characters is that it simply takes too LONG to be ultimately skilled in everything, which can lead to either 1. Macroing, or 2. People having the same problem as the people with classes, that early decisions impacts what you can do later.
There's ways to work around it with either the class or skill system, but I don't think either one is INHERENTLY flawed. Sometimes bad game design is just bad game design, and isn't really attached to what the system is.
Walk away from the flawed and broken concept of "class" and the problem resolves itself.
Can you explain why it's broken and flawed?
Its main benefits are to help people get started on a path and to prevent people from making a 'bad choice'.
Classes create artificial restrictions that have a rippling effect throughout the game. The player is relegated to a specific look because of armor and weapon limitations. The player is relegated to a specific playstyle because other options are not available to his class.
Loot systems are invariably designed to support classes rather than skills, resulting in the endless childish tantrums over who 'deserves' which loot drops. Without classes, if the Flaming Spear of Nuking drops everyone rolls and highest number wins - no arguing over who deserves it, who needs it, who can/can't use it.
If you want to try a new skill that your class doesn't support, yuo have to level up a new character... all the way up to where your current character is if you want to travel with the same group. In a skill-based system (example: UO, EVE) you just learn your the one new skill.
Classes result in arbitrary race restrictions - wnat's wrong with an Undead Hunter?
Those are just some examples. The system of classes only seems functional if compared to the systemof levels. By any other measure, it's terrible.
Classes create different playstyles whereas in classless games, unlike what you imply, people build very similar characters. Tankmage anyone?
The Flaming Spear of Nuking causes the same argument in classless games.
Having classes is by no means flawed or broken and leveling a class or skill makes no difference to me. Both have levels.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Please, before you comment on how AI should be "smart", watch the video in my signature. Learn from people who have made real AI systems and tested their fun against actual players.
Either that or start proposing AI implementations which are also games unto themselves (as threat-based AI is.)
If players who want smart AI preface their opinion with "I understand this game won't sell, or be particularly fun to most players, but I just want this..." then a lot of the discussion will be defused before it starts because we'll all be in agreement.
Well, yes. Too smart AIs ain't good.
But there must be a middle thing between totally retarded and unbeatable.
Right now most MMO AIs are retarded, often with pathing problems. I think you are taking things to the extremes a little too much. MMO AIs needs to be smarter but not too smart, about on the pair of a rather dumb human.
Dumb AI isn't funnier than a too smart one, both sucks. Just like there are more difficulties than really easy and impossible and finding the right one sells the same goes for AIs.
In this genre I think GW1 still have the best AI, it is somewhat more unpredictable and wont fall for the worst things. Heck, you can actually have a AI healer on your team and do pretty fine there. Somewhat smarter and more unpredictable than that would be perfect at least for me.
Walk away from the flawed and broken concept of "class" and the problem resolves itself.
Can you explain why it's broken and flawed?
Its main benefits are to help people get started on a path and to prevent people from making a 'bad choice'.
Classes create artificial restrictions that have a rippling effect throughout the game. The player is relegated to a specific look because of armor and weapon limitations. The player is relegated to a specific playstyle because other options are not available to his class.
Loot systems are invariably designed to support classes rather than skills, resulting in the endless childish tantrums over who 'deserves' which loot drops. Without classes, if the Flaming Spear of Nuking drops everyone rolls and highest number wins - no arguing over who deserves it, who needs it, who can/can't use it.
If you want to try a new skill that your class doesn't support, yuo have to level up a new character... all the way up to where your current character is if you want to travel with the same group. In a skill-based system (example: UO, EVE) you just learn your the one new skill.
Classes result in arbitrary race restrictions - wnat's wrong with an Undead Hunter?
Those are just some examples. The system of classes only seems functional if compared to the systemof levels. By any other measure, it's terrible.
Classes create different playstyles whereas in classless games, unlike what you imply, people build very similar characters. Tankmage anyone?
People love to use the tankmage example and I'm always more than glad to call them on it. It's a cute talking point, but there is no evidence or data to support it.... or are you going to say that UO circa 1999 is the definition of skill-based systems?
I agree with Malcanis. Walk away from the class-based system and the problem resolves itself.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
First of all am I not really sure that classes are even needed. You can balance skills against eachothers instead and let people pich for themselves, just put the skills in a few different powerlevels and let people select a certain number of each instead. Works in P&P RPGs.
Secondly is some kind of balance needed, but how much depend on the playstyle of the game.
A PvP based game needs pretty good balance or it just wont be fun.
PvE on the other hand just need that each class have something useful to offer for a group. So if you have a PvE only game you can get away with a lot class variety.
The problem is that most games try to do both and that leads to compromises that wont be fun. There are a few solutions to that, Guildwars have PvE only skills that offers unbalanced variety without affecting PvP and that works well if PvP and PvE is separated.
A game that mixes both PvP and PvP at the same place is extremely hard to balance even without much class variety. I rather have one that separates the playstyles than one that makes both badly myself.
