I grow tired of seeing the same comments over and over. Its always the same replies, you dont want an mmo you want an fps, X mechanic doesnt work in an mmo, or skill based systems are just to hard to implement. I do not really understand why people believe that certain things, no matter how they are implemented, just can not be done or will not be fun.
(X) Mechanic does not work in an MMO
This discussion is mainly focused toward stealth. I love the idea of stealth in an MMORPG and I do not understand why people bash it so. Yes, blizzard can not balance stealth right. No, blizzard is not unique in this. A lot of games have had bogus stealth systems. There are a myriad of ways to create a stealth based system that could function in a balanced way.
I would love to see an aliens vs predator mmo, where players can be any of the three races. Obviously, aliens and predators rely on stealth. An alien with out stealth is a dead alien. Aliens lack any ranged offensive capability, so their reliance on stealth is a two edged sword. Stealth would be an advantage, but this advantage exists to counter their inherent weakness of lacking any ranged combat. It all comes down to how you implement stealth into the game.
Skill based systems are to hard to balance
Why would a skill based system be any harder to balance than a class based system? Where does this myth come from? People do what they see. People copy what works. A majority of the successful games have been class based, so class based is what we get. There are a few games that are hybrids (guildwars, anarchy online). I see no more difficulty in balancing these hybrids as opposed to a class based game. In all seriousness, I have yet to see a game balanced well. So I say again, why would a skill based system be harder to balance?
In a skill based system with player choice the difficulty lies in making all the skills viable (Although I could say the same about a class based system). If all the skills are not viable, players will follow the standard cookie cutter paths as those before them. You end up with a few defined set of skills that players use which might as well be classes. With a huge variety of skills to use that are each effective in their own way, through some means limiting players to a set number of skills, and by allows players choice to determine their advantages and weaknesses, you would have a successful skill based system.
To often enough, most class based systems that I have seen, classes lack several skill options that allow them to differentiate themselves from others of the same class. So the player feels like he is a peon in an army of clones. They also seem to lack real weaknesses that can be exploited during a fight. This destroys the concept of tactics in an mmo. Hunters are a good example in WoW. Hunters minimum shot range was a real weakness to exploit. When fighting a hunter, you would develop several methods of getting into that dead zone. With WoW this is a rare example of weaknesses and tactics. On the flip side you mainly have classes that pretty much fight everyone the same way.
Frost mages are a good example. Summon pet, frost nova take a few steps out of melee range, frostbolt/insta cone of cold for a quick double crit. The only time you cant do this is when a player can break roots, which is every damn class now due to trinkets. Tactic one out the window. Now simply frostnova and cone of cold real fast before they break it (Yes, I am anti trinket, why give advantages to a class then give every damn class the ability to nullify this advantage). You could ponder the tactics of an affliction lock, err not. I had an affliction/demo lock as my main. I pretty much fought everyone the same, fear, run while triple doting, try to fire off a shadowbolt, deathcoil if needed, player is usually dead by now. Did I need different tactics for different players, not really. Any decent warrior/rogue should kill me right off. Everyone else shouldnt even be a fight. No tactics. Bah, i got on a WoW rant. My bad. I appologize :)
Well, the way I think about skill vs. class balancing (and this is just me playing devil's advocate, btw cause I love skill systems)
Class system - let's use the most common example, WoW. 9 classes. Each class must be "balanced" against the other 8, and itself. Throw in the paper/rock/scissors system, you have... let me do some fake math here... 81 different "balances" that need to be done... subtract repeats... Mage to mage, mage to hunter, mage to warrior, etc. i don't even know. umm... I hate math. So let's just say 50. lol Of those 50, some are designed to be imbalanced. Warrior beats lock, lock beats hunter, hunter beats warrior. Or whatever.
Skill system - Let's say you have 20 combat oriented skills. Different melee, ranged, magic skills, etc.
Every skill has to be balanced against each other skill, and every possible combination of skills has to be balanced. Say you're allowed 5 combat skills, these 5 need to be individual balanced against themselves and the other 15 skills, and also your characters specific 5 skill "set" needs to balanced against all other possible 5 skill "sets."
