I've never understood why people get so mad at the balance of classes in an MMO.

Classes don't NEED to be balanced. A mage should get killed if a warrior with a huge axe manages to hack at him a couple of times - that mage should keep out of the way or face the consequences- same goes with a healer.

Why can't some classes be harder to play than others? why can't some classes be easier to kill than others?

As long as MMO devs try to balance classes they'll just never win, as one class will always be complaining about being underpowered in relation to another.

So why not simply put up a disclaimer on the character creation screen that 'xxxx class is harder to play well' or 'xxxx class is recommended for advanced players'

You could then give out bonuses in other ways to stop everyone choosing the easiest class - more XP/money whatever.

Rock is OP, please nerf. Paper is fine.

Yours, Scissors

 Just replied to a guy who was complaining about Choppas in WAR being overpowered. Well, they're 6 feet tall green Schwarzeneggers cousins with massive weapons. They should be hard to kill... Especially when ure playing a puny human with a sharp rod and a flintlock pistol... On the other hand you have bright wizards who get killed after few hits but can kill u in two... Now, thats balance.

The problem is that if the game is class based and has PvP in the game then players want a fair fight will all other players.

I agree with you to a point, not all classes should have an equal chance to win a battle vs another class but in some games the balance is so off that a few classes simple cannot win any battles.

Class balance is basicly impossiable if you really thing about it but if a player feels that his or her class is underpowered compared to another class they will always complain.

Why do you think Nascar has rules on car setup?  To make the field as even as possiable and make sure that its the drivers that make the difference.  Same goes for gaming.  All the classes should have a chance to win, it should be the players that decide who wins, no the class.

Sad but true... Most games say you need to balance classes for gameplay. I agree with OP that classes don't have to be balanced. Why is it that a mage would be equally strong as a warrior? IMO a warriot should be top of the chain when it comes to melee. When you're talking ranged, both archer & mage should be able to do loads of damage though. Rogues (I mean the stealthy dagger ones) should be weak. Their power lies in the surprise (and debuff/poison dot that might come with it). Healers... Need I say more??? Just heal and limited damage...

I think Lineage II (in original concept) did keep his in mind very well... Lately they've been balancing things out a bit, but still, the basics of an "unbalanced game" is there...

That depends on what the develepors of a game want with pvp.

do they want group pvp, or one vs one pvp.

if it's group then a specific class will have it easier killing a certain class, while having a hard time with a other certain class.

and one vs one pvp, you will be able to beat every class as easily as they will beat you.

This seems a bit confusing. If one class was stronger than the rest, wouldnt people all get one?

Second, mages probably do get killed by a warrior with a huge axe, since the mage gets time to cast when the warrior advances to them?

Generally, classes will be as hard to kill depending on how well you equip and play them?

If there is no balance, or no attempt at balance, chaos will ensue... you're simply asking for one class to rule them all?

There is no spoon   ....logic

When there are large gaps between class balance a disclaimer doesn't change anything.  While there will never be complete and absolute balance, I think most players just want to be competitive. 

When one class always destroys the other class no matter what, then that can be a problem.  Unless the game is set up like rock/paper/scissors where everyone has a strength against class A, but weakness against class B.  However, as you suggest a warrior always winning against a mage just isn't fun.  PvP with a guaranteed outcome completely misses the entire point of player vs player.  Not only does it take player skill out of the equation, but it also takes out the thirll of the competition.  At that point it might as well be an AI mob like pve.

Not to mention if an alpha class exists the vast majority of the game will gravitate towards it.  A balanced playing field promotes diversity and cooperation.  Imbalance tends to funnel people to the more competative and powerful classes.

I understand that some people enjoy the difficulty of playing an underpowered class, but that doens't mean it is good game design.  No one likes to be singled out as less than usefull just because the design team made balance mistakes. 

Classes being balanced does not mean all classes are the same.  Nor does it mean all classes do equally well against all other classes in 1 on 1.

The weakest notion of balance is that given any two classes, there are a lot of situations where class A does better than class B, and there are a lot of situations where class B does better than class A.

A strengthening of this notion is that for each class, there are a substantial number of situations where that particular class does the best.  For group content, this can mean, given the composition of the rest of the group, it is common for that particular class to be the best fit to finish the group--even if the number of players in the group is less than the number of classes.