People love to use the tankmage example and I'm always more than glad to call them on it. It's a cute talking point, but there is no evidence or data to support it.... or are you going to say that UO circa 1999 is the definition of skill-based systems?
I agree with Malcanis. Walk away from the class-based system and the problem resolves itself.
I think that you're too quick to throw away the good with the bad, when it comes to classes.
I've posted up two imaginary game designs here, and one of them uses a classless skill/equipment based system, and the other uses a class system (Albeit one where like FFXI, you can switch back and forth between classes). I think it depends upon what kind of game design you're planning on using.
For example, in the one where I was using classes, it's because the whole BASIS of the game design is the idea of using phasing in a meaningful gameplay design way. Different classes can see the world in different ways, and have to work together to solve problems more efficiently. If somebody could see the world in each and every way, it would completely break the whole design, and create undifferentiated mush between characters.
Well, that and your game screen would be so cluttered with being able to see 4+ different kinds of worlds that the game would also become hideous. :T
Please, before you comment on how AI should be "smart", watch the video in my signature. Learn from people who have made real AI systems and tested their fun against actual players.
Either that or start proposing AI implementations which are also games unto themselves (as threat-based AI is.)
If players who want smart AI preface their opinion with "I understand this game won't sell, or be particularly fun to most players, but I just want this..." then a lot of the discussion will be defused before it starts because we'll all be in agreement.
As others have said. People adapt. Currently 99% (made up stat) are just following what they have been "taught" to do. Tank stand and scream so creatures focus on him, healer heals tank, DPS kills. YAY!! We all fit into our Archetypes and "solved the puzzle"!!!
It's laughable. If I had described the situation from my example to you prior to your having been trained that this was "normal" you would have laughed with comments like "Seriously? Those 8 guys don't see you fighting 20 feet from them?" or "Those 10 guys are really going to pull a Bruce Lee movie and attack your group of 6 one at a time?".
Instead.. we have been trained that this is normal for a game and thus accept it. We may not even have a choice CURRENTLY as I am sure we don't have the computing power and/or bandwidth to get great AI in an MMORPG. That doesn't mean we should accept it as the way it SHOULD be.
Also, regarding making it too "difficult". I say not at all! Instead of 250 goblins being slaughtered... maybe there are only 20. Instead of 100000 HP required to make up for the lack of AI, perhaps the boss has realistic amounts.. similar to a character. Heck, perhaps instead of killing the Goblin King maybe it's just a small Goblin Outpost with 2 dozen grunts and a Sgt...
Don;t confuse difficulty with your experience completing a task. The first time a kid tries to ride a bike it seems really hard... after awhile it becomes second nature. Sometimes you have to think outside the box of what's considered "normal" or "standard".
PS: Don't forget my example was goblns.. not exactly known for being rocket scientists but clearly they would react on a more instinctual level then currently shown in games.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
People love to use the tankmage example and I'm always more than glad to call them on it. It's a cute talking point, but there is no evidence or data to support it.... or are you going to say that UO circa 1999 is the definition of skill-based systems?
I agree with Malcanis. Walk away from the class-based system and the problem resolves itself.
I think that you're too quick to throw away the good with the bad, when it comes to classes.
I've posted up two imaginary game designs here, and one of them uses a classless skill/equipment based system, and the other uses a class system (Albeit one where like FFXI, you can switch back and forth between classes). I think it depends upon what kind of game design you're planning on using.
For example, in the one where I was using classes, it's because the whole BASIS of the game design is the idea of using phasing in a meaningful gameplay design way. Different classes can see the world in different ways, and have to work together to solve problems more efficiently. If somebody could see the world in each and every way, it would completely break the whole design, and create undifferentiated mush between characters.
Well, that and your game screen would be so cluttered with being able to see 4+ different kinds of worlds that the game would also become hideous. :T
The OP stated "I'm referring to Rift, but I think this applies to many mmorpg, not just Rift," so the responses were in reference to that. I agree, that if MMOs took a different approach to design and focus above and beyond the mainstream, classes could very probably serve a useful role.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This thread has two sections. The OP of class balance and class variety and AI. Let me briefly explain what is correct class balance and how it causes diversity then I'll speak on how to make AI fun.
True class balance is when all classes are balanced within their archetype. An archetype is a type of role. Say, you have 3 classes in each archetype. As long as all tanks/healers/dps are balanced within each other, than that archetype is balanced. However, designers throw off balance by not staying true to the corresponding archetype. A healer or a tank should not have on par dps with a pure dps class. To maintain this balance keep all classes true to their archetype. From a HP and Damage perspective..
