PDA

View Full Version : How to approach game balance- a collection of ideas


Azazel-Defia
03-22-2005, 02:33 AM
<DIV> <DIV>I have been hesitant to add anything to the Great Monk Debate, but now that things have wound down some I wanted to take the time to bring up a few points. For today I will not be arguing the pros or cons of any one side of any of the monk issues (I do have my own feelings but I will leave them for another time). Instead I wanted to focus on a few things that I think everyone should consider before discussing Eq2 class issues.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Point 1</STRONG></DIV> <DIV>There is no Pvp in Eq2. All class balancing done in game is based off of a 6 person group cooperative system.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ffffff>Point 2</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV>The game is <FONT color=#ffff00><STRONG>inherently unbalanced.</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ffffff>Point 3</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV>Many players in Eq2 have preconceived notions or misconceptions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Point 4</STRONG></DIV> <DIV>The preconceived notions of the players have <FONT color=#ffff00><STRONG>a lot</STRONG></FONT> of power.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats the basics of the post, and the things I think players need to think about. If you are too lazy to read on this is the best place to stop, otherwise I am going to expand upon these topics.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Point 1</STRONG></DIV> <DIV>There is no Pvp in Eq2. All class balancing done in game is based off of a 6 person group cooperative system.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>Currently the Eq2 game does not include Pvp, and even though it does have solo content, it is based on the idea of  6 to 24 player cooperative play. With this in mind it is pointless to compare characters of different classes in a character vs character fashion. Instead characters must be compared by the desirability they have for any 6-24 person group.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a game like Eq2 players are constantly looking for ways to increase the efficiency of their playtime. If any one character class is drastically less effecient at a given role than another class they will be passed over for that role time and time again. If they do not have qualities that make them useful in a different role, they will be passed over for groups completely. Players that feel undesired as group members or raid members will eventually either stop playing or play a different class. With this in mind players should attempt to address balance issues in ways that will make it more likely that players of different classes will continue to play, and also to address issues with the idea of maintaining the desirability of all classes.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ffffff>Point 2</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV>The game is <FONT color=#ffff00><STRONG>inherently unbalanced.</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>The archetype system is not unique to Eq2 and offers many desirable features. However, in Eq2 the archetype system itself establishes an imbalance within the game. The problem arises from that fact that the in Eq2 there are <STRONG>4 archetypes</STRONG> while there are <STRONG>6 group spots</STRONG>. This inequality means that some archetypes will be able to find group spots easier than others. This problem occurs most often when an archetype becomes so generalized that they fulfill only one group role. In the worst cases an archetype that is 1/4 of the server population (each archetype should be 1/4 of the population assuming random individual preference with no knowledge of game mechanics) will be competeing for 1/6 of the group spots possible. The situation can become worse in raid situations with 24 slots if the archetype is needed for les than one spot per group.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The fighter is a good example of this. Currently there is only one spot in a group that requires someone to be able to take or avoid large amounts of damage. Refering to Point 1 this means that Fighters will be less capable of competeing for any of the free group spots <U>unless</U> they have the ability to fulfill some other role. Again refering to Point 1, they must fulfill the secondary role well enough that they are not repeatedly passed over.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In raid situations the fighters lot worsens. Raids require 1-2 fighters, most can be effective with a main and a secondary. This means that 1/4 of the player population will be competeing for 2/24 raid positions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Summary: Imbalance is added to the game when archetypes are generalized to the point where they fulfill only one role. This causes 1/4 of the players to compete for 1/6 of the group spaces. Refering to Point 1 this will cause some classes to be passed over and eventually not played. Therefore, when considering what changes to advocate it is necessary to consider how they affect the desirability of the class to fill as many group and raid slots as possible. Meaning that a change that would make an archetype desirable for less than 1/4 of the group slots would be a negative change.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=left><STRONG><FONT color=#ffffff>Point 3</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV align=left>Many players in Eq2 have preconceived notions or misconceptions.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>People in general have a habit of creating stereotypes and generalizations. In fact it is necessary for people to do this or they would be unable to deal with the massive amounts of information that they encounter each day. The problem comes when people refuse to look beyond these generalizations, that is when they become limiting preconceived notions and misconceptions. Eq2 players have a lot of these. The misconceptions come from old Eq games they may have played, other RPGs they have played, the forums they read, or just about anywhere. The misconception cause a lot of problems when they limit the way people interact with other characters, change their playstyle, or limit the way they few other charatcter types abilities.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again the Fighter archetype is a good example of this. Somewhere along the line many Eq2 players got stuck in the misconception/generalization that Fighter=Tank=Ugg take beating good. In case you missed it this is an <STRONG>incorrect misconception</STRONG> of the fighter archetype. It is obvious from the game design that fighters were and are intended to be extremely effective at doing physical damage. 80% of Fighter abilities are either damage abilities or abilities that increase damage capabilities such as haste and offensive buffs. The original planned fighter specialization allowed the fighter to make additional attacks upon a successful hit. Fighters can use the widest variety of weapons in the game, including two handed weapons, the most damaging weapons available. Unfortunately, due to misconceptions and preconceptions, many players attempt to limit the abilities of Fighters to that of "getting beat on better". This limits the usefulness of fighters to groups and to raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Summary: Eq2 players have misconceptions that are very hard to get rid of. These misconceptions often lead to the generalization and limiting of an archetype. Refering to Point 2 this adds to the inherent imbalance in the game. Refering to Point 1 this leads to certain archetypes to be played less or to quit. It is important to always advocate changes that expand the variety of roles the classes can play and to resist changes that strengthen misconceptions and generalizations.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Point 4</STRONG></DIV> <DIV>The preconceived notions of the players have <FONT color=#ffff00><STRONG>a lot</STRONG></FONT> of power.</DIV></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>When enough players give in to a generalization or a misconception it can actually <U><STRONG>change the game</STRONG></U>. Unfortunately the changes brought are often more limiting and detrimental to the game as a whole and they negatively effect the game experience of <STRONG>everyone</STRONG>. If archetypes become too overgeneralized and players either quit or everyone plays the same 3 character classes the effects on gameplay are obvious. Making an archetype good at only one role means you will always be doing the same thing. The scary thing is that group mindsets can be so difficult to break that game designers will give in to popular opinion even when they know that it is a bad change for the game. Eq2 has already changed since beta, mainly due to the imbedded ideas that the players brought with them. In many ways the changes have not been for the best, if you look at the original vision for each archetype and character class you can see that the game was a lot better as it was first intended, with a lot more variety to group strategy and class roles.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Summary: The popular opinion of players can change the game, even against the better judgement and vision of the designers. Reference Point 3, the changes are often the result of player misconceptions or generalizations. Reference Point 2, the generalizations add to the inherent imbalance of the game. Reference Point 1, the imbalance of the game causes players to quit playing or play the same 3 classes causing the game experience to decline for everyone. Any changes suggested should add more variety to the usefulness of the archetype, allow the archetype to fulfill roles that require at least 1/4 of the groups or raids, and they should increase the play experience for all members of the group or raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is more but that is enough for today.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Azazel</DIV> <DIV>Nek</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>

