I think the bottom line is that the idea of having classes or skills is the idea of having differences.

And once you have differences, you will have advantages and disadvantages in different situations.

Therefore there cant be a perfect balance.

And even IF there would be a game which has classes and skills and is still perfectly balanced, nobody would know it, because the less skilled players will always claim the better skilled players have the overpowered class, the overpowered gear, the better ping, the whatever.

---

Originally posted by Adamantine
I think the bottom line is that the idea of having classes or skills is the idea of having differences.
And once you have differences, you will have advantages and disadvantages in different situations.
Therefore there cant be a perfect balance.
And even IF there would be a game which has classes and skills and is still perfectly balanced, nobody would know it, because the less skilled players will always claim the better skilled players have the overpowered class, the overpowered gear, the better ping, the whatever.

---

Yeah, it's very true that in a game which was perfectly balanced bad players would still complain. Hence the statement I hear the WAR devs make now and then which goes something like, "We'll know the game is balanced when players of each class are complaining equally." WAR balance commentary aside, it's a fairly true statement. :P

To balance the "perfect balance can never be achieved" side of the conversation, I find it necessary to point out that the rules variations (asymmetry) which creates those imbalances is part of what makes the most interesting games.

Checkers is almost entirely symmetrical, since both sides start with the same pieces and each individual piece has the same capabilities. But it's a pretty simple game and not that interesting.

Chess has symmetrical sides, but asymmetrical pieces, which makes things much more interesting due to the varied rules each piece obeys.

Lord of the Rings The Confrontation has asymmetrical sides and asymmetrical pieces, yet manages to cut a pretty close balance between the Good and Dark sides. It's sort of like Stratego with a smaller game board and more interesting special powers.

I'd concede that Confrontation is actually less deep a game than Chess, but asymmetry still has a very strong appeal for me. Which is apparent in the types of games I play most often (teamplay-based games where players play different roles, usually MMORPGs and FPSes.)

Originally posted by kmogusar

anarchy online has very good class balancing. not much to say on that subject, but the classes are very well balanced. they're just suited to different styles of gameplay.

Word. Which is why I plan on going back. It's not always about class and level (although they play a large part), but also about how well you planned ahead and researched how you want to build your character, calculating how to squeeze out that extra point to equip your new nanos or weapons or armor. It's not just one class tanks, one class DDs, one class nukes, one class heals, there's a good mix. Sure there are primaries for those roles, but they can be filled differently in a balancing way.

Originally posted by Azzthuras

Atlantica Online has the most ballenced classes ever.

Did you even play this game? PvP is horribly unbalanced, forcing you to play with very specific build types and items. The only reason your main characters class type wasn't a huge issue is because you have 8 other mercs to balance things out with. Heck, even that doesn't prevent main classes like the cannoneer from being almost completely worthless.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Eve, UO, Star Wars pre NGE.. there are others.  Because none of them have classes.  Classes were invented by the D&D people, no one else.   All the great fantasy books don't have classes. 

As many other have said this post is weakz.

Most fantasy books have classes. i say WOT is great there are classes (kinda), LOTR has classes, almost all fantasy books have clear guidlines that could create a "class".

I personally, think if your playign any mmo with balanced classes then thats a bad game, why becuase mmos should be about grouping together to use each memebers strengths to proctect other groupmemebers weaknesses. Class mmos: Best done in DAOC, some classes maybe underpowered but most were very balanced at the end of the day. Like the cery solo friendly classes were not great in groups (not bad, but the super class system of classic really balanced the game groupwise, which is all that mattered).

I think Eve as a non class game is balanced.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Eve, UO, Star Wars pre NGE.. there are others.  Because none of them have classes.  Classes were invented by the D&D people, no one else.   All the great fantasy books don't have classes. 

You're telling me that characters in "all great fantasy books" never refer to other characters as being a great Wizard, Mage, Sage, Priest Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, Mercenary, Swashbuckler..... Hell, even in a derogatory comment's about other characters, there are MANY references to classes in A LOT of great fantasy books.

I don't think it's really possible to make balanced classes for both solo and group play.  I'll take a FPS example in TF2.  In TF2, there are 9 classes.  Each is VERY different, the scout is very fast but has low HP, the Heavy has a big ass chaingun and 300hp but is very slow (even slower when firing its gun), etc.

If these classes were to 1v1, two would probably be viable, the soldier and the demo man.  The others have drawbacks in a 1v1, however, they are a very important part of the team element.  Best examples are the medic, the spy, and the engineer.  The medic does have weapons (a good melee one with the achievements), but his primary role is to heal.  He would be destroyed in a 1v1, especially since he can't heal himself.  However, he is of vital importance to winning a game in TF2.  Not only can he heal you, he can also give you an "uber" or a "kritzkreig" which either make you invincible for a short time or make you shoot all critical shots for a short time.  This is really vital for taking out sentries or just giving your team an advantage.  I love to play the medic because I can really help my team out and though I rarely get kills and die a lot, I end up near the top in points because I've done so much to help the team out (TF2 counts things like kill assists, how much I've healed, etc.). 

The enginner can build sentries, teleporters, and dispensors which are very useful but like the medic, he has poor weapons and would be destroyed in a 1v1. 

The spy can disguise itself as an enemy and cloak for a short time.  They can sneak in and use their sapper on the enemy buildings to take them out which can make an offensive push much easier.  They can also insta-kill with a backstab though if they use any weapons (besides the sapper), their disguise disappears.  He has a better weapon than the medic or engie, but he still has low HP and his weapon still pales in comparison to the soldier's rocket launcher or the demo man's sticky nades or nade launcher.  And unless the other player is a complete noob, he's not getting behind someone to backstab.

So, though most of the classes suck at 1v1, they have a great role when used as part of a team.

It's impossible to make both solo and group balanced classes.  Some will be really useful in groups (like healers) while others will be useful, but not as much.  However, these classes can solo well.

PvP is a whole other issue.