Tanks = Moderate damage, and high mitigation against melee and moderate mitigation against casters
Dps Melee = High damage, and low to moderate mitigation against melee and moderate to low against casters
Caster Dps = High damage, and low mitigation against all melee and moderate to high mitigation against casters
Healers = Low damage, and high mitigation against all (through heals)
Secondaly after each archetype is balanced, abilities witin a class are balanced. Overpowering abilities must be countered with a penality. That path of balance is being negated by alot of designers and that also throws off balance. If there are multiple classes within an archetype, balance should not restirct the players fun. Class balance really means, are the roles balanced within the archetype and countering the roles to not bleed over to other roles to cause overpower or underpowering classes and abilities. I have only scratched the surface with class balance but this should give everyone a basic feel of the direction of correct class balance.
I think a lot of players are finding classes dull and bad and believes that class balance does not consititute diversity is a victim of bad class design and bad class balance. What we see in today's mmos are linear classes with the new class builds that perform in a linear combat situations. Class builds also destroy class balance and handicap your full potential for your class. But that is another discussion.
Throughout the thread Ive read how AI could be fun or not fun if it's too intelligent. Everyone is coming up with the what would a mob do if you kill his body guards ect. That would play a small factor within fun intelligent AI. What would make fun AI, is intelligent AI within combat. In order to have that to happen, gameplay and classes must not be linear; aka the tank and spank. Seems like Tera is somewhat changings the strategem of gameplay within combat, however, all it is, is more freedom in movement within combat.
To make AI fun within combat is to allow the AI and player to adapt within combat. Have multiple strategies when fighting mobs instead of spamming 2-5 abilities to kill something. In order to have adaptibility within AI and player combat is to allow a diverse complex combat mechanics that is easy to learn but hard to master. There should be more than a dozen ways to fight and should be multiple ways to kill a mob. You have to take into consideration an AI heirarchy of intelligent mobs and non intelligent mobs. Risk vs. reward should always be a factor within this style of gameplay.
And yes, I have figured out away to design such a style of gameplay, I have 16 classes that have a different distinct playstyle, player freedom within classes so they can complement the two combat mechanics that allows a diverse array of strategy and challenge. If anyone has any questions reguarding my post, please reply if you disagree or agree. I hope this helps.
I'll just say again that I disagree with your basic concept that games should be balanced around archetypes. It's certainly a valid point of view, but not one that I personally subscribe to nor want to see implemented. I want to play a character.. thats my role. I don't want to play a pre-determined role in a group. That's not what the R(ole) in RPG means.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I'll just say again that I disagree with your basic concept that games should be balanced around archetypes. It's certainly a valid point of view, but not one that I personally subscribe to nor want to see implemented. I want to play a character.. thats my role. I don't want to play a pre-determined role in a group. That's not what the R(ole) in RPG means.
While I agree with you, a major issue with current fantasy MMOs is that there is only one problem facing player characters - how to kill the monsters. There are no crypts to sneak into, no locks to pick, no magical barriers to defeat, no guards to distract, just a bunch of monsters waiting to be processed in the most efficient way possible.
Players must have a variety of problems facing them if they are going to adopt a variety of roles. Ideally, any given challenge has a bunch of different ways to approach it, allowing players to act in their favored roles.
The group of players wants to get into the castle, but the drawbridge is up. Can they light a fire in the woods nearby to attract the attention of a guard? Can the big strong guy throw a grapple across to try to drag down the drawbridge? Can a nimble guy dump his gear and clamber across the rope to try to lower the drawbridge? Can the mage do anything to modify any of those scenarios in the group's favor? Can they build something that would allow all of them to enter the castle without being noticed? Can they masquerade as a group of the castle's soldiers?
MMOs need more types of problems to solve in more and varied ways so that many different roles can be adopted by players. Having only one problem to solve means that MMOs are manufacturing artificial divisions of labor.
I'll just say again that I disagree with your basic concept that games should be balanced around archetypes. It's certainly a valid point of view, but not one that I personally subscribe to nor want to see implemented. I want to play a character.. thats my role. I don't want to play a pre-determined role in a group. That's not what the R(ole) in RPG means.
I am thinking on class balance by player to AI via combat gamplay perspective only. Usually that's what people complian about not being balanced is combat alone. It seems as if we are bringing in more aspects rather than combat. In combat a class is a role. Can you show me any other mmorpg's that has a class system and does not have specified roles in which you play a character. In Everquest, Wow, DAoC, and other class based gameplay each classes in combat play a theme. If you're looking for more to a character rather than just combat, I don't think there are any pre-existing titles that would provide that for you. I am looking at this from a designers and players perspective, and I am assuming you're looking at it from only a players perspective.
While I agree with you, a major issue with current fantasy MMOs is that there is only one problem facing player characters - how to kill the monsters. There are no crypts to sneak into, no locks to pick, no magical barriers to defeat, no guards to distract, just a bunch of monsters waiting to be processed in the most efficient way possible.
Players must have a variety of problems facing them if they are going to adopt a variety of roles. Ideally, any given challenge has a bunch of different ways to approach it, allowing players to act in their favored roles.