I'd add that the number of players doing some content substantially exceeds the number of classes, then the optimal class distribution should include at least one of each class.

Why is class balance necessary?  If class A is always better than class B at everything, then why should class B exist at all?  Letting players choose to play as class B is merely letting them permanently gimp their character.

Well, it's quite a simple answer to the OP's question.

If classes aren't reasonably balanced then people will only play the overpowered ones.

Would you choose a class if the description included the paragraph:

"Please note, if you choose this character class then you will be subjecting yourself to a neverending stream of degrading PVP defeats at the hands of overpowered classes many of which could conceivably be controlled by players with the mental ability of the average capuchin monkey. You will also be unable to enjoy PVE because the class you have chosen is so gimped that no-one in their right minds would ever invite you to participate in anything worthwhile."

I sure wouldn't; if an MMO is to have classes then they should be balanced, though the examples given in the OP are misleading .. sure, a mage shouldn't be able to withstand a few hits with an axe in the face in the same way that a warrior shouldn't be able to withstand being atomized by a steady stream of fireballs.

The point about 1v1 PVP class balance isn't to homogenize; it's to ensure that every class has a reasonable chance to kill every other class and that the outcome is determined by player skill not by paper/rock/scissors. Though most MMO's cop out on this and balance PvP around groups, not 1v1.

Likewise, PVE balance should be tailored towards ensuring that every class is capable of filling a role within a group.

Actually you are just buying into the WoW/EQ way of "balance".

In old school D&D a wizard with the right spells could take a terrific beating from a warrior and was incredibly nasty at range or up close for damage or instant death spells. 

So your idea of warriors killing mages if they get close is not a "it just makes sense" kind of thing.  And if you want stuff to be imbalanced you can go back to the TankMage days of UO.

Anyway unfortunately many games have tried to "balance" things to the point of universal genericness, which i think is a mistake.  Howevver offering people a chance at a level playing field a good idea.

Part of the problem though is that "progress" in these games is almost always based on killing to get xp in some way.  Wehther its PvP or PvE.  And so many of the trade-offs of old-style RPGs, like the old school D&D wizard sucking in the beginning level, really just don't owkr because the games themselves are pretty much one domensional.

Kill stuff, get level, get same abilities as everyone else.  Not much else.

Of course many of the game play balance mechanics of old schol RPGs sucked too or were for masochists.  I played a MUD where you could get a really nice weapon that bound itself to you.  When you attacked things it either liked hated or was indifferent to its blood.  If it liked it the weapon would feed and grow brighter and power itself up.

But if you got the ...NO... message while fighting your ran away immediately because it would get pissed at you and sometimes chop off all your limbs and leave you nothing but a stumpy torso in the wilderness surrounded by enemies.  And death cost you 1/3 your TOTAL xp, so if you were fighting something hard and your crystal weapon got pissed and you died well that could be 5-10 levels you lose.

The idea here being that the inconvience and danger made up for the extra power of a close to max weapon class weapon that could sometimes be made to go through reisstances.

Of course this tends to work out exactly the opposite of the "too good to use" effect of powerful abilties on long cooldwons where people never use them and always save them.  Instead people just always got these items and figured out how to use them decently. 

So basically it comes down to one-dimensional games and frankly the realization that many of the old RPGs mechanics were mostly a failure especially without a DM/GM around.

Like in the old D&D were artifact items could drive you insane or rot you or have other really nasty effects.  That is cool and can balance out the power of that item.  But in the end you need a human in charge of the game to make insanity work well as a balance mechanism because you it will be a battle of wills and wits between the DM and the player to make it work out right.

Developers think they are smarter than their players.  And they also think their players are stupid.  But in reality they always consistently lose the battles of wits and wills against their players.  Not all players.  But they lose to enough of them that they cannot ignore it.  And they always lose.  So they made things one dimensional and tightly controlled.

I agree with OP.

Class balance is only wanted by solo pvp players.

Try out Lineage 2 for some good unballanced pvp. Each class is strong against 1 or 2 others class only, and weak against other classes. This is the best balance you can have, and it also encourages players to team up.

