Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Dewm 

I think a few posters back had it right when he was talking about people wanting to win everytime by having the full rock/paper/scissors combo. You can't have everyone on the same playing feild without making a FPS.

So Chess doesn't put everyone on the same playing field?

Starcraft 1 didn't put everyone on the same playing field?

There's nothing magical about FPS games that means non-FPS games can't be balanced.

Starcraft and chess are not RPG's and are not persistent worlds which, in my opinion, makes them infinitely easier to balance.

Originally posted by Quizzical

In many MMORPGs, the balance problems run much deeper than that.  Level 50 character fights level 40 character, so level 50 character wins.  Newly minted max level character fights max level character in full epics, so player with epics wins.  That's not trying to balance PVP and failing.  That's intentionally unbalancing PVP.

Teh problem is that PvP is ususally concerned with the immediate conflict ie duel or battle while RPGs tend to focus on the character's entire 'life'.  A level 50 character progressed further in the game and as such is 'better' than a level 40 character.  So from a RPG point of view a level 50 character should defeat a level 40 character as a 'natural law'.  This of course feels completely unfair to PvPers whose only concern is the immediate fight.

My opinions on this are and have always been the same. PVP balance issues are a myth. There are systems in place, you learn them, you understand them, and go from there. For me, I want nothing to do with PVP balance, because I find it lame. 

If a Rogue type player ambushes a cloth wearing caster, the caster should be at a huge disadvantage, and most likely die. Just as that same rogue should be at a huge disadvantage against that same caster from range. Look at what WoW has done over the years to pacify the crying over class imbalance. Now a Rogue can be deadly up close and at range. Now a Warrior, intended to be a pure tank at launch, can now dps just as well. Now a Priest can DPS just as well. Some call that balance. I call it slowly making classes obsolete. Why take a Rogue, Mage, Hunter, Lock with you when you can have Warriors or Priests or Druids that can be tanks, dps,Healer, etc. The problem as I have always seen it, is Bobby wants to own, but Bobby isn't very good at pvp, or doesn't want to put the time in to earn the better pvp gear, so Bobby cries about nerfs, imbalance, OP'd classes. Should Bobby with no PVP gear be able to kill a player with the best PVP gear? No. But Bobby thinks he should. There in lies the problem. I'll give an example I've used before. My daughter and I played Rift together, enjoyed the game, and the pvp. Regardless of what class her and I used, we were constantly the top killers/healers in each round. Where exactly is the balance problem? I tought my mother in law how to use here toon better in PVP in WoW, now she can hold her own and usually is in the top 5 in damage, kills, etc in Battlegrounds. The woman is 67 years old. If she and my daughter can do it, why is it so hard for so many others? 

Does it take practice? Sure does. Does it take patience? Sure does. The problem is the nerd rage thrown on forums by Bobby beacuse he just got owned by my daughter, or her grandmother. Beacuse Bobby has zero patience, Bobby doesn't want to have to actually earn or learn anything; he just wants to own, and right now. 

The systems in place are what they are. Are they perfect? No. But they are workable, and make sence. Really, does anyone expect someone that has never fought in their life to win a Karate tourney against a 5th Degree Black Belt? Is a guy standing at a bus station waiting to head off to Basic Training going to be as good a soldier as a 20 year Special Ops Soldier? Not even close. So why do people expect that in an MMO? 

In the end, Bobby will NEVER be good at PVP. And Bobby was also that annoying guild member that constantly spammed chat with "Someone Power Level Me." "Someone Run me through Deadmines" , etc, etc.

So, I basically ignore the cries of balance, nerf, etc, and just move forward, with whatever class I'm playing, understanding the systems in place, and laughing my ass off on GSC with my daughter as we role over all the Bobby's of the world.

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Axehilt

So Chess doesn't put everyone on the same playing field?

Starcraft 1 didn't put everyone on the same playing field?

There's nothing magical about FPS games that means non-FPS games can't be balanced.

Starcraft and chess are not RPG's and are not persistent worlds which, in my opinion, makes them infinitely easier to balance.

RPGs aren't that hard to balance, and those focused on PVE are absolutely easier to balance than any PVP game.  With RPGs, the variation due to player skill is minimized, creating a standardized baseline performance for each class which is easy to balance around.