The group of players wants to get into the castle, but the drawbridge is up. Can they light a fire in the woods nearby to attract the attention of a guard? Can the big strong guy throw a grapple across to try to drag down the drawbridge? Can a nimble guy dump his gear and clamber across the rope to try to lower the drawbridge? Can the mage do anything to modify any of those scenarios in the group's favor? Can they build something that would allow all of them to enter the castle without being noticed? Can they masquerade as a group of the castle's soldiers?
MMOs need more types of problems to solve in more and varied ways so that many different roles can be adopted by players. Having only one problem to solve means that MMOs are manufacturing artificial divisions of labor.
When I read your post it reminded me when I play PnP DnD. What we have in todays games are linear combat models and no combat roleplaying. We see Tera and GW2 attempting to break away from the linear combat model into a more dynamic combat model. However, its all just combat.
Here is a good example from a dnd run I did with a few friends I did back in the day.
Group consisted of a rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter and barbarian. We was in a cave network that was controlled by Kolbolds. We got to the barracks where there was lots of children and caretakers. The rogue decided to sneak into the room and get the water barrel. The Barbarian threw the water barrel into the room and it busted in the middle of the floor. The wizards casted a lightning bolt on the floor where the water was and killed all of the mobs. While this whole sequence happened the other two players guarded the door so no one can compramise our plan. And to top it off because our cleric was aligned good, by killing the innocent the cleric got really pissed off and had to change his alignment to a slayer. And that is what combat roleplay is.
Please, before you comment on how AI should be "smart", watch the video in my signature. Learn from people who have made real AI systems and tested their fun against actual players.
Either that or start proposing AI implementations which are also games unto themselves (as threat-based AI is.)
If players who want smart AI preface their opinion with "I understand this game won't sell, or be particularly fun to most players, but I just want this..." then a lot of the discussion will be defused before it starts because we'll all be in agreement.
As others have said. People adapt. Currently 99% (made up stat) are just following what they have been "taught" to do. Tank stand and scream so creatures focus on him, healer heals tank, DPS kills. YAY!! We all fit into our Archetypes and "solved the puzzle"!!!
It's laughable. If I had described the situation from my example to you prior to your having been trained that this was "normal" you would have laughed with comments like "Seriously? Those 8 guys don't see you fighting 20 feet from them?" or "Those 10 guys are really going to pull a Bruce Lee movie and attack your group of 6 one at a time?".
Instead.. we have been trained that this is normal for a game and thus accept it. We may not even have a choice CURRENTLY as I am sure we don't have the computing power and/or bandwidth to get great AI in an MMORPG. That doesn't mean we should accept it as the way it SHOULD be.
Also, regarding making it too "difficult". I say not at all! Instead of 250 goblins being slaughtered... maybe there are only 20. Instead of 100000 HP required to make up for the lack of AI, perhaps the boss has realistic amounts.. similar to a character. Heck, perhaps instead of killing the Goblin King maybe it's just a small Goblin Outpost with 2 dozen grunts and a Sgt...
Don;t confuse difficulty with your experience completing a task. The first time a kid tries to ride a bike it seems really hard... after awhile it becomes second nature. Sometimes you have to think outside the box of what's considered "normal" or "standard".
PS: Don't forget my example was goblns.. not exactly known for being rocket scientists but clearly they would react on a more instinctual level then currently shown in games.
Difficulty doesn't really enter into the equation. Threat-based fights can be made just as hard as needed. Your Realism-based fights could be as well.
But what's lacking is this huge hole you'll blow into the game by removing the "threat game". Until you propose a way of filling that hole with an equally game-like (but more realistic) AI, you will only have suggested huge steps backwards in fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Difficulty doesn't really enter into the equation. Threat-based fights can be made just as hard as needed. Your Realism-based fights could be as well.
But what's lacking is this huge hole you'll blow into the game by removing the "threat game". Until you propose a way of filling that hole with an equally game-like (but more realistic) AI, you will only have suggested huge steps backwards in fun.
What's wrong with the GW1 method, or any method that vaguely approximates the sort of fights you see in PvP? Have the AI attack what's weak, and the game becomes about defending the weak with means other than threat generation. Whether it's body blocking, stunning attacks, kiting or whatever.
Yes, you can make an FPS about endless waves of mindless enemies rushing straight at you fun (See Serious Sam), but that doesn't mean that it's superior to other forms of FPS because it has a simple, easily understandable puzzle (Enemies run straight at you. Kill them!)
The BASIC idea of the holy trinity is okay (Defend the weak using your tank!), but the implementation (By spamming threat generation while other people try and throttle back their abilities to not exceed a certain point!) is poor. What's superior about that particular form of AI? How is that, as a puzzle, any more entertaining than any even vaguely more realistic puzzle one could use?
