Trending Games | Neverwinter | Guild Wars 2 | Star Trek Online | WildStar
Network: Gamertube FPSguru RTSguru
| 55 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Deathofsage
Apprentice Member
Joined: 2/11/11
Honestly: |
6/02/11 11:05:05 PM#21
For a while, at least, WoW tried to claim the anti-class system. Every class had an anti-class but in one very famous example, Blizzard made a small nerf to warriors that turned Warrior >= Mage to Mage >>> Warrior. Frost mages are, arguabilly for the lack of skill needed to do it dcently, the best kiters in that game. Mage is Blizzard's PVP baby though. (I can't help that that sounds like QQ, but it isn't. the only PVP I did was on a priest so mages weren't my concern, it was those damn plate dps). I do realize that PVE is easier than PVP (scripted encounters), but I'd truly appreciate a game another PVE-focused game. Glaring OP-ness should always be fixed but I think a game that let PVE abilities be PVE abilitied would be very welcome. Sooo welcome. Maybe we might see some great new encounters and abilities if it didn't matter how well another class could counter the abilities used to counter a boss. WoW loves to nerf tanks for pvp balance when tanks, largely, don't PVP. Now my abilitie to take hits for 75% of my health is nerfed because I would never take my tank into an arena? Yeah.. no thanks. Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. |
|
6/03/11 2:01:45 AM#22
The idea of class balance owes its prickliness (yay imaginary vocabulary/spelling) to the baby-daddy of all RPGs, table-top war gaming. When Gygax and Co. started out, their onus was on the effect that any class would have on a game that lives and breathes utter balance ad nauseum. For me, RPGs do not have to reflect balance as a mirror-effect... i.e. every class does not and should not need to be utterly equal to the others. Can anyone argue that Gandalf's class was balanced? That Emperor Palpatine's was balanced? Was Drizzt *apologies*, Fafhrd, Beowulf, Cu Chulainn, Hercules, The Dad from Good Times, Mike Tyson, Meatloaf or the Cylons balanced? The answer to all of the above (particularly the Dad from Good Times), is no. Don't balance abilities, balance play-time, effort and input. I have no problems with a mage-type destroying a warrior-type, or vice versa. Make it fit your game mechanics/lore/feel, and stick with it. General happiness ensues (although we are talking MMOs, so low-intensity forum grumbling, which is the closest thing to happiness, ensues). If you don't want everyone playing the over-powered class (be it PvP overpowering or PvE, it doesn't matter), the dev's need to get off their lazy dev-butts and think about it for a change. T-h-o-u-g-h-t has most of the same letters in it as doughnut, so it shouldn't be a stretch for most of them. One of the main reasons for class balance/imbalance hate is the lack of forethought, playtesting and early-stage tweaking. WoW had the annoying habit of nerfing the OP class of the week, making it the crappy class for that next month. Then, they'd reverse it, forgetting to reset all of the other classes that got buffed in response to the original class's supposed OP-ness. Wash, rinse, repeat. Most games do, as I feel no particular desire to pick on or single out WoW in this. On a final note, a very large number (I am going to be a percentard and say 65.381%) of class balance issues that make it to forums boil down to the personal preference, minority-complaints and 'grass-is-greener' mentality of their players.
|
|
|
6/03/11 4:36:35 AM#23
If you take TF2 as an example then some classes have "more issues" with other classes and find again others a little easier. So a 1v1 is a case by case with mild bias depending on what context the face off occurs? Taking the OP eg Mage vs Warrior If the warrior is close to the mage the mage should switch to defense or blocking the warrior and running to a more advantageous situation eg team-mates. Conversely if the mage is up on a high ledge and raining fire down on the warrior they should get their shield/defense up and run for cover or close the distance. Basically they should have options that correspond to finding a solution to the problem they face and that's a different problem depending on different conditions/situations. If you play a weaker armor ranger you know you have to get some cheap hits on the warrior first to take them down otherwise use the "run-away" skill ! |
|
|
6/03/11 1:27:20 PM#24
Originally posted by Bazharkhan You're wrong in two ways. 1. You cite non-interactive media. When viewers don't interact, balance doesn't matter. When interaction exists, it should matter -- without balance, it won't matter. 2. Virtually all the characters you cited were defeated, and therefore balanced against the skill/capabilities of the "good guys". |
|
|
6/03/11 1:55:13 PM#25
Originally posted by MumboJumbo That's definitely the ideal way for class balance to be implemented, where each class has options for adapting to the others. Which is important because the distinction between TF2 and MMORPG classes is that TF2 classes can be changed every death (turning class choice into a mid-match skillful decision to be made) whereas MMORPG classes are set in stone at character creation. |
|
|
6/03/11 2:09:50 PM#26
Originally posted by JB47394 Developers should out right refuse to do this look what it did to wow the game hasnt been good since patch 1.12. It's this kinda of mentality by the above poster that has ruined pvp games just because u pick a class and pay for a game doesnt mean the developer has to make your class beat everything because u decide u dont want to group up which defeats the purpose of u playing a mmorpg. No not every class should be able to kill every class that is so stupid and the reason i quit wow after bc came out. Dark age of camelot had balance perferct until the solo/casual players starting comin and don't know what teamwork is. A mage should be able to kill a heavy armored person without them being able to catch them that is the the point because your heavy armor is for taking the arrows and the melee and your rogues are for killing the mages and your rangers are for killing rogues and healers. Pvp should be paper rock scissors and never paper can kill rock and all the others because your to lazy to make a friend or be social which is the whole point of an mmo. Most of the people that complain about imbalance are the peole that solo and the mmorpg means massive not smorpg. |
|
|
6/03/11 6:33:12 PM#27
Balance can only take you so far. When it stops making sense within the context of your created world you've made a fatal error. I fail to see why tried and tested mechanics in a PvE environment should automatically be thrown out the window whenever you step into a PvP battleground. In a class-based system it is inevitable that certain classes will perform better against others, why try and stop it? All you achieve in accomplishing is annoying the community as a whole, setting yourself upon the greasy pole of continuous balance patches, and simultaneously removing any chance of people working together in team-based games. What you should really be focusing on is rewarding people for performing their role in a PvP encounter. I don't think I have yet seen a game that properly accounts for the actions of dedicated healers in PvP. Instead they charge around blindly, trying in vain to find an easy target they can outlive in an often mindnumbing battle of attrition. Tanks rarely find themselves in a position to make the most of their abilities as taunts and the like have zero effect on players. Only DPS remain able to shine as doing damage is apparently the only thing that matters. Return to your tried, tested, and hopefully well balanced PvE mechanics and apply them to PvP. Operating as a group becomes tantamount to success and rids you of the annoying sods soloing in a corner somewhere or ganking weaker players relentlessly. Reward tanks for taking damage and healers for healing it. Your only issue with balance should be ensuring that people are rewarded properly for their contribution to the battle as a whole not how well they can solo. If you really wanted to balance PvP in the way most companies try you'd simply create a single default class that everyone is forced to play whenever they step into the ring.
|
|
|
6/04/11 2:14:20 PM#28
Originally posted by Axehilt Virtually all of the characters I cited were called 'metaphors'. And of all of the characters I cited (with the exception of the Dad from Good Times, damn damn damn) were defeated by their OWN CLASS. Oh; and I completely agree with Treelo when he said that in a class-based system it is inevitable that certain classes will perform better against others, so why try and stop it? Encourage it and you might actually find more willingness to partake in ORGANIZED PvP. |
|
|
6/04/11 4:01:19 PM#29
Originally posted by Bazharkhan You understand the purpose of these characters as metaphors, but don't understand how that's an entirely separate concept from balance in interactive games. Odd. If government said "There's going to be crime, so why try and stop it" would be we better off, or worse? ...the same is true of game balance. Without it, player decisions become totally irrelevant, variety ceases to exist, and games become boring/terrible. |
|
|
Kyleran
 Bitter Vet™
Joined: 9/13/06
Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV |
6/04/11 4:08:02 PM#30
Originally posted by dreamer05 I think many of us share your sentiment. They really did nail the 'balance' of the game, by never really being balanced individually, but only through your group and it's dynamics. "What gamers want ... is new game play patterns different from what they've experienced before" - Axehilt |
|
6/04/11 4:12:38 PM#31
In a word... no... Rock, paper, scissors is a perfectly acceptable game mechanic in PvP. It levels the playing field to some degree, and that makes PvP more fun... even "dominant" players need to constantly be looking over their shoulder with a hint of worry... :) |
|
|
6/04/11 4:44:50 PM#32
Originally posted by Axehilt That's going a long way there, cowboy. My point is that there's not much use behind class differences at all in PVP if every class has all of the exact same strengths and weaknesses as every other class. Give me paper rock, scissors over that anyday, please. I don't care if warriors beat mages in one-on-ones most of the time or if its the other way around. Learn to accept that things don't have to be 'fair' by your definition in order to be interesting or challenging. Mirror-image equality destroys fun. Let classes overlap a little, sure - but don't make them clones. That's all I am attempting to explain here. One last thing axe, my point is not wrong. No one's points on these forums are wrong. They are 'opinions'. http://dictionary.reference.com |
|
|
6/04/11 7:24:35 PM#33
Originally posted by Bazharkhan Balance doesn't mean that every class has the same strengths and weaknesses. Why would you assume that? Playstyles were completely different in Starcraft, and yet you had balance. The same is true of any well-made game. Just take a second to catch up on current definitions before you continue posting in a thread about game balance. The article should seem pretty obvious to anyone who's put any amount of thought into how balance relates to games. At the very least, use your own advice and look up http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/balance Balance does not make two things identical. Stand on a scale balanced against some stone weights. Are you a stone weight? Of course not. But you're balanced. This is exactly how game balance works: it's a measure of one specific variable (power), not an indication that two classes are identical. |
|
|
6/04/11 7:49:58 PM#34
Originally posted by dreamer05 Agree 100%. |
|
Originally posted by Kyleran The issue of balance only came up once 8v8 became the norm and raids took a back seat. RPs trumped defending your realm. Now i will say that AOE stun + PBAOE was vastly overpowered. (stunning 20 people who for 8 seconds, cant do anything, not even remove it), but the CC was a bit out of control in that game anyway. |
|
|
6/05/11 4:31:53 AM#36
Depends on what type of PvPv we speak. If it's competetive, e sport type PvP then yes, every class/character choice should be viable, it can be weaker or stronger against certain types, but overall, a skilled person should be able to do their magick, here it should be strategy, reaction time and tactic that play a role, not class.
Now for casual pvp that should be core of most MMORPGs i think it would be better if it was more of "Everything can beat at least something, preferably equal number of things", since you want to mainly balance around group combat and that way no class/character would be obsolate and none would be I-WIN. |
|
|
Yamota
 Elite Member
Joined: 10/05/03
There's a beast within every man that stirs when you put a sword in his hand |
6/05/11 4:37:28 AM#37
Player skills should be the deciding factor in PvP, not gear, class, level etc.  |
|
6/05/11 4:50:07 AM#38
First, I'm no fan of PvP in MMORPG. I think it's basically like other PvP games, except that it requires you to level up a char and grind gear for days or weeks, and then the one who spent most time grinding or most money at the cash shop wins.
That beeing said: I think that you have to differ between MMORPGs that are unbalanced in so far that one or two classes or combos dominate the entire PvP game. Like, that a player completly new to the game can play one class and easily take apart far more skilled players of another class. Regularily, maybe several of them at once. If that's the case: yep, the it's unbalanced. But most often this ain't the case. People just assume it is. They get killed by someone, and assume they made no mistake while their opponent did, and that they should win and the game is all unbalanced etcetcetc. Most of the time, it's just the normal tiny unbalancing. I mean, PvP games can't ever be 100% balanced. Starting with the fact that the person with a sucky computer has less of a chance than the one with a good computer. Now add internet connection, age, reactions, the amount of distraction while playing (ie by a nearby barking dog) and whatever. And the game itself can't be balanced either. There are too many variables and combos having an effect on each other, that it's impossible to keep everything in check. Add to that that healthy MMORPGs receive patches regularily which keep shifting the balance back and forth, and you got to admit that balance doesn't exist. Sometimes a patch makes your class stronger, sometimes a patch makes your class weaker. To become truly good: learn to perform well no matter what. The right attitude to play MMORPG PvP is, in my opinion: I play my class, I do my best, I constantly learn about my own class and others. And if I play it well, then no matter the balancing, I will perform well too. Most players seem to have the attitude: I'm the most awesome player, and if anyone kills me for any reason, then that person is a cheater and the game is unbalanced. Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 265 episodes) Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes) |
|
|
6/05/11 4:57:03 AM#39
It depends. I don't expect all games to allow each roll to be able to beat every other role. Having a decent sized disadvantage can really make an emphasis and appretiation for more support oriented gameplay. In mmorpg's, if you are playing in an open world and are forced into 1v1, it's not that fun to know that no matter what you do, you WILL not beat the other player. Even if you are at a disadvantage, it would be great for a player who really knows the class to be able to perhaps use world conditions in order to gain an advantage. This is why I love realistic terrain benefits, such as some players doing better in narrow spaces like ship passages, or steep slopes. Others others will enjoy the freedoms of being able to take use of quick exits such as in mazes of sorts. Another play may benefit from being in a very open environment. |
|
|
6/06/11 2:03:55 PM#40
To me, the problem is everyone has a "role". When PvP enters the picture, those roles become blatantly obvious. A support role character should never stand toe to toe with a dps role. What should be happening is that the healer cannot die due to their healing ability and the tank should take damage forever. Eventually, the dps falls over from exhaustion. PvP takes away these roles and tries to make all equal. That's when the crying starts. I am a PvE'er and have to say that PvP has killed more mmo's for me than any other factor. PvP is the reason "nerfs" exist as games try to "balance out" the classes/roles. It has always been my opinion that PvE and PvP should NEVER mix, as they are 2 very different games. They each spoil the other and cannot co-exist in the same game with any happiness amongst either environment. City of Heroes is my favorite example of PvP ruining a game. It started out with no PvP. It worked. Well. As soon as PvP was introduced, balancing issues between roles became evident (duh!) and the nerffbat was unleashed. I left. Check out how often the flavor of the month class changes as nerfs hit the game with each patch. Why do you think this happens? To be clear, I do not dislike PvP. It is another way of playing online games. It is just that the two (PvE/PvP) have tried to co-exist for over a decade and there is still no solution. Can anyone name one game that has both great PvE AND PvP? I would like to try it since there is no mutually exclusive games out there. I'm not talking "passable" games. I am talking good games. I have heard game X is great for PvP or game K is awesome for PvE, but I have not heard of a game that incorporates both in an enjoyable combination. - Al Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. |
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 25, 2013 9:26 AM
- Page Created in 0.531 seconds -