Whereas in skill-rewarding games like Starcraft, Chess, or FPSes you have very substantial differences in player capabilities due to skill -- which makes balance elusive since each player plays differently.

(And whether or not it's a persistent world has no relevance to balance difficulty at all.)

Originally posted by Vlad_Tepes

My opinions on this are and have always been the same. PVP balance issues are a myth. There are systems in place, you learn them, you understand them, and go from there. For me, I want nothing to do with PVP balance, because I find it lame. 

If a Rogue type player ambushes a cloth wearing caster, the caster should be at a huge disadvantage, and most likely die. Just as that same rogue should be at a huge disadvantage against that same caster from range. Look at what WoW has done over the years to pacify the crying over class imbalance. Now a Rogue can be deadly up close and at range. Now a Warrior, intended to be a pure tank at launch, can now dps just as well. Now a Priest can DPS just as well. Some call that balance. I call it slowly making classes obsolete. Why take a Rogue, Mage, Hunter, Lock with you when you can have Warriors or Priests or Druids that can be tanks, dps,Healer, etc. The problem as I have always seen it, is Bobby wants to own, but Bobby isn't very good at pvp, or doesn't want to put the time in to earn the better pvp gear, so Bobby cries about nerfs, imbalance, OP'd classes. Should Bobby with no PVP gear be able to kill a player with the best PVP gear? No. But Bobby thinks he should. There in lies the problem. I'll give an example I've used before. My daughter and I played Rift together, enjoyed the game, and the pvp. Regardless of what class her and I used, we were constantly the top killers/healers in each round. Where exactly is the balance problem? I tought my mother in law how to use here toon better in PVP in WoW, now she can hold her own and usually is in the top 5 in damage, kills, etc in Battlegrounds. The woman is 67 years old. If she and my daughter can do it, why is it so hard for so many others? 

Does it take practice? Sure does. Does it take patience? Sure does. The problem is the nerd rage thrown on forums by Bobby beacuse he just got owned by my daughter, or her grandmother. Beacuse Bobby has zero patience, Bobby doesn't want to have to actually earn or learn anything; he just wants to own, and right now. 

The systems in place are what they are. Are they perfect? No. But they are workable, and make sence. Really, does anyone expect someone that has never fought in their life to win a Karate tourney against a 5th Degree Black Belt? Is a guy standing at a bus station waiting to head off to Basic Training going to be as good a soldier as a 20 year Special Ops Soldier? Not even close. So why do people expect that in an MMO? 

In the end, Bobby will NEVER be good at PVP. And Bobby was also that annoying guild member that constantly spammed chat with "Someone Power Level Me." "Someone Run me through Deadmines" , etc, etc.

So, I basically ignore the cries of balance, nerf, etc, and just move forward, with whatever class I'm playing, understanding the systems in place, and laughing my ass off on GSC with my daughter as we role over all the Bobby's of the world.

PVP balance makes the game interesting.  Class balance turns "Oh, it's just a mage. My class insta-kills mages" into a true match of skill where the more skilled player wins.  Ability balance turns "spam my one attack which is clearly better than the others" into a tactics-rewarding game where playing smart yields a substantial advantages.

In fact, balance makes things just the opposite of the way you paint them.  In game A where only rogues deal good DPS, only rogues get taken by groups seeking DPS.  In game B where balance exists, any DPS class is worth bringing.

Bobby is both right and wrong.  He's right that good PVP is decided by skill, and so a MMORPG which ignored all its progression elements to have pure skill-based PVP would actually provide considerably more interesting fights.  However if the game intends to offer casual PVP (where non-skill factors matter) then clearly Bobby's best choice is to find a good PVP game for PVP, and use MMORPGs only for PVE (which is what I do.)

If you can consistently score high in MMORPG PVP with any class, that's great -- and it's only possible in a reasonably balanced game.  Your anecdotal evidence is in total support of balance, which you seem not to support.

It would take a lot of pressure off if we had mmos that offered more than combat. You make an mmo and only have classes that do battle, well you're gonna have a player base that wants their class to be able to beat every other class. Why? Because thats all there is to do. Your success in battle defines your character fully.