Comments
I assumed everyone would use their own definition of "balance". Whether that meant every class or class/build should have an equal chance to kill every other class or class/build in 1v1 PvP, or perhaps that every class or class/build would be able to do equal dps in a raid. Perhaps it means that every class doesn't really know how much damage output you have, but the other skills that are brought to the table become key to fights, such as fireballs against an ice dragon.
Specific implementations or definitions of "balanced" are very subjective. However, you don't need to have agreement on what balance means if you are weighing your opinion of how important balance is in relation to how much choice you have in how you play your class. Do you want more choice in how you play your class, even if it means that another class could possible do "more" than you at something? Is it more important that the choices you have in how play, even if limited give you equal footing versus another player at some given activity in the game? Which of these is more important?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't mean to hijack the topic since it seems that everyone else still has some things to say about class balance. But I will give a quick response to this. You've described what a smarter AI would do, but you failed to say how it would be fun. In a nutshell, you've described a scenario in which the party will always lose because the mobs have a huge aggro range and a huge link range.
Can you think of any possible way to defeat this challenge? You can? Well, there you go, that's what everyone will do. Sneak through the castle undetected to get to the king? That's cool, except now every trip through this dungeon is Metal Gear Solid instead of an MMORPG. Never mind spending thousands of gold on godly plate armor with defense through the roof; you're going to tank a single mob—the king—and he's a pushover. Quickly and silently take down individual goblins so that they can't alert the others? That's cool, except now every trip through this dungeon is Arkham Asylum instead of an MMORPG. Never mind carefully spec'ing a perfect healer build; every enemy is going to be killed while stunlocked and nobody's going to get hit once, let alone damaged to the point of needing your heals.
The tank-n-spankable AI works because it is a puzzle that needs to be solved, and the correct solution is for tanks to be good tanks, for healers to be good healers, and for dps to be good dps. If you come up with another AI, it has to have a solution (or else players will refuse to fight it) and that solution has to involve players performing MMO-like activities that are appropriate to their character.
I played a lot of Team Fortress 2 and you either did damage, or you did some healing with some damage. It doesn't seem terribly complex to balance between the different classes. Everyone's damage could be made more or less even and there was only one healer to worry about.
My favorite thing in TF2 was hitting people in the face with a rocket. Something about that made me smile every time I did it. :-)
There is more variation than just damage and healing, each class has different tactics they bring to the group. Granted they all can kill each other well.
So I think there is a lot of distinction that MMOs lack, where in MMOs you do have straight up damage, tanking, crowd control and healing but not necessarily anything more than that. Shooters like TF2 have a wider array of play styles and tactics you can employ.
In your example, Team Fortress 2, the healer is a so called "gamemaker". You will not win with everyone playing as a medic but you win great majority of time against a team that has none. IIRC, further proof of this is the fact that medic is the only class in TF2 which is limited to just 1 per team in clan tournament matches.
Otherwise it is reasonably well balanced. Whenever there's a gamemaker (or -breaker) it is a chip in the game's balance.
Not really my example, but I think it's a valid illustration of variety versus balance in something like an mmorpg. I do think TF2 is pretty well balanced. I think it has a lot to do with each class having very few abilities that require balancing. This allows the players to use their personal skill and not the class skills to become OP. There is not really much difference between classes (variety) which allows the game to be balanced. It kind of goes out the other end of the spectrum of Variety ...|...|...|... Balance to give nearly infinite Variety (Choice) to the players.
There aren't many or any mmorpg where the classes have 3 or fewer skills and also don't have levels and (finally) don't engage in any sort of PvE content though. I'm not sure you could implement in a fully realized mmorpg what is implemented in TF2 and have as many of the players be happy with it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You seem to be thinking in terms of set-piece scenarios where opponents are standing around in their usual placeholders, looking in their specific direction, doing absolutely nothing but waiting to be killed. It makes for a specific setting that players can learn, break down, and solve.
Instead, consider that monsters would be moving around, looking around, engaged in this or that activity. Show up on the wrong day and the goblin king is counting his money and all the guards are on edge. Show up at goblin siesta time and the guards are leaning on their spears, half asleep. Some guards are aggressive and determined while others are fairly wimpy. Drop the tough sargeant and the wimpy privates might run. There are a lot of factors that can change from encounter to encounter. Such an AI can be beaten, but players have to stay on their toes. Players don't beat the AI by reading about an encounter and preparing for it with the right team. Instead, they go in and deal with whatever the game throws at them.
FPS games have a bit of this today. I've been playing Red Faction: Guerrilla, a single-player shooter. In it, the evil police show up and start maneuvering for cover. Because the world has a destroyable environment, you never quite know where they're going to find cover - nor where you're going to be safe. Some come straight at you. Others will jump in any available vehicle with a gun and start shooting you. Some will try to flank you. More than once I've circled around a cargo container trying to get on the tail of a cop who was trying to get on my tail. Where'd he go?