Mystiq
03-22-2005, 07:57 AM
<P>Very good post Azazel. I can accept the ideas presented in it because I have always strived for balance in my life in all aspects. </P> <P>It is harder to attempt to balance one's character versus a group/raid setting than it is to compare and contrast one's usefulness against another class within one's archetype. This is no news of course, and this is why we try do compare ourselves with each other. Since we are all not aware of each and every class's wide array of abilities and their usefulness, I believe it is an impossibility that we will ever get out of the habit of class vs. class comparison.</P> <P>What we do see is numbers. Numbers speak volumes, whether you choose to give their importances merit or not. Damage, heals and stats are what every class can be reduced to and measured by. I know that it is probably short sighted to make this kind of evaluation, but I don't believe it will ever change much. You want a healer for your group with the best heals, for the highest amount. You want a "tank" that can take the most damage and has the most taunting abilities to keep that damage coming to him/her. You want buffs from the many support classes that provide the highest stat gains over the most total stats. And you want the damage coming from the classes designed with DPS as the forefront of their utility to be the highest and even the fastest depending on the encounters you will face. All of these things almost surely guarantee success in your endeavor, at the cost of alienating many classes not perceived as the "best" in their respective category. Are we at fault applying our numbers reasoning to ensure success, or is it the game developers' fault for not being able to provide every class with a clearly apparent utility within a group/raid setting?</P> <P>Just some thoughts I had after reading your post. Class balance is a very tricky endeavor. I can't say I'd do any better or worse than what has been done in the past for the games I've played. Different perhaps.</P> <P>Regards,</P> <P> </P>

Owa
03-22-2005, 08:31 AM
<DIV>Wonderful and well-articulated posts. Not as shouting as we're used to, perhaps, but not a bad start....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>May I just add that I often play with the people I like best, whether or not they  - or their class - are the 'best'. Clearly many people want to optimise their performance and make the optimal group for each scenario. However, others (myself included) tend to approach the game from an immersive role-playing standpoint and sometimes having a clumsy rogue or a stupid fighter in the group adds to the atmosphere. We all play the game in different ways and with different goals in mind; and as long as EQ2 permits us to do so - with all its acknowledged faults - then I'm happy. Ish.</DIV>

SageMarrow
03-23-2005, 08:09 AM
<P>incredible post and you said everything in one whop without starting world war xviiiiiiii, </P> <P>I too feel that the combination of all those factors effects the game in its entirety, and do not personally agree with the "square" of 24 different classes that things have the potential to evolve into. I often come across as a radical fanatic that wants brawlers put into the scout tree, but in actuality - i generally provide my personal view of what i am given at a particular moment. Since moorguard has thrown in his two cents on the issue at hand, clarity of thier approach is soon to come. The after effects there of will be VERY noticeable on several levels, particularly the ones that you mentioned above OP.</P> <P>lets just hope they get this right and take your advice. :smileyhappy:</P>