Without doing more funny math that I really can't do right now, I garauntee you have hundreds more "balances" that need to be done with an open skill system.
So it's not "more difficult" it's actually the exact same process with both. It's just that the skill system has a lot more of it. A higher quantity of balances that need to be made.
So what ends up happening is, combat skills 1-5 are "balanced" in month 1, everyone migrates to or away from skills 1-5 and instead uses 6-20.. etc. etc. Month 2, skills 6-10 are "balanced" so people migrate away from 1-5 etc. etc.
Or, "flavor of the month" builds because realistically, a company only has a finite amount of time/manpower, they realistically can't balance every thing at once, so they do it in phases, which results in flavor of the month builds/classes/specs etc.
Thu Jan 10 2008 10:34AMSince I'm nice today, I will be gentle. We're all tired of the same repetitive comments and everyone is probably tired that my comment goes way way off the line or of conventional mmorpg thoughts. So, since I've said it again, I will say it one more time. Balance is what kills any game. Balance is crap. There is no balance or fairness in real life. Don't balance your freaking game, give disparities, make players want for something else, feel like they're in the gutter and then give them that light at the end of the tunnel and let them escape orgasmically. That's not even a word. People want to succeed, but not too much, frustrate them slightly then let them succeed, the victory will taste much better than grind.
Oh but Soulwynd, that noob punched my 2000 played hours mage on the face and killed him. Well, wait for the noob to sleep and shoot him in the head. That's how life works, that's how games should work.
As for invisibility, they need to put a visual invisibility, not that bit flag that simply makes someone invisible. Why not camouflage? Or simply staying in a shadowy place? Some alpha channel grading for more advanced or magical invisibility? Let the player perceive the invisible person himself, not some shitty code that shows the name over someone's head. It would take skill from the hidden person as well as the perceiving one. Then you could shove in motion detectors, thermographic vision, hot smoke, etc etc... Endless options to make things interesting...
I swear I will open a bottle of some fancy drink whenever developers get a clue and do something decent for a change.
Thu Jan 10 2008 11:57AMYou go booooiiiI!!!!
Well, games have started to do the paper/rock/scissors balancing instead of absolute balance. That's a step in the right direction. It encourages teamwork and "group balance" rather then individual roflcopterL337pwnBBQ balance.
Everyone should have strengths and weaknesses, some should be able to exploit said weaknessess, others still able to use their strengths to crush the competition....
A game with "good" balance has a counter to everything.
The reason everyone can counter a single root/mezz every 5 minutes in WoW is because it was needed. The reason their are ways to counter fear and other MC effects is because they are over powered and over used.
As a warrior, that Warlock can try and fear me but I have four different ways to counter it. But that mage can try to root me and I only have one way out, one time use, where as that mages has multiple methods of rooting / mezzing me.
This makes me rely on others to kill that pesky mage for me, while I go slaughter the Warlock, who would have killed my mage-hunting friend in a heart beat...
Thu Jan 10 2008 12:08PMI am generally against Stealth in PvP -- it doesn't matter in PvE. It has always been overpowered in MMO PvP, without exception. Because of this history, I often say it's just a bad idea. Not because I think it's impossible to do well, but because I lack faith in developers.
However, having played Team Fortress 2, I'm one step closer to relaxing my position a tiny bit. Stealth in that game is almost acceptable. Why? Because it has a limited duration, a lengthy recharge, you flash when you bump into enemies, you can be hit while invisible, and you cannot attack while it's on. So there are plenty of counters to Stealth, and a vigilant player actually stands a chance, unlike most MMO implementations, where everyone's basically a sitting duck unless they go to extreme lengths to guard against stealthers.
TF2 stealth is only realistic in a sci-fi "cloaking field" sense, so I would still not be thrilled about this exact implementation in a fantasy setting, but at least they have put enough limitations on it that it does take some skill to use (as opposed to the "skill" MMOG players claim their uber stealth classes require).
Thu Jan 10 2008 12:40PMJust to clarify, when I speak of balance, I simply mean balancing skills against each other. I do not mean balancing classes against each other. I believe that all advantages should come with a weakness. I do not believe all skills or classes should be equal. I simply believe they should have usefulness balanced by drawbacks.