A destructible environment in an MMO would be a bear, but procedrually-generated environments would accomplish the same thing. If a dungeon was never the same twice when a group entered it, they'd never know where the monsters were nor how the monsters were going to approach them. Nor even where the throneroom was. Or indeed if there was a throneroom at all. Perhaps the royal goblin family didn't move in after all and this is a barracks.
Please, before you comment on how AI should be "smart", watch the video in my signature. Learn from people who have made real AI systems and tested their fun against actual players.
Either that or start proposing AI implementations which are also games unto themselves (as threat-based AI is.)
If players who want smart AI preface their opinion with "I understand this game won't sell, or be particularly fun to most players, but I just want this..." then a lot of the discussion will be defused before it starts because we'll all be in agreement.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I did actually watch part of your video, though I can't watch it right now.
If I understand the basics of it though, he's saying that there is good AI, and fun AI (I think that's a bit bad of a way to phrase it, by the way... since good AI CAN be fun, and fun AI can be well programmed...), and that the current aggro system is 'fun AI' (Almost 100%), since it's based off of having a simple, easily solvable puzzle that they can design the game around.
I think it's possible to still have a 'fun AI', but have it play smarter... have it still be basically inhuman, but at least act in ways that creates a more interesting, less inherently flawed problem.
Guild Wars, for example, has a much better aggro table than your average MMO, in my opinion, and most of it is based off of the fact there's no artificial threat generation. Just that little change really creates a different dynamic.
If you look at a lot of older shooters, enemies act in really weird, non-realistic ways... where you could just looka t them and be 'Oh. That's definitely a computer'. Later games, they sort of fake up a more realistic AI, where enemies go for cover, or have a rudimentary understanding of positioning.
I'm personally not advocating AI that's as smart as physically possible, just AI that isn't so... obviously computerish.
Look at a fighting game like the latter Virtua Fighters... they've worked on making the computer act more and more like how human beings play... but that doesn't mean they're impossibly good, it can be a significantly more advanced AI and STUPIDER than an AI that is just programmed to do the best decision at any given time.
The first step to balancing classes in any game is to remove or seperate pvp and pve. (Make skills behave differently when effecting players) When you have egos on the line in PvP, the idea of balance is scrutnized that much more.
Ultimately though if your going to do a class based system, I think you as the community just have to accept that you have role(s) your class will excell at and there are times when other classes are just better then yours in a handful of given scenarios and visa versa.
Pure balance is bland, it just means everyone has access to everything, the only difference is how they are preformed, (looks).
Its main benefits are to help people get started on a path and to prevent people from making a 'bad choice'.
Classes create artificial restrictions that have a rippling effect throughout the game. The player is relegated to a specific look because of armor and weapon limitations. The player is relegated to a specific playstyle because other options are not available to his class.
Loot systems are invariably designed to support classes rather than skills, resulting in the endless childish tantrums over who 'deserves' which loot drops. Without classes, if the Flaming Spear of Nuking drops everyone rolls and highest number wins - no arguing over who deserves it, who needs it, who can/can't use it.
If you want to try a new skill that your class doesn't support, yuo have to level up a new character... all the way up to where your current character is if you want to travel with the same group. In a skill-based system (example: UO, EVE) you just learn your the one new skill.
Classes result in arbitrary race restrictions - wnat's wrong with an Undead Hunter?
Those are just some examples. The system of classes only seems functional if compared to the systemof levels. By any other measure, it's terrible.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Bad balance is actually adverse to variety since it limits the amount of viable classes/builds/skills. You can have 100 different classes but only 3 useful ones.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Classes create different playstyles whereas in classless games, unlike what you imply, people build very similar characters. Tankmage anyone?
The Flaming Spear of Nuking causes the same argument in classless games.
Having classes is by no means flawed or broken and leveling a class or skill makes no difference to me. Both have levels.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well, yes. Too smart AIs ain't good.
But there must be a middle thing between totally retarded and unbeatable.
Right now most MMO AIs are retarded, often with pathing problems. I think you are taking things to the extremes a little too much. MMO AIs needs to be smarter but not too smart, about on the pair of a rather dumb human.
Dumb AI isn't funnier than a too smart one, both sucks. Just like there are more difficulties than really easy and impossible and finding the right one sells the same goes for AIs.
In this genre I think GW1 still have the best AI, it is somewhat more unpredictable and wont fall for the worst things. Heck, you can actually have a AI healer on your team and do pretty fine there. Somewhat smarter and more unpredictable than that would be perfect at least for me.
People love to use the tankmage example and I'm always more than glad to call them on it. It's a cute talking point, but there is no evidence or data to support it.... or are you going to say that UO circa 1999 is the definition of skill-based systems?
I agree with Malcanis. Walk away from the class-based system and the problem resolves itself.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
First of all am I not really sure that classes are even needed. You can balance skills against eachothers instead and let people pich for themselves, just put the skills in a few different powerlevels and let people select a certain number of each instead. Works in P&P RPGs.