I agree OP, if the game requires skill to play then having some imbalance is fun.  Really good players can play weak classes and kick everyone's but with them.

I remember in this one mud I used to play, one class was know to be the weakest, this one guy could take on 3 people at once with it. 

The biggest imbalance is usually between healing classes and offensive classes.  A healer is simply not made for killing or fighting in general.  It's like pitting a EMT vs a Marine.

IRL a tank can knock out buildings, personnel and other tanks but has no defense against a A-10.   Meanwhile the A-10 has a huge heat signature and radar profile that make it susceptible to surface to air missiles.  Neither of them work well in jungles and urban warfare.

Class balance should be looked at in the same way but the whiner portion of the playerbase always refuses to accept limitations.

Originally posted by GreenChaos

 

I agree OP, if the game requires skill to play then having some imbalance is fun.  Really good players can play weak classes and kick everyone's but with them.

 

I remember in this one mud I used to play, one class was know to be the weakest, this one guy could take on 3 people at once with it. 

This is what happens, though, good and great players play the overpowered class. They slaughter everyone/everything. Really good players can't play a weak class, and beat another really good player that plays a strong class.

No one is concerned about the idiots who play overpowered classes. They just get rolled by everyone.

Honestly, after playing MMOs for 10 years now I just play the OP class. No need to make my life harder than it already is.

Classes DON'T NEED to be balanced.

It's ridiculous if a healer archetype can toe to toe with a same level warrior / barbarian. It's just wrong.

Unfortunately the RPG has been lost to the Solo -Questers and hardcore PvPers that macro, hack or just play the easiest FOTM class.

In some sports you get a handicap if you're really good. Why is it that PvPers never ever consider the same route.

If another player managed to beat me in PvP with vendor gear or similar then he or she would actually get genuine respect.

All the really great PvPers should flock to a weaker class so they can show their genuine skill, but it's not going to happen.

This obsession with balance has killed the variety in classes, but the fights are still very rarely fair so why bother.

Originally posted by Miner-2049er

 

It's ridiculous if a healer archetype can toe to toe with a same level warrior / barbarian. It's just wrong.

 

Not sure of any games that allow this. Mind filling me in?

Just because a healer can't do 1000DPS like a rogue doesn't mean they aren't balanced, imo.

Originally posted by brostyn

Originally posted by Miner-2049er

 

It's ridiculous if a healer archetype can toe to toe with a same level warrior / barbarian. It's just wrong.

 

 

Not sure of any games that allow this. Mind filling me in?

 

Just because a healer can't do 1000DPS like a rogue doesn't mean they aren't balanced, imo.

It happened in AoC with the Tempest of Set, where the healer class becomes the indestructible FOTM.

I also think the Shadow Priests in WoW were way too tough.

Healers should be like TaruTaru  White Mages in FFXI.

Balance is very important in MMORPG games because it gives you more selection to be what you want.  AC is excellent example of balance... Swordman, axeman, mage, all is same defense by gear and weapon.  How fast to kill the mob? All the same, there is no such as "overpower character".  Then everyone would reroll to be that character because its strongest of all which gives you less option.

Balance has nothing to do with 1 VS 1 duel. A 1 VS 1 duel is something that happens very rarely in a MMO, no matter if PVE or PVP centered.

First, every person favours another kind of class. Some love to play tanks, some healers, some mages, whatever. Now every gamer need to have the overall impresssion that netto, given all variety of possible situations, his class is as good as any other class. THAT is balance. People just tend to stick to classes they like to play, and if their class is weaker than other classes, it doesnt do good for the game in the long run. Balance means primarily that any class is as enjoying to play as another and not full of frustrations.

Balance does NOT mean it has to be equal in any given situation. Or equal in 1 VS 1 duels. Thats not a measure for balance. MMos consist many possible combat scenarios and balance means, on an average your class fares as good in the MMO as any other class. That does NOT mean in EVERY kind of situation, but overall. Otherwise people are forced to play classes they dont like, and consequently those players will at some point leave the MMO. So it is basically in the interest of a company that classes are balanced. This has nothing to do with PVP or duels. It just would be pointless to create a class and than make it weaker. No one would play that class.