Put in classes that can change the rules or build a city. Why not pilots or performers, racers, ambassadors, team captains, trackers? Add more depth to your game than just combat, and maybe your player base wont be so obsessed with balance. Maybe they will be more apt to accept rock/paper/scissors because it becomes apparent that this isnt a single player fighting game. Its a virtual world full of choice and diversity.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Axehilt

So Chess doesn't put everyone on the same playing field?

Starcraft 1 didn't put everyone on the same playing field?

There's nothing magical about FPS games that means non-FPS games can't be balanced.

Starcraft and chess are not RPG's and are not persistent worlds which, in my opinion, makes them infinitely easier to balance.

RPGs aren't that hard to balance, and those focused on PVE are absolutely easier to balance than any PVP game.  With RPGs, the variation due to player skill is minimized, creating a standardized baseline performance for each class which is easy to balance around.

Whereas in skill-rewarding games like Starcraft, Chess, or FPSes you have very substantial differences in player capabilities due to skill -- which makes balance elusive since each player plays differently.

(And whether or not it's a persistent world has no relevance to balance difficulty at all.)

Of course it does.  You have to balance a player who's been playing for 5 years vs a player who started yesterday.  It's a constant critism of some games that new players can never catch up and be competitive.

Originally posted by dave6660

(And whether or not it's a persistent world has no relevance to balance difficulty at all.)

Of course it does.  You have to balance a player who's been playing for 5 years vs a player who started yesterday.  It's a constant critism of some games that new players can never catch up and be competitive.

Well setting a level cap or a gear cap might be trivially difficult, but I'm not sure I'd call that more difficult than a game without persistence.

In Game 1 (no persistence), the progression from A-Z happens every game.  So every point of progression is under constant scrutiny by players because every point is hit in every game basically (actually it's weighted towards the beginning, since some games won't last to "Z" endgame.)

In Game 2 (persistence), progression from A-Z is much more gradual and you never (without an alt) repeat progress.  Eventually players will clump near the end, and really scrutinize that section of balance.

Game 1 has a lot more pressure on it for the entire balance to be correct, whereas balance can be off in early Game 2 progression and the game can turn out fine.

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Axehilt

So Chess doesn't put everyone on the same playing field?

Starcraft 1 didn't put everyone on the same playing field?

There's nothing magical about FPS games that means non-FPS games can't be balanced.

Starcraft and chess are not RPG's and are not persistent worlds which, in my opinion, makes them infinitely easier to balance.

RPGs aren't that hard to balance, and those focused on PVE are absolutely easier to balance than any PVP game.  With RPGs, the variation due to player skill is minimized, creating a standardized baseline performance for each class which is easy to balance around.

Whereas in skill-rewarding games like Starcraft, Chess, or FPSes you have very substantial differences in player capabilities due to skill -- which makes balance elusive since each player plays differently.

(And whether or not it's a persistent world has no relevance to balance difficulty at all.)

Of course it does.  You have to balance a player who's been playing for 5 years vs a player who started yesterday.  It's a constant critism of some games that new players can never catch up and be competitive.

No it doesn't. No one is trying to balance the game so that lvl 1 characer can hold against lvl 50 character. Everyone catches up at level cap / end game. Balancing is done between different player options such as skills, classes, races etc. All the different choices the players can make should be equally good. That is balance.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Dewm 

I think a few posters back had it right when he was talking about people wanting to win everytime by having the full rock/paper/scissors combo. You can't have everyone on the same playing feild without making a FPS.

So Chess doesn't put everyone on the same playing field?

Starcraft 1 didn't put everyone on the same playing field?

There's nothing magical about FPS games that means non-FPS games can't be balanced.

Firstly chess is a 1v1  game balanced for 1v1 play. Why the hell are you comparing multiplayer games to single player games as an example of balance? That is just stupid.

Secondly, chess is a skill game, and fps is a  twitch game. These are both valus that not everoyne has in equal quantity. In chess your chance to win is decided AS SOON AS YOU ARE CONCEIVED, not just before you pick your class. Stop making stupid ass arguments which are so inane that I threw my soda against the wall as soon as I saw it. You can't make an mmorpg determined on skill, be it twitch or intellect. I do not understand why people insist on making the chess argument.

Starcraft is multiplayer, but its also a twitch game. Its all about the micro. If you can't micro you are not going to be competitive in star craft.