Thu Jan 10 2008 2:32PMWell then your preconcieved notion that "skill based systems are hard to balance" is still correct. They are hard to balance, and more difficult then class base systems.
Obviously, I don't know 100% as I'm no game dev, but logically, just in terms of the number of possible combinations and the sheer volume of choices in which to balance, I'd have to say open skill based systems are, indeed, more difficult to balance.
It's not a myth... it's mathmatics.
Thu Jan 10 2008 2:36PMheerobya-
I think your looking at this wrong. If you take GuildWars as an example, Its a class based game with an immense amount of skills. How is this easier to balance compared to a strictly skill based game.
Warcraft as an example. I am not sure how many skills this game has. When you take into account how many skills it has then add in the different directions due to talent expenditure. How is this easier than a skill based system?
The idea is that even in a class based game you have skills that need balancing. So lets use your math. A skill based game with 100 skills vs a class based game with 100 skills. Man, they should be equivalent in balancing difficulty. For some odd reason you and most others believe that just because a game is class based, it must have less skills/abilities than a skill based game. This is fallacy.
Thu Jan 10 2008 3:29PMI feel a purely skill-based system is harder to balance because there are no restrictions placed on players as to what they can learn. Therefore, when one build is found to be "optimal", many will just convert to that build. t is almost impossible to make every logical build equally attractive.
In many ways, a skill-based system pigeonholes people more than a class-based system, which seems strange. When you choose a class, you know you will always have to work within the limits of that class, and that other classes will be designed to either kill you or be killed by you. In a skill-based system, you can usually just switch to something else, thus making the balance of skills a largely moot point - players balance the game themselves by just ignoring the less useful skills. The fact you can be whatever you want pigeonholes you into being whatever is the best at the time.
That is why in a class-based system balance is more important, because players are stuck with their choices. If a Mage sucks, he is stuck sucking until a developer fixes him. If a Mage-like character in a skill-based game sucks, he can change his skills to be a Rogue-like character and continue on his way.
Anyway, I personally prefer the definition that class-based games give. I like to be, say, a Paladin, not take skills that make me sort of like a Paladin. But that is just me.
Thu Jan 10 2008 4:19PMheh anti trinket.. I hear you.
But its not just in PVP (and not just in WOW) I understand making Bosses immune to certain effects HOWEVER when you make a mob immune to some very class defining skills (hamstring, freeze slows, fears etc etc) you are in fact turning classes into 1 trick ponies in raiding.
This is a problem across all MMO"s, developers instead of being creative in their encounters instead create monsters that limit the abilities of players so that new and interesting ways of overcoming these encounters are ruled out.
I find that lazy creativity. The trinket thing is the the boss issue taken over to PVP. Basically if you don't want some effect to happen to something, don't put that effect in the game in the first place. Pretty simple but somehow it seems to escape people.
As for balancing, your right, doesn't matter what system people use they will min/max it. Balance is an ongoing issue and to say one system of abilities is better than another is just silly. They all inherently have balance issues and short of making everyone exactly the same, they will always continue to have those issues. Skill based systems is what a lot of people are wanting, I can't wait for a AAA MMO to come out and do it right. Then again, so far no MMO has come out with the mass appeal of WOW and I think its time some MMO finally did it. Unfortunately no MMO on the horizon that I see will do that and thats sad.
Thu Jan 10 2008 4:42PMMost mechanics that people say "won't work" are mechanics that would so change the experience of a game that they can't imagine it appealing to them. They probably further assume that it wouldn't appeal to the majority of people. Stealth is one of those features. Nobody has described how it could work and nobody has implemented it such that it will work - to the satisfaction of Joe Average Gamer. When you come up with a way of describing it such that it will be compatible with the typical gamer, you'll stop seeing push-back.
If you are content with a niche game (which is only a relative comparison), just ignore those who say it can't be done. Every mechanic can work, because every mechanic has some behavior to it. It's just a matter of how many people like that behavior.
Me, I like a stand-up fight. I don't care to play against people who want to skulk around. The stealth mechanic doesn't work for me because I just don't care to see it. Being faced with the possibility of a stealthed opponent doesn't amuse me. It only annoys me.