Secondly is some kind of balance needed, but how much depend on the playstyle of the game.
A PvP based game needs pretty good balance or it just wont be fun.
PvE on the other hand just need that each class have something useful to offer for a group. So if you have a PvE only game you can get away with a lot class variety.
The problem is that most games try to do both and that leads to compromises that wont be fun. There are a few solutions to that, Guildwars have PvE only skills that offers unbalanced variety without affecting PvP and that works well if PvP and PvE is separated.
A game that mixes both PvP and PvP at the same place is extremely hard to balance even without much class variety. I rather have one that separates the playstyles than one that makes both badly myself.
I think that you're too quick to throw away the good with the bad, when it comes to classes.
I've posted up two imaginary game designs here, and one of them uses a classless skill/equipment based system, and the other uses a class system (Albeit one where like FFXI, you can switch back and forth between classes). I think it depends upon what kind of game design you're planning on using.
For example, in the one where I was using classes, it's because the whole BASIS of the game design is the idea of using phasing in a meaningful gameplay design way. Different classes can see the world in different ways, and have to work together to solve problems more efficiently. If somebody could see the world in each and every way, it would completely break the whole design, and create undifferentiated mush between characters.
Well, that and your game screen would be so cluttered with being able to see 4+ different kinds of worlds that the game would also become hideous. :T
As others have said. People adapt. Currently 99% (made up stat) are just following what they have been "taught" to do. Tank stand and scream so creatures focus on him, healer heals tank, DPS kills. YAY!! We all fit into our Archetypes and "solved the puzzle"!!!
It's laughable. If I had described the situation from my example to you prior to your having been trained that this was "normal" you would have laughed with comments like "Seriously? Those 8 guys don't see you fighting 20 feet from them?" or "Those 10 guys are really going to pull a Bruce Lee movie and attack your group of 6 one at a time?".
Instead.. we have been trained that this is normal for a game and thus accept it. We may not even have a choice CURRENTLY as I am sure we don't have the computing power and/or bandwidth to get great AI in an MMORPG. That doesn't mean we should accept it as the way it SHOULD be.
Also, regarding making it too "difficult". I say not at all! Instead of 250 goblins being slaughtered... maybe there are only 20. Instead of 100000 HP required to make up for the lack of AI, perhaps the boss has realistic amounts.. similar to a character. Heck, perhaps instead of killing the Goblin King maybe it's just a small Goblin Outpost with 2 dozen grunts and a Sgt...
Don;t confuse difficulty with your experience completing a task. The first time a kid tries to ride a bike it seems really hard... after awhile it becomes second nature. Sometimes you have to think outside the box of what's considered "normal" or "standard".
PS: Don't forget my example was goblns.. not exactly known for being rocket scientists but clearly they would react on a more instinctual level then currently shown in games.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The OP stated "I'm referring to Rift, but I think this applies to many mmorpg, not just Rift," so the responses were in reference to that. I agree, that if MMOs took a different approach to design and focus above and beyond the mainstream, classes could very probably serve a useful role.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This thread has two sections. The OP of class balance and class variety and AI. Let me briefly explain what is correct class balance and how it causes diversity then I'll speak on how to make AI fun.
True class balance is when all classes are balanced within their archetype. An archetype is a type of role. Say, you have 3 classes in each archetype. As long as all tanks/healers/dps are balanced within each other, than that archetype is balanced. However, designers throw off balance by not staying true to the corresponding archetype. A healer or a tank should not have on par dps with a pure dps class. To maintain this balance keep all classes true to their archetype. From a HP and Damage perspective..
Tanks = Moderate damage, and high mitigation against melee and moderate mitigation against casters
Dps Melee = High damage, and low to moderate mitigation against melee and moderate to low against casters
Caster Dps = High damage, and low mitigation against all melee and moderate to high mitigation against casters
Healers = Low damage, and high mitigation against all (through heals)
Secondaly after each archetype is balanced, abilities witin a class are balanced. Overpowering abilities must be countered with a penality. That path of balance is being negated by alot of designers and that also throws off balance. If there are multiple classes within an archetype, balance should not restirct the players fun. Class balance really means, are the roles balanced within the archetype and countering the roles to not bleed over to other roles to cause overpower or underpowering classes and abilities. I have only scratched the surface with class balance but this should give everyone a basic feel of the direction of correct class balance.
I think a lot of players are finding classes dull and bad and believes that class balance does not consititute diversity is a victim of bad class design and bad class balance. What we see in today's mmos are linear classes with the new class builds that perform in a linear combat situations. Class builds also destroy class balance and handicap your full potential for your class. But that is another discussion.
Throughout the thread Ive read how AI could be fun or not fun if it's too intelligent. Everyone is coming up with the what would a mob do if you kill his body guards ect. That would play a small factor within fun intelligent AI. What would make fun AI, is intelligent AI within combat. In order to have that to happen, gameplay and classes must not be linear; aka the tank and spank. Seems like Tera is somewhat changings the strategem of gameplay within combat, however, all it is, is more freedom in movement within combat.