Having endless balance cravings end's like in WoW - constant buffs & nerfs even after 7 years and you still not have it balanced.

Imho mmorpg's never had balance and never will, they don't even need perfect balance. Just make it so it is not blown out of proportions.

Consant nerf & buff patches + devs spending time on tinkering it hurt game imo.

Rock / paper / scissors is imho best if done right.  Anyway combat in mmorpg's should fall back on group vs group of players and not on 1 vs 1 balance imho.

Besides balance frequently end with dps race and classes being homogenized and boring as well.

I prefer big variation and uniqieness even if that mean unbalance (ofc to an extent, it cannot have ridiculous size).

You perception of balance is disoriented mainly because of so much emphacis on solo play lately.

You seem to forget what a MMO is, it is designed to be played with others, individual classes are NOT supposed to be equal.

The best pvp game I have ever played was DAoC where none of the classes were balanced, but were when grouped together.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

You perception of balance is disoriented mainly because of so much emphacis on solo play lately.

You seem to forget what a MMO is, it is designed to be played with others, individual classes are NOT supposed to be equal.

The best pvp game I have ever played was DAoC where none of the classes were balanced, but were when grouped together.

Well I agree with you, but remember, its a matter of preference really. Some people want their character to be balanced at an individual level, which is hard to do unless you turn everyone into an omni classer and give them access to all the same skills.

Neither approach is better or worse, and each favors a certain demographic.

Remember, for players with superior hand eye coordination and dexterity, having the game be equal in everything aspect is a huge advantage to them.

Most MMORPG's were designed to allow the "ahem" physically less adept compete against the top players by giving them an edge, or handicap if you will that let them be competitive by earning (or buying) better gear or by rewarding their years of loyal playing time.

This is done to keep the less skilled players playing and paying, and MMO's aren't the only games to do this.  Two real world sports, Bowling and Golf both offer handicaps (extra pins or reduction in strokes) to give the less skilled an illusion of being competitive.

In truth it never really works out that way, for example in bowling they generally only allow 80 - 90% of full handicap and its been proven to make the game totally equal it would have to be around 115-120%.

Maybe that's what should change, they could make traditional servers where players get advantages from gear or what not, and alternate rules servers where everyone would fight in the same gear and a persons level would have no bearing on the outcome, sort of like a scratch league in bowling.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Dewm 

I think a few posters back had it right when he was talking about people wanting to win everytime by having the full rock/paper/scissors combo. You can't have everyone on the same playing feild without making a FPS.

So Chess doesn't put everyone on the same playing field?

Starcraft 1 didn't put everyone on the same playing field?

There's nothing magical about FPS games that means non-FPS games can't be balanced.

Firstly chess is a 1v1  game balanced for 1v1 play. Why the hell are you comparing multiplayer games to single player games as an example of balance? That is just stupid.

Secondly, chess is a skill game, and fps is a  twitch game. These are both valus that not everoyne has in equal quantity. In chess your chance to win is decided AS SOON AS YOU ARE CONCEIVED, not just before you pick your class. Stop making stupid ass arguments which are so inane that I threw my soda against the wall as soon as I saw it. You can't make an mmorpg determined on skill, be it twitch or intellect. I do not understand why people insist on making the chess argument.

Starcraft is multiplayer, but its also a twitch game. Its all about the micro. If you can't micro you are not going to be competitive in star craft.

 

I was simply refuting the idea that you can't have everyone on the same playing field without making a FPS (when you clearly can.)  The number of players is irrelevant, and I could've mentioned any number of other well-balanced PVP games with more than 1v1 to make the same point.

Why would you assume "same playing field" means anything but "skill determines victor"?  You got all bent out of shape over your own inability to understand common terms.  Calm down, kid.

Whether or not MMORPG PVP is diluted by non-skill factors which overwhelm the importance of skill, MMORPG PVP could very obviously be a balanced playing field where skill was the primary determining factor.  It would just mean getting rid of the awful R/P/S Class Balancing that most games use in favor of each class being Unique-But-Balanced.

Just like every other well-designed asymetric-playstyle PVP game ever made.

PvP will never be done right, until a Developer deciees to make a game for adults. Whom understand the importance of the many pros & cons neccesary for a balanced game.