On the topic of skill-based systems, they are considered a balance problem because they invariably have more moving parts than class systems. Class systems use skills, but they are far more limited than the typical system referred to as a 'skill system'. I wouldn't claim that skill systems cannot be balanced, but I would certainly claim that they are more difficult to balance than the typical class system. Simply because there are more skill combinations to consider.
Thu Jan 10 2008 7:36PMwell the only point I'm trying to make t0nyd is that in a class based game, yes, you could have 100 skills too, but not all of them are available to everyone.
There are certain combinations that are not possible. Using WoW as an example, can I have the arms tree skills/talents of a warrior AND the frost magic skills/talents of a Mage?
No, of course not.
So that's one less balancing act that has to be done.
In a skill based game, let's use Oblivion where you can create a custom skill set, I could take up Frost Magic AND the use of two-handed swords.... thus given me the abilities and skills of both of those tress....
Pretty much, what Sornin said. :)
Fri Jan 11 2008 11:50AMIf you notice that your example, Oblivion, you lack any real weaknesses. Where you use WoW as an example by saying "can I have the arms tree of a warrior and the frost magic skills of a mage? " No you cant, but you manage to forget the fact that the classes warrior and mage have weaknesses designed into them. Now you have to balance these weaknesses and their skills. I can not think of one skill based system where you actually have weaknesses.
Guild Wars is a great example of class based weaknesses with difficult balancing. You not only have to balance the skills of a monk/ranger, monk/warrior, monk/assassin, monk/dervish, monk/elementalist, monk/ritualist, monk/necromancer, monk/mesmer, monk/paragon, then you also have to do the reverse, ranger/monk, etc. Then you have to take into account class drawbacks such as low armor and low energy regen.
Sat Jan 12 2008 1:10AM" There are certain combinations that are not possible. Using WoW as an example I have the arms tree skills/talents of a warrior AND the frost magic skills?talents of a Mage?"
In GuildWars you can have the axe skills of a warrior combined with the lightning skills of an elemental. Just because WoW doesnt allow something that does not mean that all class based MMO's must not allow a more open skill set.
Sat Jan 12 2008 7:20AMt0nyd wrote:
In GuildWars you can have the axe skills of a warrior combined with the lightning skills of an elemental. Just because WoW doesnt allow something that does not mean that all class based MMO's must not allow a more open skill set.
Guild Wars is just one example. As skeptics, we require 504 more examples of a successful blending of warrior and mage skills. Without those examples we stand firm that it is impossible to do such a thing. Your facts are meaningless in the face of our obtuseness. Long live simplicity!
- LC
Sun Jan 13 2008 3:06AMSome say that you cannot balance a game, others say you shouldn't, some even say you can. The real problem is that today's games feel the need to give every class 100 different actions. Let me go back to AC, as I feel it is the finest example of PvP done right, you could bow a guy, melee a guy, or mage a guy. Mages had a few different types of damage they could do, you could shoot a fireball or ice or lightning etc. Melee you just attacked picked high/medium/low and swung for the fences, pretty much the same for Bow. You didn't have a million different attacks, just the basics to fight. A perfect example of keeping it simple, do I think games should go to this extreme? No, maybe somewhere between then and now.
Look at people who complain about WAR and it not being balanced, in my opinion it shouldn't be. The whole concept of WAR is group PvP, you should be grouping with people that will bolster you and limit the weaknesses that your class has. I always laugh my ass off when I see someone in game or on the forums complaining about "The Zerg" in WAR. WTF do you think the game is about, people see a PvP game and they just assume that it should be a 1v1 or 2v2 or some other way where it is even all around. In PvP you run with your group of people and if you happen to come across an even group you fight, however if you come across one lonely guy you bend him over the hump stump and give it to him good. Classes should not be balanced, at least not where they are equal. Everyone wants every class to have equal survivability against all the other classes, wishful thinking at most, a dream at best.
Games have gone downhill since the advent of stealth and crowd control. Those two things ruin games as far as I am concerned, If I was doing a game there would be no stealth period, and CC would only work PvE.
Love it or hate it, thats my opinion.
Fri Nov 28 2008 2:39AMMMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment