Skill based systems generally suffer more of FotM phenomenon. There is 1 good skill allocation method and everyone uses that. Or there are 2-3, it is the same.

This is if you have to choose. There are even worse cases that you don't even have to choose. Ryzom for example has a skill based system but you can max everything. This means you have an "RPG" where everyone knows everything. It isn't fun.

Guild Wars isn't a very good case of class balance either imo. The 2ndary profession worked sometimes like the case above - if they were adding an OPed skill, everyone could get it through their 2ndary prof. and again many people were playing the same thing. "Ursan Blessing" was a prime example of this and you didn't even need to change your 2ndary. Also the fact that on GW one player could have a lot of alts easily on max level (20), is another reason that people get the feeling that GW is good balanced, cause they have (almost) every class. This btw had a very bad impact on the game. Most of these people didn't knew to properly play most of their alts.

What is really going on here is that we have people whining about balance on games that it takes a long time for the player to get himself locked on an imbalanced character (overpowered or underpowered) and that's typically class based games.
The dagger skill on Ryzom really sucks but nobody complains about it cause you can just ignore it and use other type of weapons.
On GW while you have classes, it is really easy to max a new alt so again nobody complains about class imbalance. Also skill imbalance isn't an issue with the 2ndaries.

So what we have here isn't better balanced games, rather than games where imbalance isn't so much pain in the ass. For that reason class based systems tend to be/become more balanced after time cause people whine about it more than in skill based systems.

Also another thing to note is that balance in MMOs is something that should be approached in a group context. The most important thing is that all classes are useful in a group context, whether PvE or PvP. Cause true balance is really hard.

Another thing to note is that you can have classes but not levels. (also you could have levels but neither classes or skills). I don't know of any MMO that has done that but in theory it is possible. You just have to invent another reason to keep people playing, like money or gear.

So far, the most balanced game i had played would be Warhammer Online imo. And i had played it on both sides about equal amount of time.

Originally posted by skarwolf

WOW, Horde had Shaman & the Alliance Paladins.  Shamans had totems which only benefited the group IF they stayed within range of the totem.  Paladin auras buffed the entire raid, they also had abilities horde didn't notably deaggro.  Mostly those mages or huntards who didn't understand aggro were placed in the newb group with the paladin.

People complained and complained about this balance issue.

Solution.  Give horde paladins & alliance Shaman

No sensible person disagrees that symmetrical games are balanced.

But most sensible people also agree that asymmetrical games tend to be more interesting games, and allow for more personal expression.  RPGs wouldn't be nearly as popular if you always played the same exact character.

The reason Blizzard's decision makes sense is that each bit of asymmetry a game has requires more balance effort, and they didn't want to spend the huge amount of balance effort it would take to keep PVE balanced with two truly different factions - because they wanted to spend that asymmetry-balancing-effort on having lots of playstyles instead.  So each faction got both classes, and they spent their efforts ensuring each tree was viable in at least one part of the game (PVE or PVP).  Which brings the effort class count to 30 (10 classes times 3 playstyles each).  Having that many playstyles in the game adds a lot more fun than the paladin/shaman split added.

If games were not whimps they would make classes balanced and imbalanced against different classes.  To ineffect create balance.  Say Archer kills Mage, Mage kills Warrior, Warrior kills Archer.  Instead games give into whiners that think their class must be balanced against every class.  I personally do not think this should be the case.  Unless you want to play Counterstrike.  These are group games.  Your group should be what is balanced...not the individual.

I love Asheron's Call 1's design, where you get to pick what you want to specialize in.  You want to cast magic bolts?  Put points into it.  You want to run faster?  Put points into run speed.  You want to use a sword?  Put points into sword.  There were templates and what not, but it was a system I mostly miss because you truly at the freedom to build a character you want to build, not a pre-built by a developer.

AC1 had its own balance issues mainly because certain things were too strong, so they had to balance between war magic casters vs melee vs life magic casters, etc..  But still, it was a lot easier to balance than the conventional MMO setup imo.

BTW AC3, please Turbine.

Originally posted by Horusra

If games were not whimps they would make classes balanced and imbalanced against different classes.  To ineffect create balance.  Say Archer kills Mage, Mage kills Warrior, Warrior kills Archer.  Instead games give into whiners that think their class must be balanced against every class.  I personally do not think this should be the case.  Unless you want to play Counterstrike.  These are group games.  Your group should be what is balanced...not the individual.

Class Counters are fine if you embrace the idea that MMORPG PVP should be shallow.

If you're interested in PVP which is deep, meaningful, or competitive, they're a terrible idea.  It causes fights to be won or lost due to a decision you made at character creation.  Unless you can switch classes on the fly (as in Team Fortress 2), class counters cause one-sided landslides when a game might otherwise have interesting, epic fights.  Enough class-composition-counters are going to automatically spring into existence in a class-based game without the additional arbitrary mechanic of class counters.

MMORPG PVP oftentimes is intentionally kept shallow, so that bad players win more often.  Because bad players outnumber the good ones (and because when a game is competitive and deep, the 20% most skilled players win 80% of the time, which leaves the 80% least skilled players to win a mere 20% of the time.  Which is an awful lot of players not having fun most of the time.)

The "group" argument for class counters is pretty hollow.  Aside from the obvious (2 players do more damage than 1), MMORPGs all have buffs, which cause players to be that much more powerful when grouped together.  There's no need for some arbitrary additional mechanic to make players want to group up.

But yeah, Class Counters make for shallow combat.  If that's your aim, great.  But personally I enjoy deep PVP because it's more interesting and fun.

Wait so it is shallow because every one want to play the came class?  Where is the call for MMORPG's to be about groups and not the solo character.  If you want to enter a fight even then go play those solo FPS's.  They are based around one person able to win the match if their twitch skill is the best.  MMO's are suppose to be about making the best team to beat the other team or maybe I am wrong and it is actually a Massive multiplayer online single player verse player game we are involved in here. 

You view compeition as 1v1 and your solo record...when in a MMO it should be group vs group and the group record is what is important.  Pvp'ers are funny... take away gank and they whine about all classes being fair...give them gank and they whine about all classes being fair.

Originally posted by -Zeno-

In a class based system, you always have the rock paper and sissors game.  One class can kill another.  That is not fair on the individual player level and when developers try to adjust the system FOTM's are born.

The fix is a skill based system without caps. 

This line is 100% wrong.  No caps would inevitably make the game about character skill and not about player skill.  A skill based system must include a cap or the skills must be so limited that maxing them all is a trivial matter.  If that is the case you might as well just play an fps.

That puts the ball in the players court and not their charactor.  How good you are will determine how well you compete.  You still have progression and a newbie will lose to a vet just like a level based game but if that newbie is good enough they can catch up to the vet quickly.

I agree that a skill based system can be a solution, but there isn't a single game in existence that has proven your argument.  

I think class based systems work fine, but they shouldn't focus on balancing skills, but making scenarios that give players the upper hand against an opponent.   The game then becomes more of a game of chess. 

Would players accept a game that separates PvP skills from PvE skills, or the skills themselves act differently depending upon the enemy they are attacking?

Originally posted by Horusra

Wait so it is shallow because every one want to play the came class?  Where is the call for MMORPG's to be about groups and not the solo character.  If you want to enter a fight even then go play those solo FPS's.  They are based around one person able to win the match if their twitch skill is the best.  MMO's are suppose to be about making the best team to beat the other team or maybe I am wrong and it is actually a Massive multiplayer online single player verse player game we are involved in here. 

You view compeition as 1v1 and your solo record...when in a MMO it should be group vs group and the group record is what is important.  Pvp'ers are funny... take away gank and they whine about all classes being fair...give them gank and they whine about all classes being fair.

This is an old and flawed argument.

Just because people prefer to solo does not nessisarily mean they wish for the game to be a single player game. It is an option that many people who solo wish to have, but are not essentially tied to.

It is untrue that any game that does not conform to some ideal of "rock-paper-scissors" is a counterstrike/fps twitch game. Just because your class is PRE GEARED to gank some other class does NOT automatically make the game "strategic." In fact, the impact your choices have on your gameplay are greatly reduced in this dynamic, and thus strategy is not enhanced, but stagnated.

It is far more satisfying to have an MMO boast a class system that allows for a LOT of flexability and adaptablity. The more thinking outside of the box you make available to players, the LESS twitch-gamer-centric the game itself becomes.

The trick is that you can't just give players the ability to play ROCK when everyone else is playing SCISSORS. It becomes a boring and stagnant game.

Instead, it is a more dynamic and fun game in the MMO genre that can manage to make everyone roll ROCK only, and have each person, each individual see how he/she can defeat the other ROCKs. Or, to put it another way, it is more fun to give players the ability to have scissors beat rock, rock beat paper, and paper beat scissors.

From there, group combinations and strategies might easily form, and from this natural dynamic, overall balance can be adjusted and finally attained.

You cannot start with ultimate balance. This is stagnation, and completely disregards player ambition and desire, which leads to a very, very dead game. Any argument that would advocate for stagnation simply on the loose premise that it promotes twitch gaming is not only misinformed, it is outright wrong.

My two cents.

[quote][i]Originally posted by Gameloading[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by LynxJSA[/i]

"In a class based system, you always have the rock paper and sissors game.  You have the same thing in skill based games.  Classes are simply a grouping of skills. False. The distinction in that classes restricts each group to a limited skillset. It also restricts each character to one role. Skill-based systems allow characters to fill multiple roles. Also, skill-based systems historically have been characterized by having players with careers other than "guy who kills stuff" which is the ONLY role available in the majority of class-based systems." -LynxJSA

"Most modern mmorpgs have a number of classes that can fit in multiple roles. Take the shaman class in WoW for example. It can do melee combat, heal and offensive magic. Skill based systems do offer you the chance to be average in every area instead of being good at one, but if a group were to chose they will always pick a character which sticks to a templet over a player who is only average at everything. " -Gameloading

Link me to a cook, alchemist, gear crafter, or treasure hunter in WOW, LOTRO, EQ2 or any other level-based system that has a viable endgame character and never fought a single mob.  

Originally posted by -Zeno-

In a class based system, you always have the rock paper and sissors game.  One class can kill another.  That is not fair on the individual player level and when developers try to adjust the system FOTM's are born.

The fix is a skill based system without caps.  That puts the ball in the players court and not their charactor.  How good you are will determine how well you compete.  You still have progression and a newbie will lose to a vet just like a level based game but if that newbie is good enough they can catch up to the vet quickly.

Wait a minute you are saying the fact that everyone can kill everyone is not fair?A class system or any system is perfectly fine being unbalanced.The term might mean unbalanced but in a game it actually can be very well balanced,for the exact reason you mentioned,each class has it's place and time.You need to remember it is a MMORPG not a fps ,where everyone has the exact same weapons and defense and so on and so forth.

If game developers are too cheap to make a good product ,i would not go blaming the system.There is a ton of stuff that can be done with PVP,even though i don't care much for it because of lag and latency issues can never be made up.If games actually put out the effort in their product ,even i a PVP hater ,would still play it,just because the quality and fun would be there.Although i am probably of the minority that i would not want to be an O/P class and feel like i need no effort to kill another player,however there is a ton who need that no lose situation.

IMO the biggest care bear scenario is actually in PVP games.Why? because you can pick and choose your spots.In PVE you

can aslo pick and choose,but if the mob is too weak to your standards you get no reward.Actually these same standards can be ap[plied to PVP,but all the PVP games i know of are very badly designed,they are IMO not even worthy of being called PVP games.I guess a developer figures because they allow you to kill each other it's automatic PVP worthy lol.

I might add the "skill" based system is the biggest joke going.So you allow the player to pick his stats,same as a class system,you get to pick your class.Once stats are spread out amongst the players the result is the EXACT same,paper rock scissors effect.People that cry for skill systems ALWAYS think they are some mastermind that is going to create the over all best player that loses to nobody,,lol,that is BLIND thinking.Here is some simple math>>>> 1str 1 INT 1 DEX =3 stats. 1 STAM 1 WIS 1 INT=3 stats.It is ALWAYS the same total stats ,just because you divvy them up,it will never give you more stats.So all it does it make areas of the stats different,as you make one stronger the others are weaker,still paper/rock/scissors.I have no idea at all why people can't see that?

Originally posted by LynxJSA

[quote][i]Originally posted by Gameloading[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by LynxJSA[/i]

 

"In a class based system, you always have the rock paper and sissors game.  You have the same thing in skill based games.  Classes are simply a grouping of skills. False. The distinction in that classes restricts each group to a limited skillset. It also restricts each character to one role. Skill-based systems allow characters to fill multiple roles. Also, skill-based systems historically have been characterized by having players with careers other than "guy who kills stuff" which is the ONLY role available in the majority of class-based systems." -LynxJSA

"Most modern mmorpgs have a number of classes that can fit in multiple roles. Take the shaman class in WoW for example. It can do melee combat, heal and offensive magic. Skill based systems do offer you the chance to be average in every area instead of being good at one, but if a group were to chose they will always pick a character which sticks to a templet over a player who is only average at everything. " -Gameloading

 

Link me to a cook, alchemist, gear crafter, or treasure hunter in WOW, LOTRO, EQ2 or any other level-based system that has a viable endgame character and never fought a single mob.  

Link me to a significant number of people that actually care about playing a game where all you're doing is cooking and never fighting anything=)   Ones man version of viable end game is millions of  people's version of not an actual game at all.   Oh and by the way, EVERY character in WOW is a crafter, or a cook or a treasure hunter.   I've found lots of treasures in my time playing, collected odds and ends from pets to interesting hats to mounts to snowballs and pumpkins, crafted plenty of different things from armor to bombs and more....in WOW.   And I could kill mobs anytime I wanted because I wanted to=)

You're a dinosaur. Kidding.

Well, I'm certainly a supporter of skill based games, but in the end skills are just another form of levels.  Naturally, you have more variety in character builds, but you're ultimately gonna end up with the same cookie cutter builds you have in class based games, and you're still going to have imbalances inherent to one skill tree versus the other.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

[quote][i]Originally posted by Gameloading[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by LynxJSA[/i]

 

"In a class based system, you always have the rock paper and sissors game.  You have the same thing in skill based games.  Classes are simply a grouping of skills. False. The distinction in that classes restricts each group to a limited skillset. It also restricts each character to one role. Skill-based systems allow characters to fill multiple roles. Also, skill-based systems historically have been characterized by having players with careers other than "guy who kills stuff" which is the ONLY role available in the majority of class-based systems." -LynxJSA

"Most modern mmorpgs have a number of classes that can fit in multiple roles. Take the shaman class in WoW for example. It can do melee combat, heal and offensive magic. Skill based systems do offer you the chance to be average in every area instead of being good at one, but if a group were to chose they will always pick a character which sticks to a templet over a player who is only average at everything. " -Gameloading

 

Link me to a cook, alchemist, gear crafter, or treasure hunter in WOW, LOTRO, EQ2 or any other level-based system that has a viable endgame character and never fought a single mob.  

Freerealms... there's always Freerealms, right? ^_^

I kid... 

Anyone have any opinions on if FFXIV is the answer to all of this?

Originally posted by Horusra

Wait so it is shallow because every one want to play the came class?  Where is the call for MMORPG's to be about groups and not the solo character.  If you want to enter a fight even then go play those solo FPS's.  They are based around one person able to win the match if their twitch skill is the best.  MMO's are suppose to be about making the best team to beat the other team or maybe I am wrong and it is actually a Massive multiplayer online single player verse player game we are involved in here. 

You view compeition as 1v1 and your solo record...when in a MMO it should be group vs group and the group record is what is important.  Pvp'ers are funny... take away gank and they whine about all classes being fair...give them gank and they whine about all classes being fair.

You're wrong.   The same issue applies to group combat (Rock/Paper loses to Paper/Paper.)

That's why Class Counters are shallow and create uninteresting PVP: the battle is predetermined.  It's won or lost before it starts.

Strategy (pre-battle decisions) should play a role in winning fights, but it shouldn't be a game-ender.

Originally posted by Kusanoha

The trick is that you can't just give players the ability to play ROCK when everyone else is playing SCISSORS. It becomes a boring and stagnant game.

Instead, it is a more dynamic and fun game in the MMO genre that can manage to make everyone roll ROCK only, and have each person, each individual see how he/she can defeat the other ROCKs. Or, to put it another way, it is more fun to give players the ability to have scissors beat rock, rock beat paper, and paper beat scissors.

Character classes shouldn't be rock/paper/scissors.

But character abilities should.  I cast a spell (rock), you use an interrupt (paper.)  I use a stun (scissors), you use a break-out-of-stun ability (rock.)  This is the basis of interesting combat in any multiplayer game, group or not.

Rock/Paper/Scissors isn't that interesting to begin with, but imagine how much less interesting it would've been if you were 5 years old and your father asked you, "Rock, Paper, Scissors?"  You answered Rock, and for the rest of your life you were always Rock.  The game is even less interesting, because you'll never have any meaningful choice. 

Originally posted by zaxxon23

Well, I'm certainly a supporter of skill based games, but in the end skills are just another form of levels.  Naturally, you have more variety in character builds, but you're ultimately gonna end up with the same cookie cutter builds you have in class based games, and you're still going to have imbalances inherent to one skill tree versus the other.

No, they are not.

If you level up a step you will get better in every way, including hit points, abilities and fighting.

If you get better in a skill, you just get better in that skill (like longsword, stealth, lock picking, detect traps).

There are many different ways to handle how you do to get better in a certain skill (like placing points you get, by using the skill, by a pregenerated system based on experience (this means that when you have 200xp youll get a dot longsword, on 250 you get a taunt and so on).

The biggest difference usually is that in skill based system you can get better in certain areas while not in other.

There is also a third way which the Palladium/R.I.F.T.S pen and paper used, they are both level and skill based even though they are more towards level based games than skill based.

But not that Skill based games can have classes. Most skill based pen and paper RPGs have both skills and classes and there is no reason to not make MMOs like that too. The reason DF doesn't have any classes is because it is a rather simple system (compared to pen and paper RPGs) with few skills.

Warhammer fantasy roleplaying and Runequest both have classes (in Warhammer youll have a few classes however once you played a while) but are skill based games. In runequest youll get experience for using a skill while in warhammer you buy the skills for experience points. Both those systems have sold millions and work great.

But youll still get the balancing problem with Runequest. Warhammer is different since you will have several classes. At least in the pen and paper game does that usually balance things out by themselves after a while.

---

Originally posted by -Zeno-
In a class based system, you always have the rock paper and sissors game.  One class can kill another. 

---

Umm, this premise is based on..?

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by LynxJSA

[quote][i]Originally posted by Gameloading[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by LynxJSA[/i]

 

"In a class based system, you always have the rock paper and sissors game.  You have the same thing in skill based games.  Classes are simply a grouping of skills. False. The distinction in that classes restricts each group to a limited skillset. It also restricts each character to one role. Skill-based systems allow characters to fill multiple roles. Also, skill-based systems historically have been characterized by having players with careers other than "guy who kills stuff" which is the ONLY role available in the majority of class-based systems." -LynxJSA

"Most modern mmorpgs have a number of classes that can fit in multiple roles. Take the shaman class in WoW for example. It can do melee combat, heal and offensive magic. Skill based systems do offer you the chance to be average in every area instead of being good at one, but if a group were to chose they will always pick a character which sticks to a templet over a player who is only average at everything. " -Gameloading

 

Link me to a cook, alchemist, gear crafter, or treasure hunter in WOW, LOTRO, EQ2 or any other level-based system that has a viable endgame character and never fought a single mob.  

 

Link me to a significant number of people that actually care about playing a game where all you're doing is cooking and never fighting anything=)   Ones man version of viable end game is millions of  people's version of not an actual game at all.   Oh and by the way, EVERY character in WOW is a crafter, or a cook or a treasure hunter.   I've found lots of treasures in my time playing, collected odds and ends from pets to interesting hats to mounts to snowballs and pumpkins, crafted plenty of different things from armor to bombs and more....in WOW.   And I could kill mobs anytime I wanted because I wanted to=)

You're a dinosaur. Kidding.

I agree that a game of just cooking and crafting isn't mass appeal. I want to clarify that I'm not suggesting a game based only on that, rather MMOs that allow you to also pursue a career where you don't just kill things. In the skill-based MMOs I presented, UO and EVE, a person could effectively make a crafter that just crafts things for people. The person's ability to make a better mushroom pie or a higher quality robe isn't restricted because he didn't murder enough creatures to progress. The limitations in class-based games - often due to their level-based nature - are both arbitrary and extreme. Class-based MMOs rarely ever offer any career path other than "guy who kills stuff." You mention crafting in WOW and i want to point out that a crafter is WOW is a killer first and crafter second. You cannot just be a crafter because you reach a point where the game tells you that you cannot progress further at crafting until you go murder the allotted number of people and creatures.

Originally posted by Briansho

Class balanced??? All I know is a priest should never ever be able to kill a warrior, I don't care how much magic you know or what level you are.

Really?  Considering the hallmark of a priest is typically healing, shouldn't a priest be able to win a battle of attrition against a fighter.? In other words, if a priest were able to stretch out combat long enough healing himself, he could whittle the warrior down eventually and kill him.

This was touched upon in earlier posts -- people think of balance in terms of damage done or dps because that's the simple way of looking at it -- that monk does more damage than my blademaster.  The entire point of classes is that the selected skills each one is restricted to have some sort of overall balance....

melee damage VS ranged damage VS single target VS aoe VS heavy armor VS light armor VS no armor VS healing VS buffs VS debuffs VS mezzing/rooting VS pets VS utility skills VS movemement speed....etc.

Unless you're playing multiplayer doom where everyone starts with 100 hps and has access to the same weapons, balance is an illusion.  Even still, when we strive for balance, we have to appreciate that game balance is NOT combat balance and vice versa.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

I have always been a skill based game advocate.   The best MMO's I have played have been based on it.  The problem with class based games is too many of the players are focused on getting to end game and then once there need something to do, while in a skill based game, if done right, there is always another skill to learn.  The players who are end game focused don't like that.

As to balance, I have seen skills be just as under or over powered as classes are.  The point of a MMO is to play with others, so classes and/or skills should compliment one another.   Any MMO that wastes time on balancing solo players is really ignoring what the genre is all about.

You and I share the same opinion about this, then again my first MMO was DAoC. The problem is if and when a class based game is balanced for 1v1, you'll have a very stale class based system. In order to balance classes, each class must have the same skills or a counter to the other class. So basically, it'll come down to who fires the first shot and who was fast enough in the pressing of their skills and combos. That sort of balance is boring. While I couldn't stand it in WAR, the best balance is team-based.  Developers need to enlarge the normal party size to accomodate each class in the party, so no choice needs to be made on who to bring. When two teams have the same classes on each side, it is balanced. If one team wins over the other, it's because they were outplayed that encounter.

I love to reference books when talking about this genre, because books are the roots of this genre. In most novels, you do not use a warrior to counter a wizard, you use a wizard to counter a wizard. Now this isn't really paper>rock>scissors, because a sword can kill a wizard just as easily as a spell, but it'd have to be when the wizard is unaware or preoccupied with someone else.

I would really love a MMO that creates their classes to fill the shoes of their traditional roles, all powerful and everything. A skilled warrior would have no equal on the front lines played by a person, whereas a wizard could annihalate things from afar or use illusion to confuse. A ranger would have no equal at range, and would be a formidable warrior up close, a master tracker, and attuned to nature. However, he'd be out of his element in a town or other urbanized areas. There's power inbalances when classes are created properly, but there's always a counter, but not always with the class you're looking to play. It enforces teamwork, which should be a staple of MMORPG's.