Too many kids complain when "someone" is more powerful than them. Instead of figuring out how to counter them.

I think the OP needs to step back and re-evaluate whom he is talking about.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Dewm 

I think a few posters back had it right when he was talking about people wanting to win everytime by having the full rock/paper/scissors combo. You can't have everyone on the same playing feild without making a FPS.

So Chess doesn't put everyone on the same playing field?

Starcraft 1 didn't put everyone on the same playing field?

There's nothing magical about FPS games that means non-FPS games can't be balanced.

Firstly chess is a 1v1  game balanced for 1v1 play. Why the hell are you comparing multiplayer games to single player games as an example of balance? That is just stupid.

Secondly, chess is a skill game, and fps is a  twitch game. These are both valus that not everoyne has in equal quantity. In chess your chance to win is decided AS SOON AS YOU ARE CONCEIVED, not just before you pick your class. Stop making stupid ass arguments which are so inane that I threw my soda against the wall as soon as I saw it. You can't make an mmorpg determined on skill, be it twitch or intellect. I do not understand why people insist on making the chess argument.

Starcraft is multiplayer, but its also a twitch game. Its all about the micro. If you can't micro you are not going to be competitive in star craft.

 

I was simply refuting the idea that you can't have everyone on the same playing field without making a FPS (when you clearly can.)  The number of players is irrelevant, and I could've mentioned any number of other well-balanced PVP games with more than 1v1 to make the same point.

Why would you assume "same playing field" means anything but "skill determines victor"?  You got all bent out of shape over your own inability to understand common terms.  Calm down, kid.

Whether or not MMORPG PVP is diluted by non-skill factors which overwhelm the importance of skill, MMORPG PVP could very obviously be a balanced playing field where skill was the primary determining factor.  It would just mean getting rid of the awful R/P/S Class Balancing that most games use in favor of each class being Unique-But-Balanced.

Just like every other well-designed asymetric-playstyle PVP game ever made.

You keep missing the point. This is boring.

Theres 3 tpyes of balance.

Everyones fair, which is basically a FPS style balancing act where...well everythings the same.  mmorpg has an appication of this in some sandboxes where players are given t he option to make their own class, ofthen leading everyone to be the "best" hybrid blend relating to pvp.

Rock paper sissors style.  This is the typical old school mmorpg balancing act.  Your strong vs one type and weak vs another. Roles are needed and this favors group balancing where well built groups with proper roles succeed.

Then theres WoW style balancing.  This is the new standard on themeparks.  Every few months theres a godmode class.  Play long enough and youll have a max character in each class and ability to play godmode class of the month every month.

Other than that there needs to be new mmo mechanics to facilitate "balance"

Originally posted by Cuathon

 You keep missing the point. This is boring. 

The point was Poster A said you can't have an even playing field without being a FPS, and Poster B explained why that's clearly not true.

Meanwhile Poster C comes in from left field with completely irrelevant thoughts to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Crunchy221

Theres 3 tpyes of balance.

 1. Everyones fair, which is basically a FPS style balancing act where...well everythings the same.  mmorpg has an appication of this in some sandboxes where players are given t he option to make their own class, ofthen leading everyone to be the "best" hybrid blend relating to pvp.

 2. Rock paper sissors style.  This is the typical old school mmorpg balancing act.  Your strong vs one type and weak vs another. Roles are needed and this favors group balancing where well built groups with proper roles succeed.

 3. Then theres WoW style balancing.  This is the new standard on themeparks.  Every few months theres a godmode class.  Play long enough and youll have a max character in each class and ability to play godmode class of the month every month.

Great post.  I agree.

I'd split this down further.  Numbers 2 and 3 are fine as-is.

For "Everyone's fair"...   I'm of the opinion that class based and classless designs can both fit in this.

In class based, when performance based on skills and stats is a very minor influence in the outcome of PVP it fits here.  Ever see a game where the response to "Which class is best for PVP?" is "They're all good, it doesn't matter".  In this case this isn't the normal rock-paper-scissors because the normal weaknesses don't exist or are extremely small.  Overall, noone is over or under powered against any opponent.

In skill based, it's much as described.  Once the perfect hybrid (or hybrids) are established then everyone plays them.