Why Asymmetry In MMO Design Can Be A Beautiful thing | MMORPG.com

System

Why Asymmetry In MMO Design Can Be A Beautiful thing | MMORPG.com

Niklas breaks down MMO game design, specifically why the asymmetry of how some MMOs are built can be, in the end, a very beautiful thing.

Read the full story here

Thane

game was way more fun with assymetric classes, made them unique, or in short: "we don't need no bubble boys!"

cheyane

I was going nuts in DAoC making every class I can when they opened Gaheris. Since they were all so different I had to have one of everything. Same problem I had in City of Villains I had to have every kind of Mastermind. None of them levelled to very high. After all the time I have invested in City of Heroes/Villains I have only one toon a brute I took to the max level.

I have somewhat the same problem in EQ2 and I had to stop myself from rolling all the different classes since they have so many.

I recall loving my shaman in vanilla WoW bgs it was so much fun. I managed to get stone guard in PvP for her. I always loved the shaman more than the pally but I did roll a bloodelf paladin and stayed in the sub 19 bg for a long time.

I really hate it when they homogenize the classes across the factions it takes away all the purpose of rolling the different factions to access the class differences.

eoloe

In fact hero games made a step beyond asymmetry : uniqueness. Each hero is a collection of unique abilities and gameplay mechanics. In other words, each hero is a new experience.

What is sad is that through complex systems, this uniqueness was already provided in MMO (and it is still the case in some games)but then streamlined in the name of balance, but especially in the name of the evil lazy-game-design-fast-cash-grab-appeal-to-the-mass.

xpsync

Great read thanks!

Milkey84

You speak the truth!!!!

Wizardry

This is more about class design than game design.
The topic only comes up for two reasons,PVP "which is a joke to put into a rpg" and grouping,if a class is not up to par nobody wants it in their group.The latter reason can lead into game design discussions.

Wow gets is ALL wrong ALL of it.Instances are a crap idea and i played the game it's classes are lol weak sauce boring to play.Adding in pvp is again a bad idea you are either online to get along with other players or your not and pvp is NOT and creates a bad community constantly crying for nerfs which Blizzard never needed any encouragement,they love their nerfs.

I played FFXi for 15 years,NEVER a nerf,go figure they get it right the first time?

So when did i see the mention of nerfs next>>Atlas why?Easy >>pvp,it is always pvp causing problems in games.

Know where else i see nerfs ALL th time Hearthstone,guess who makes HS,yep Blizzard.They release content quickly to make money then worry about the quality of their decisions AFTER they get your money.I have seen a hlaf assed studio go downhill big time where now they are even more inept and even more monetization in their games.
Some might argue they lsot a lot of original employees over the years,maybe so but then WHY are people still giving this half assed studio money..NOW?

Scot

We need to able to give Niklas Elmqvist an Awesome!

The only thing I found missing in the article is rather an elephant in the room, why have MMOs changed, why is asymmetry so rare now?

For at least 15 years now gaming as been on a journey where one size must fit all, one gameplay template per genre and no room for divergent templates. Symmetry is favoured by designers because you don't get player angst, no player is now allowed to think they have wasted their time levelling when there are better classes in the game. They might quit, no player must be given a reason to quit. Understanding asymmetrical design for PvP requires some homework, today gamers are supposed to be able to play any game without any reading what so ever. This design philosophy has sacrificed so much of what MMOs once were on the altar of similarity and accessibility.

AugustusG

Yes now everyone is a DPS. I always prefered to play healers and new games more and more skip on making healers.

theGnade

WoW got everything right with first couple of expansions. Because then the game was designed from world perspective and they didn't really care about snowflakes. Over past years they just keep getting it wrong and 2/3 of what they get wrong will be still used in next expansion.

FFXI needs no nerfs because it is so boring that no one really cares there if you are playing op role or not, are you doing everything as you supposed or not. Its playerbase is made of snowflakes who can't even stand if someone points out that they are doing everything wrong and so the devs have to write into ToS that you may not point out others mistake.

Mendel

There can be some beauty in asymmetry.  But there can be simplicity.  Rock, Paper, Scissors is a very asymmetric design, after all.  Balance is important, especially in simple games.  Too many MMORPGs can't get the balance correct, with overpowered classes or overwhelming combinations of skills/tactics/abilities.

ashiru_1978

Thane said:

game was way more fun with assymetric classes, made them unique, or in short:

"we don't need no bubble boys!"