To make AI fun within combat is to allow the AI and player to adapt within combat. Have multiple strategies when fighting mobs instead of spamming 2-5 abilities to kill something. In order to have adaptibility within AI and player combat is to allow a diverse complex combat mechanics that is easy to learn but hard to master. There should be more than a dozen ways to fight and should be multiple ways to kill a mob. You have to take into consideration an AI heirarchy of intelligent mobs and non intelligent mobs. Risk vs. reward should always be a factor within this style of gameplay.
And yes, I have figured out away to design such a style of gameplay, I have 16 classes that have a different distinct playstyle, player freedom within classes so they can complement the two combat mechanics that allows a diverse array of strategy and challenge. If anyone has any questions reguarding my post, please reply if you disagree or agree. I hope this helps.
I'll just say again that I disagree with your basic concept that games should be balanced around archetypes. It's certainly a valid point of view, but not one that I personally subscribe to nor want to see implemented. I want to play a character.. thats my role. I don't want to play a pre-determined role in a group. That's not what the R(ole) in RPG means.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
While I agree with you, a major issue with current fantasy MMOs is that there is only one problem facing player characters - how to kill the monsters. There are no crypts to sneak into, no locks to pick, no magical barriers to defeat, no guards to distract, just a bunch of monsters waiting to be processed in the most efficient way possible.
Players must have a variety of problems facing them if they are going to adopt a variety of roles. Ideally, any given challenge has a bunch of different ways to approach it, allowing players to act in their favored roles.
The group of players wants to get into the castle, but the drawbridge is up. Can they light a fire in the woods nearby to attract the attention of a guard? Can the big strong guy throw a grapple across to try to drag down the drawbridge? Can a nimble guy dump his gear and clamber across the rope to try to lower the drawbridge? Can the mage do anything to modify any of those scenarios in the group's favor? Can they build something that would allow all of them to enter the castle without being noticed? Can they masquerade as a group of the castle's soldiers?
MMOs need more types of problems to solve in more and varied ways so that many different roles can be adopted by players. Having only one problem to solve means that MMOs are manufacturing artificial divisions of labor.
I am thinking on class balance by player to AI via combat gamplay perspective only. Usually that's what people complian about not being balanced is combat alone. It seems as if we are bringing in more aspects rather than combat. In combat a class is a role. Can you show me any other mmorpg's that has a class system and does not have specified roles in which you play a character. In Everquest, Wow, DAoC, and other class based gameplay each classes in combat play a theme. If you're looking for more to a character rather than just combat, I don't think there are any pre-existing titles that would provide that for you. I am looking at this from a designers and players perspective, and I am assuming you're looking at it from only a players perspective.
Perfect Balance = homogenization. I would rather see variety than perfect balance (within reason).
When I read your post it reminded me when I play PnP DnD. What we have in todays games are linear combat models and no combat roleplaying. We see Tera and GW2 attempting to break away from the linear combat model into a more dynamic combat model. However, its all just combat.
Here is a good example from a dnd run I did with a few friends I did back in the day.
Group consisted of a rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter and barbarian. We was in a cave network that was controlled by Kolbolds. We got to the barracks where there was lots of children and caretakers. The rogue decided to sneak into the room and get the water barrel. The Barbarian threw the water barrel into the room and it busted in the middle of the floor. The wizards casted a lightning bolt on the floor where the water was and killed all of the mobs. While this whole sequence happened the other two players guarded the door so no one can compramise our plan. And to top it off because our cleric was aligned good, by killing the innocent the cleric got really pissed off and had to change his alignment to a slayer. And that is what combat roleplay is.
Difficulty doesn't really enter into the equation. Threat-based fights can be made just as hard as needed. Your Realism-based fights could be as well.
But what's lacking is this huge hole you'll blow into the game by removing the "threat game". Until you propose a way of filling that hole with an equally game-like (but more realistic) AI, you will only have suggested huge steps backwards in fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What's wrong with the GW1 method, or any method that vaguely approximates the sort of fights you see in PvP? Have the AI attack what's weak, and the game becomes about defending the weak with means other than threat generation. Whether it's body blocking, stunning attacks, kiting or whatever.
Yes, you can make an FPS about endless waves of mindless enemies rushing straight at you fun (See Serious Sam), but that doesn't mean that it's superior to other forms of FPS because it has a simple, easily understandable puzzle (Enemies run straight at you. Kill them!)
The BASIC idea of the holy trinity is okay (Defend the weak using your tank!), but the implementation (By spamming threat generation while other people try and throttle back their abilities to not exceed a certain point!) is poor. What's superior about that particular form of AI? How is that, as a puzzle, any more entertaining than any even vaguely more realistic puzzle one could use?