I will always regard Vanilla WoW as the best version of WoW, for many reasons, some of which are:

1. Only Alliance could have Paladins and only Horde could have Shamans, this was what made each faction unique and gave it its identity. If anything, there should have been more like those, just like how only Night Elves and Tauren could be Druids, because of their backstory and being very close with nature.

2. There was no stupid flying in the game aside from Griffon taxis. Flying is something that kills the immersion in MMORPGs and makes the world look small and insignificant and why should the developers bother to put in work on the ground, like little details and Easter Eggs, when nobody's going to appreciate their work, because they will be too busy flying in a straight line from point A to point B? Walking on the ground also resulted in people memorizing landmarks and learning the zones and being able to navigate them without the need of a map and that was kind of cool, it also meant having to avoid aggressive mobs.

3. The content was either difficult or tedious, people always argue on that part, but the thing was because it wasn't easy and required some effort, whether that was skill or patience (or both), it made the journey of leveling memorable. The leveling I did in Vanilla WoW was a unique and almost magical experience and no other MMORPG leveling comes close. Now I'm playing LOTRO for the first time and it's pretty predictable and easy, the only thing that keeps me going is that the world, quests and story are new to me, so there are still new things to explore.

4. Class builds were more straightforward for good or ill. Sure you can't make whatever build you want and expect to be viable in group content, but it was also part of the class identity. You can always be Fury Warrior with dual 1-H swords in both hands and that may be fun for you, but in a group if you're not a Protection Warrior wit a 1-H sword in one hand and a shield in the other, you won't get into groups. And that somewhat reflected how things are in real life - the things that are fun are not always effective or practical so if you want to get the job done, you sometimes have to assume roles or do things you don't like.

lotrlore

Scot said:

We need to able to give Niklas Elmqvist an Awesome!

Very happy Niklas is contributing to MMORPG now. :P

cameltosis

Really good article.

I never really know where I stand on the issue of assymetry, so I guess I should say "i don't care".

In my experience, symmetry or asymmetry has never been the driving factor of fun. I also think it becomes a bit of a meaningless distinction in roleplaying games, because the instant you allow players to make a choice (i.e. roleplay), you move away from symmetry.

Balance, now, that is a driver of fun, both in PvE and PvP. We all want to win, but winning a close fight is far more satisfying than winning a fight easily. And a close fight can only be achieved by balance.

How you achieve balance is where symmetry comes in.

If you balance by making everyone the same (perfect symmetry), then you remove the individual, you probably remove a lot of roleplaying, you kill replayability and just generally make the game boring.

So, asymmetry is inevitable in a good game, but how do you balance it? Do you balance around the individual? Do you balance around the group? How many things filter into the balancing equation?

I'm a fan of the rock-paper-scissors approach.

Between the individuals, there is asymmetry: rock beats scissors, but paper loses to scissors. But taking a step back, there is still symmetry there: everything wins against one thing, and everything loses against one thing.

Thats how I feel balance should be approached in MMOs: asymmetry at an individual level, but symmetry at a higher level.

corrosivechains

good read, this is something I have been saying for nearly 2 decades now. The problem was never multiplayer gaming or it's design, and the design should never have been shooting for a 1v1 or "who can get the highest score on the DPS Arcade Meter" that has infected so much of online gaming today. The single/solo player mindset that was brought into the online gaming sphere when WoW hit peak popularity in Wrath is what has ruined the genre and wont allow any interesting game to remain interesting long.

This crowd wants to constantly be catered too at the expense of those of use who enjoyed these games for what they were, living worlds we could exist in. The real world doesn't revolve around you, so it's time to quit trying to make the online gaming world revolve around them instead. They are the true MMO/Online game killers.

SenbonFan

On one hand I kind of do see the point. In fact I almost would like to see a game with faction/race locked classes again because it makes fight mechanics interesting.

On the other hand, even WITH symmetry, Devs have a habit of getting class balance wrong, or giving too much love to one class because they've been in charge of design for it from the start. Anyone remember Aleric from EQ2, the Lead Designer for Assassins specifically?

Well, he was actually supposed to be the Lead Designer for Scouts. But we called him the Lead Designer for Assassins because all he did was funnel resources into making Assassin the pinnacle DPS. Brigand was the next closest, but Brigand always had a sort of built in strength to it (Namely Dispatch). Ranger and Swashbuckler still, to this day, are considered inferior picks from among the Scouts because of how much damage was done in the early phases.

Much of this damage was done back when classes were more unique, and back when Assassin was the Evil Counterpart to Ranger rather than being shared between both sides. Assassin was not bound as heavily by Ammo as Ranger was. Assassin got more benefits from poisons due to Melee uptime unlike Ranger. Assassin's raw damage made and Swashbuckler's lack of debuffs combined to make Assassin pretty much better in every way, even large group situations because back then Swashbuckler didn't have as many AoEs as they do now nor did they have guaranteed AE Auto Attack. Assassin's positional strikes were much easier to pull off even without AAs compared to both Swashbuckler and Dirge specifically, although this changed much later with AAs and some other buffs.

Asymmetry in a sense gave Developers more of a means to do things like what Aleric did with Assassins in Everquest II. It also made content balance rougher when you have to factor in raids and dungeons being tackled by both sides (or on all sides in cases like DAoC). Some raids being hard to beat with a Bruiser versus a Shadowknight is one thing, but when there were debates for Shadowknight versus Paladin, it became a bit of an issue for Good-aligned Guilds for instance, as obviously they would not have as many SK players, if they had any at all.

Probably the only saving grace for EQ 2 is that grouping was not necessarily faction locked on all servers.

Iselin

I loved the class asymmetry in DAoC. It contributed greatly to making the other two realms look and feel alien and that was a big part of making you a fanboy for your own realm.

Lithuanian

I would be against it. Because, if you pick class that is fun, yet ignored by groups - feel free to enjoy it alone. Imagine dungeon with Big Rat Boss that has 99 million health and good defense (and does not use magic). What would class that spawns spell-breaking pets do? Yes, would stand being proudly alone. Which classes would be wellcome for Big Rat Boss? Yes, your holy trinity.
Asymetry can be good if done absolutely right. Like - all classes are unique, no "jacks of all trades" and each boss, each dungeon is designed so that everyone can really contribute.

Arvenas

YES. THIS. Been thinking the exact same thing lately.

KnightFalz

Asymmetry is fine when done well.

perrin82

What a well thought out article. I just appreciate the deepness to it. Also, I prefer games that are asymmetrical.

Tamanous

It's 2021, and this is a core topic I've discussed since mid-2000's. Few players now even know where, why and what mmorpg's came from today. Developers certain don't anymore minus the very few risking everything trying to make updated 'old school' games.

We do not get asymmetry in gaming (aka world building) because industrialized gaming takes zero risks other than for mass appeal and monetizing pixels. Don't look there. Don't take your argument there. It only exists in indie development and the masses are too consumed by blinky lights and instant gratification to care about genre gaming.

cheyane

Mr409Wins said:

cheyane said:

I was going nuts in DAoC making every class I can when they opened Gaheris. Since they were all so different I had to have one of everything. Same problem I had in City of Villains I had to have every kind of Mastermind. None of them levelled to very high. After all the time I have invested in City of Heroes/Villains I have only one toon a brute I took to the max level.

I have somewhat the same problem in EQ2 and I had to stop myself from rolling all the different classes since they have so many.

I recall loving my shaman in vanilla WoW bgs it was so much fun. I managed to get stone guard in PvP for her. I always loved the shaman more than the pally but I did roll a bloodelf paladin and stayed in the sub 19 bg for a long time.

I really hate it when they homogenize the classes across the factions it takes away all the purpose of rolling the different factions to access the class differences.

You're right about them messing things up when they "homogenize" classes. People homogenize MILK, not MMO's. And some of the WOW devs need to be working in a dairy instead of the gaming industry. Just my opinion.

Here's  Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homogenize

That is not the only definition of the word. If you can homogenize curriculum you can homogenize MMOs.  It means to 

• formalize, 
• normalize, 
• regularize, 
• standardize

At least check a dictionary before trying to snidely correct others.